{"id":515,"date":"2016-01-31T09:29:34","date_gmt":"2016-01-31T08:29:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/?post_type=publication&p=515"},"modified":"2025-09-10T11:20:26","modified_gmt":"2025-09-10T09:20:26","slug":"the-consistency-requirement-between-the-echr-and-the-eu-charter-in-the-context-of-limitations-of-fundamental-rights","status":"publish","type":"publication","link":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/publication\/the-consistency-requirement-between-the-echr-and-the-eu-charter-in-the-context-of-limitations-of-fundamental-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"The Consistency Requirement between the ECHR and the EU Charter in the Context of Limitations of Fundamental Rights"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Extrait<\/strong><\/p>\n

En mati\u00e8re de droits fondamentaux \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9chelle europ\u00e9enne, le terme\u00a0dialogue<\/em>\u00a0est couramment employ\u00e9 pour d\u00e9crire le dialogue judiciaire entre la Cour de justice de l\u2019Union europ\u00e9enne (CJUE) et la Cour europ\u00e9enne des droits de l\u2019homme (CourEDH), principalement pour faire r\u00e9f\u00e9rence au m\u00e9canisme par lequel ces cours citent et empruntent mutuellement leur jurisprudence respective. Le point de d\u00e9part pour justifier un tel dialogue r\u00e9side g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement dans l\u2019exigence d\u2019assurer une protection effective des droits fondamentaux en Europe en veillant \u00e0 une coh\u00e9rence entre les jurisprudences de la CourEDH et de la CJUE. La Charte des droits fondamentaux de l\u2019Union europ\u00e9enne (CDFUE) a d\u00e9sormais cristallis\u00e9 cette n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 en invitant les autorit\u00e9s comp\u00e9tentes \u00e0 interpr\u00e9ter la CDFUE de fa\u00e7on\u00a0coh\u00e9rente<\/em>\u00a0avec la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l\u2019homme et de libert\u00e9s fondamentales (CEDH).<\/p>\n

La pr\u00e9sente contribution explore bri\u00e8vement la raison, l\u2019origine, la nature et l\u2019objet de cette exigence de\u00a0coh\u00e9rence<\/em>\u00a0qui devrait \u00eatre atteinte entre la CEDH et la Charte. Une fois celle-ci pr\u00e9cis\u00e9e, la contribution s\u2019int\u00e9resse \u00e0 la question de savoir\u00a0comment<\/em>\u00a0la CourEDH et la CJUE peuvent assurer cette coh\u00e9rence entre leurs jurisprudences respectives. Dans le but d\u2019illustrer son propos, l\u2019auteur examine la jurisprudence rendue par les deux cours dans le domaine sp\u00e9cifique des limitations des droits fondamentaux. Relevant certaines incoh\u00e9rences dans la fa\u00e7on dont les deux cours interpr\u00e8tent les conditions de justification des limitations aux droits fondamentaux, l\u2019auteur formule quelques suggestions susceptibles d\u2019am\u00e9liorer la coh\u00e9rence entre ces deux jurisprudences et, par cons\u00e9quent, la protection des droits fondamentaux en Europe.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n

In matters concerning fundamental rights in Europe, the term\u00a0dialogue<\/em>\u00a0has often been used to describe the judicial dialogue between the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), mostly to refer to the mechanism through which both courts cite and borrow each other\u2019s case law. The starting point to justify such dialogue is usually the requirement to ensure an effective protection of fundamental rights in Europe by promoting consistency between the case law of both the ECtHR and the CJEU. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (ECFR) has now crystallized this necessity by requiring the competent authorities to interpret the ECFR in a way that is\u00a0consistent<\/em>\u00a0with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).<\/p>\n

The present contribution explores briefly the reason, the origin, the nature and the meaning of this required\u00a0consistency<\/em>\u00a0that should be achieved between the ECHR and the ECFR. Once this concept is clarified, the paper addresses the issue of\u00a0how\u00a0<\/em>the CJEU could ensure the consistency between its case law and the ECtHR\u2019s case law. In order to illustrate the author\u2019s view, it examines the case law of both courts in the specific area of limitations of fundamental rights. Concluding that some inconsistencies exist in the way both courts interpret the justification\u2019s conditions of fundamental rights limitations, the paper ends with some suggestions beneficial to improve the consistency between both case law and, therefore, the protection of fundamental rights in Europe.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Acc\u00e8s au texte – Access to full text<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/form>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"template":"","publication_tax":[47],"class_list":["post-515","publication","type-publication","status-publish","hentry","publication_tax-working-paper"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/515","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/publication"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/515\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":517,"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/515\/revisions\/517"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=515"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"publication_tax","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication_tax?post=515"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}