Abstract
In 2014, Dean Spielmann, the President at the time of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), argued that ‘[t]he future imagined at Brighton is one where the centre of gravity of the Convention system should be lower than it is today, closer temporally and spatially to all Europeans, and
... read more
to all those under the protection of the Convention’.1 This book brings together researchers from the fields of international human rights law, European Union (EU) law and constitutional law to reflect on the tug-of-war over the positioning of the centre of gravity of human rights protection in Europe, addressing not only the position of the Convention system vis-à-vis the Contracting States, but also its positioning vis-à-vis fundamental rights protection in the EU. The aim is, first, to analyse how current developments reflect conflicting trends with regard to the positioning of this centre of gravity, and to assess the implications thereof for the future of European human rights protection. Having thus set the scene, the second and connected aim is to take a critical look at the tools that have been developed at the European level for navigating these complex relationships, with the aim of identifying whether they are capable of responding effectively to the complexities of emerging realities in the triangular relationship between the ECHR, EU law and national law. The metaphor of shifting gravity reflects not just constant changes in the European human rights architecture, but also – and this is important both from a political and legal perspective – a battle over which actor has the final say in human rights matters. Is it one of the two regional Courts, the one in Strasbourg or the one in Luxembourg, or is it national highest courts or legislatives? Even if state parties to both the EU’s treaties and the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms originally perceived themselves as masters of the treaties, the dynamics of European integration and the key role of the two European courts have greatly changed this traditional perception and even affected reality, in the sense that European and national judges are informally and formally – through their case law – influencing and reflecting upon each other’s jurisprudence. National ministries of foreign affairs or justice are no longer the only conduits of communication.
show less