The European Convention on Human Rights in the EU

1. Introduction

Scholars, government officials and human rights advocates widely acclaim that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). ECHR has provided an optional judicial review mechanism allowing individuals to seek the application of the jurisdiction of ECtHR under Protocol 11 over the member states. Helfer (2008) argues that ECHR and the case law principles of ECtHR have transformed the legal and political landscape of the European Union (EU) . There are other studies such as that of Keller and A. Stone Sweet (2008) or of F.G. Jacobs (2007) , The Sovereignty of Law: The European Way (2007), who present the ECHR as the model for enforcement of human rights in the EU where they state that ECHR and ECtHR have produced jurisprudence that evidences the ability and successfulness to protect and promote human rights. At the same time, there are debates regarding, i) that ECtHR should hear any case from individuals and give them remedy; ii) that, on the contrary, ECtHR should focus on cases that raise substantial, new and/or complex human rights law issues, which may be particular significant for a member state or involves serious human rights violation; or iii) that states are exercising functions differing from the original intended functions of the ECHR drafters.

Reading the opposite sides of the debate, it could be inferred that on one hand there is a general recognition of the standard of enforcement of human rights laws that the ECHR has brought across the EU and at the same time the three points of debate listed above represents the debate regarding the extent of application of the ECHR. This raises the question to determine the support of the EU for the ECHR. In this respect, this essay will explore the aspect of the EU member’s implementation of ECHR in their domestic jurisdiction, the enforcement and application of ECtHR case law principles and the extent of exception to the ECHR provisions and ECtHR case law principles. An alternative perspective to the topic in question would be the support of the EU towards ECHR when compared with other EU conventions or institutions regarding human rights protection. For this specific purpose, this essay will also explore the role of the CJEU in regard to human rights protection.

---

1. Laurence R. Helfer, ‘Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: embeddedness as a deep structural principle of the European human rights regime’ (2008) 19(1) European Journal of International Law 125-159.
2. Ibid
3. Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet, A Europe of rights: the impact of the ECHR on national legal systems (Oxford University Press 2008); Francis G. Jacobs, The sovereignty of law: the European way (Cambridge University Press 2007), 34.
4. MB Dembour, ‘Finishing Off" Cases: The Radical Solution to the Problem of the Expanding ECtHR Caseload’ (2002) European Human Rights Law Review 604-623, at 621.
5. Committee of Experts for the Improvement of Procedures for the Protection of Human Rights, ‘Report of the Evaluation Group to Examine Possible Means of Guaranteeing the Effectiveness of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2001) accessed 3 January 2022 at para. 98.
6. Laurence R. Helfer, ‘Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: embeddedness as a deep structural principle of the European human rights regime’ (2008) 19(1) European Journal of International Law 125-159.

Nakanishi (2017) has argued that CJEU has relied upon the constitutional traditions that are common to EU member states. For example, in Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz, which concerned an alleged infringement of fundamental rights by a measure of the EU, the CJEU held that the issue can only be determined in the EU law context. Any member state criteria would damage the unity and efficacy of EU law. The CJEU relies on constitutional traditions common to the states. Any measures not compatible with the fundamental rights as recognised by the states’ constitutions cannot be accepted in the EU. Further, as Nakanishi (2018) argued, CJEU also relies upon ECHR. The Treaty of Lisbon made ECHR legally binding upon the member states. Accordingly, the CJEU guarantees fundamental rights in the Union. In this context, this essay will critically explore the EU’s support for ECHR by referring to the guarantee of human rights protection through ECHR principles, ECtHR and CJEU.

2. ECHR is supreme

The Treaty of the EU (TEC), Article 6 provides that the EU shall accede to ECHR. Article 3 states that the fundamental rights, as guaranteed by ECHR and the constitutional traditions of member states constitute the general principles of EU law. This was also recognised in the case of Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz mentioned above. It was the ECJ (now CJEU) that introduced ECHR to the EU jurisprudence. For instance, in the case of Nold v Commission, ECJ held that “The international treaties on the protection of human rights in which the member- States have co-operated or to which they have adhered can also supply indications which may be taken into account within the framework of Community law.” Further in the case of Roland Rutili v Ministre de l'intérieur, ECJ specifically cited the ECHR provisions regarding limitations to fundamental rights in the form of public order and security in Article 45 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Similar decisions that prioritise ECHR were found in Stauder, Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz, and Internationale Handelsgesellschaft. In Stauder, CEJU ruled that fundamental rights are enshrined in the general principles of EU law as enforced by CEJU. Reiterating the principles laid down in Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz, it was also ruled in Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, the fundamental rights form the integral part of the EU laws drawing inspiration from the member states constitutional traditions, and are guaranteed by the ECHR. , as was validated in the case of Nold and Rutili. Then, it was the 2009 Treaty of Lisbon that provided for the EU accession to the ECHR.

---

1. CJEU, Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz, Case 44/79.
2. Ibid.
3. Yumiko Nakanishi, ‘Mechanisms to Protect Human Rights in the EU’s External Relations’ in Y Nakanishi, Contemporary Issues in Human Rights Law (Springer 2018), 3-21.
4. CJEU Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz Case 44/79,
5. CJEU Nold v Commission Case 4/73.
6. CJEU, Roland Rutili v Ministre de l'intérieur Case 36/75.

Lord Hoffmann in 2009 stated that ‘the fact that the 10 original Member States of the Council of Europe subscribed to a statement of human rights in the same terms did not mean that they had agreed to uniformity of the application of those abstract rights in each of their countries, still less in the 47 states which now belong.’ However, the ECHR seems to have acquired a super-legislative power. For example, Austria and the Netherlands give a constitutional rank to the ECHR. ECHR in Austria is a constitutional law and ECHR rights could be relied upon before the Constitutional Court. Similarly, the Netherlands grants effects of resjudicata to the ECtHR decisions. The Dutch courts enforces ECHR as a 'shadow Constitution' and converging judicial treatment of ECHR and EU law.

In addition to the constitutional status, Martinico (2012) argues that ECHR is also provided a super-legislative and legislative status. For example, France ratified ECHR in 1974. It treats ECHR as a shadow constitution and gives ‘super-legislative’ ranking. Martinico states that the UK provides ECHR a legislative ranking. The Human Rights Act has incorporated ECHR. Its Section 4 entitles the judicial courts to declare any law that is incompatible with ECHR. The legislative ranking provides ECHR a special status that exceeds the standard constitutional discipline of international norms. However, when it comes to its enforcement against the constitutional framework of a member states, it is not consistent across the member states. Martinico states that the consistent interpretation associated with the EU law is extended to ECHR through the constitutional, legislative and judicial path. In Spain, the Constitution is amended before the stipulation of an international treaty in the case of a conflict. In the UK, the Human Rights Act provides for consistent interpretation of national law with the ECHR provisions. In Germany and Italy, if there is no express written provisions, the duty to interpret national law in light of the ECHR is driven e Constitutional Court’s case law. Thus, the interpretation of national law in light of the ECHR is not clear or uniform as to taking into account decisions of the ECtHR. In this context, the next sections will seek to understand if there is any opposition to the question of primacy ECHR in context to the primacy of EU laws.

---

1. Ulrike Müßig, Reason and Fairness: Constituting Justice in Europe, from Medieval Canon Law to ECHR (Brill 2019) 475.
2. CJEU Erich Stauder v City of Ulm – Sozialamt Case 29-69.
3. CJEU Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz Case 44/79
4. Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel ECLI:EU:C:1970:114.
5. CJEU Erich Stauder v City of Ulm – Sozialamt Case 29-69,
6. CJEU Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz Case 44/79.
7. Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel Case 11/70.
8. Lord Hoffmann, ‘The Universality of Human Rights’, (2009) Judicial Studies Board Annual Lecture.
9. P. Cede, ‘Report on Austria and Germany’, in G. Martinico and O. Pollicino (eds.), The National Judicial Treatment of the ECHR and EU Laws: A Comparative Constitutional Perspective (Europa Law Publishing 2010) 55, at 63
10. Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet, ‘Assessing the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems’ in Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet (eds.), A Europe of Rights: A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems (Oxford University Press 2008) 677, 684.
11. Oresta Pollicino, ‘Toward a convergence between the EU and ECHR Legal Systems: A Comparative Perspective’ in Giorgio Repetto (ed.), The Constitutional Relevance of the ECHR in Domestic and European Law: An Italian Perspective (Intersentia Publishing Ltd 2013) 99,114.

3. EU autonomy

While the ECHR has gained domestic legislative characteristics, the accession of the EU to ECHR was made with opposition in the form of CJEU’s Opinion 2/13, dated 18 December 2014. CJEU was held that the accession was not compatible with Article 6(2) TEU or with Protocol (No 8) relating to Article 6(2), which provide that accession shall not affect the competencies of the EU laws and the measures and reservations taken by states in derogation to the ECHR. The grounds are that the accession affects the specific characteristics and autonomy of EU law as there is no coordination between Article 53 of the ECHR, which provides non-construction of ECHR that could limit or derogate from human rights and fundamental freedoms provided by a state’ laws or states’ agreements, and Article 53 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights that provides that the Charter will not adversely affect the human rights and fundamental freedoms recognised by EU law. Similar lack of coordination was also stated regarding Protocol No 16 to ECHR that allows states’ highest courts and tribunals to request for ECtHR’s advisory opinions regarding ECHR rights and preliminary ruling procedure under Article 267 TFEU involving the CJEU. The opinion also ruled that the accession may also affect Article 344 that does not allow states to submit disputes regarding interpretation or application of the TEU and TFEU to any other method of settlement outside TFEU. CJEU also ruled that the accession does not provide for arrangements regarding the ‘operation of the co-respondent mechanism and the procedure for the prior involvement of the Court of Justice that enable the specific characteristics of the EU and EU law to be preserved’. The ruling also provided that the accession did not consider the specific characteristics of the EU law regarding the judicial review common foreign and security policy matters as the accession entrusts the judicial review exclusively to a non-EU body.

1. Giuseppe Martinico, ‘Is the European Convention going to be ‘Supreme’? A comparative-constitutional overview of ECHR and EU law before national courts’ (2012) 23(2) European Journal of International Law 401-424; Hannah Russell, The Use of Force and Article 2 of the ECHR in Light of European Conflicts (Bloomsbury Publishing 2017) 58.
2. The Human Rights Act 1998, Section 4.
3. Giuseppe Martinico, ‘Is the European Convention going to be ‘Supreme’? A comparative-constitutional overview of ECHR and EU law before national courts’ (2012) 23(2) European Journal of International Law 401-424.
4. Giuseppe Martinico and Oreste Pollicino, The Interaction Between Europe's Legal Systems: Judicial Dialogue and the Creation of Supranational Laws (Edward Elgar 2012).
5. Ibid.
6. Giuseppe Martinico, ‘Is the European Convention going to be ‘Supreme’? A comparative-constitutional overview of ECHR and EU law before national courts’ (2012) 23(2) European Journal of International Law 401-424.
7. CJEU, Case Opinion 2/13 (2014). ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454 accessed 5 January .

It is argued that the CJEU is committed to the EU legal system that is comprehensive, open and supreme. This was seen in its case rulings. In Flaminio Costa v Enel ECJ ruled that EU law forms the core part of EU law. In Van Gend & Loos NV, ECJ established the doctrine of direct effect of EU law upon states and ruled that individuals can also invoke EU law to enforce their actions if EU law and state laws came into conflict. In Kadi, CJEU confirmed that EU law is autonomous. Member states’ law and international law cannot alter the core principles of EU laws. Halberstam (2016) argues that there is a pluralism as to the existence of two legal norms, the EU laws and the ECHR. ECtHR could claim authority to determine a state’s responsibility concerning a violation of the ECHR. However, from EU law perspective, it is the EU law that determines the responsibility for a violation as well as the competence to provide a remedy.

1. Ibid.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Justin Lindeboom, ‘Why EU law claims supremacy’ (2018) 38(2) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 328-356.
5. Flaminio Costa v ENEL Case 6/64) [1964] ECR 585.
6. Van Gend & Loos NV v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, Enschede Case 32/84.
7. Ibid.
8. Kadi, Joined cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P.
9. Gráinne de Búrca, ‘The European Court of Justice and the International Legal Order after Kadi’ (2010) 51 Harv. Int. L.J. 1; Daniel Halberstam and Eric Stein, ‘The United Nations, the European Union, and the King of Sweden: Economic Sanctions and Individual Rights in a Plural World Order’ (2009) 46 CMLR 13.

It is argued that the accession gave greater power to the EU to determine responsibility. It has, however, allowed ECtHR to check the plausibility of the EU’s claim and allocate responsibility. Otherwise, accession would subject EU to suits brought about by member states, which cannot be so as ECtHR lacks the jurisdiction over the EU. The rationale is that through accession, an ECHR claim would become a question of EU law and this would undermined the EU’s preliminary reference procedure. The accession forms ECHR an integral part of EU law that binds all actors and institutions of the EU. However, CJEU is the authoritative interpreter of EU law including ECHR that is also a part of EU-law. Thus, if party approaches ECtHR, it would mean approaching a non-EU court regarding a question of EU law.

3. Rule of law and consistent interpretation

The CJEU has shaped the rule of law in the EU by developing general principles that reduce gaps between states’ law. For example, the principle of certainty of EU law that was ruled in the case of Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v Salumi. It has ensured protection of the judicial review powers of the CJEU in regard measures and decisions of EU institution and member states. It has advanced judicial protection of individual rights derived from the EU law and an effective remedy derived from ECHR. However, it is argued that this approach of CJEU does not adhere to the principle of rule of law, which is a power-limiting norm prohibiting arbitrary use of public power. Smith (2019) argues that there is a wide difference between the CJEU's approach to the rule of law and the power-limiting doctrine of rule of law.

1. Daniel Halberstam, ‘It’s the Autonomy, Stupid!” A Modest Defense of Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR, and the Way Forward’ (2016) 16(1) German Law Journal 105-146.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Haegeman v. Belgian State, Case 181/73, para. 5.
5. Daniel Halberstam, ‘It’s the Autonomy, Stupid!” A Modest Defense of Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR, and the Way Forward’ (2016) 16(1) German Law Journal 105-146.
6. Joined cases 212 to 217/80 Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v Salumi ECLI:EU:C:1981:270, 10.
7. Melanie Smith, ‘Staring into the abyss: a crisis of the rule of law in the EU’ (2019) 25(6) European Law Journal 561-576.
8. Ibid

Smith argues that CJEU advances its own power based on advancing the EU law autonomy and a defence against challenges of states’ Constitutional Court regarding fundamental rights protection. As such, Smith argues that there is a rule of law crisis. Weiler and Lockhart (1995) argued that CJEU has not given seriousness to fundamental rights, but rather prioritised internal market imperatives in the light of fundamental rights violations. Isiksel (2010) and Burca (2009) gave the example of Kadi case to argue that the freezing of Kadi's assets and the lack of adequate redress to Kadi was not based on the rule of law principles. It was rather CJEU asserting EU autonomy.

The assertion of EU autonomy and EU’s rule of law by the CJEU advances the rejection of accession to ECHR through the CJEU, Case Opinion 2/13 (2014). However, Smith (2019) argues that the accession to the ECHR was a valuable opportunity to reinforce the rule of law. It is supported by the Commission (2019) acknowledgment that ECtHR rulings ‘significantly contribut[ed] to the definition, promotion and strengthening of the rule of law and have underlined the close relationship between the rule of law and democratic society’. Further, Craig (2014) argued that accession to ECHR could resolve conflicts arising from overlapping jurisdictions of the EU and Council of Europe. This overlapping jurisdiction issue was found in the case of Matthews v United Kingdom that concerned the issue of a rule of EU Law regarding the elections to the European Parliament in Gibraltar. The relevant rules challenged were contained in a treaty involving between the foreign ministers of the EU member states that were outside the regular law-making process of the EU and the Maastricht Treaty. The issue was held to be outside the review of the CJEU and not subject to an equivalent level of protection as that provided by ECHR by the European Convention. Costello (2006) stated that it would be problematic to have to different interpretation of fundamental rights from rule of law perspective.

1. Ibid.
2. J. Weiler and N. J. S. Lockhart, ‘Taking rights seriously” seriously: the European Court and its fundamental rights jurisprudence–part II’ (1995) 32 CMLR 579–627.
3. N. Türküler Isiksel, ‘Fundamental rights in the EU after Kadi and Al Barakaat’ (2010) 16 ELJ 551–577; G. De Burca, ‘The EU, the European Court of Justice and the international legal order after Kadi’ (2009) 51 Harvard International Law Journal 1–49.
4. Melanie Smith, ‘Staring into the abyss: a crisis of the rule of law in the EU’ (2019) 25(6) European Law Journal 561-576.
5. Commission Communication ‘Further strengthening the Rule of Law within the Union: State of play and possible next steps’ (2019) 163 COM 7.
6. P. Craig, ‘EU Accession to the ECHR: Competence, Procedure and Substance’ (2014) Oxford Legal Studies Research Article
7. ECtHR, Matthews v UK, Case 24833/94, 18/2/99, para. 18.
8. Matthews v United Kingdom (1999) 28 EHRR 361 (ECHR); C. Costello ‘The Bosphorus Ruling of the European Court of Human Rights: Fundamental Rights and Blurred Boundaries in Europe’ (2006) 6 Human Rights Law Review 87–130, 115

ECtHR tries to accommodate the autonomy of the EU. Scott (2014) argues that ECtHR does not often refer to EU law or ECJ decisions. When it refers, it is generally approving it or being deferential to it. For instance, in Marckx v Belgium, ECtHR relied on CJEU’s Defrenne decision where it used the notion of ‘prospective ruling’. In Pellegrin v France, ECtHR relied on CJEU definition of ‘public service’ in Commission v Belgium. In regard to breaches of human rights by the EU, ECtHR seems to treat it as a special category. In Bosphorus Airways v Ireland, Bosphorus owned an airline, which was seized by Irish authority in Ireland. ECtHR found that Ireland breached the EU law, but was held to be justified as a ‘purely EU act’. It ruled that where the EU’s protection and mechanism regarding human rights is not deficiency, it cannot hold that Ireland failed in protecting ECHR rights.

The ruling above shows that ECtHR failed in upholding the rule of law. It did not take a substantive assessment of the EU human rights protection measure, but rather an abstract view. Ahmed (2009) argues that the ECtHR missed the opportunity of upholding the procedural and substantive rights, which cannot be justified by reasons advancing international cooperation with the EU and ECJ. Scott (2006) argues that ECJ has given concrete human rights reasoning in cases such as Carpenter or Omega. It may make human rights a core foundation of EU legal order. Through the preliminary reference from a domestic court, it may offer potential advantages to individuals in regard to human rights protection. It may employ the Charter of Human rights, which offer wider spectrum of rights than ECHR, to decide human rights cases. Hence, it is also argued that it may displace ECHR as a source of rights.

1. Ibid.
2. Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, ‘Opinion 2/13 on EU accession to the ECHR: a Christmas bombshell from the European Court of Justice’ (2014) Verfassungsblog: On Matters Constitutional
3. ECtHR Marckx v Belgium Case 6833/74,
4. ECtHR Defrenne v SABENA Case 43/75.
5. ECtHR Pellegrin v France Case 28541/95.
6. ECtHR Commission v Belgium Case 149/79.
7. ECtHR Bosphorus Airways v Ireland Case C-84/95.
8. Ibid, at 155.
9. Ibid, at 156.
10. Tawhida Ahmed, ‘The EU, the ECHR and the Effective Protection of Human Rights for Individuals’ in Duncan French, Matthew Saul and Nigel D White (eds.), International Law and Dispute Settlement New Problems and Techniques (Bloomsbury Publishing 2010) 346.
11. Carpenter Case 60/00 [2002] ECR I 6279.
12. Omega Speilhallen, Case 36/02 [2004] ECR I-9609.
13. Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, ‘A tale of two courts: Luxembourg and the growing Euorpean Human Rights Acquis’ (2006) 43 Common Market Law Review 629-665.

5. Conclusion

The essay has shown that there is a distinction between EU laws and ECHR. ECHR is not like the EU laws, which are applicable to all the EU member states. Further, Lord Hoffmann stated that the Luxembourg Court of Justice is tasked with unifying the laws of Europe. This cannot be said for Strasbourg court, which is not task with unifying the laws of Europe on areas that may concern human rights.

This essay has found that ECHR has acquired a status of 'shadow Constitution' and a super-legislative power in some jurisdictions, such as Austria, the Netherlands and the UK. This evidences the relevance of ECHR and the important role it plays in domestic legislation and the objective of integration of EU states and states’ law. However, the CJEU’s Opinion 2/13 evidences the EU priority on supremacy of EU laws and the uniformity of its application on member states. The law principles of the CJEU shows the enforcement of the autonomy of EU and EU laws even over ECHR and ECtHR. Thus, while ECtHR may determine states’ responsibility concerning ECHR violation. However, EU law holds primacy in determining the responsibility for the violation and the competency regarding remedies.

This essay has found that EU supports ECHR but ECHR and ECtHR are also subject to the primacy of EU and EU law order. CJEU through its case law principles have enforced the rule of law principles, whether adhering or not to the power-limiting principles. CJEU seems to offer potential advantages of human rights protection notwithstanding arguments of its lack of seriousness to fundamental rights. At the same time, accession to ECHR evidences the support for ECHR. The overlapping jurisdictions and the arguments relevant to that also evidence the growing importance of ECHR. However, cases such Bosphorus Airways v Ireland, shows that ECtHR failed in upholding the rule of law. This seems to show the primacy of EU law and CJEU rulings over ECHR and ECtHR rulings.

1. Ibid.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Daniel Halberstam, ‘It’s the Autonomy, Stupid!” A Modest Defense of Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR, and the Way Forward’ (2016) 16(1) German Law Journal 105-146.
5. J. Weiler and N. J. S. Lockhart, ‘Taking rights seriously” seriously: the European Court and its fundamental rights jurisprudence–part II’ (1995) 32 CMLR 579–627.

To conclude, this essay suggests that ECJ seems to have acquired a significant position regarding contribution to human rights jurisprudence. While the importance and impact of ECHR cannot be ruled out in human rights protection, this essay has found favourable arguments regarding ECJ and EU laws that seem to provide a wider substantive philosophy encompassing the role of human rights protection and maintaining the EU legal order.

1. ECtHR Bosphorus Airways v Ireland Case C-84/95.

Legislation

The Human Rights Act 1998

Cases

• Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v Salumi Joined cases 212 to 217/80
• Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel Case 11/70
• Carpenter Case 60/00 [2002] ECR I 6279.
• CJEU, Case Opinion 2/13 (2014). ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454 accessed 5 January .
• CJEU Erich Stauder v City of Ulm – Sozialamt Case 29-69.
• CJEU Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz, Case 44/79.
• CJEU Nold v Commission Case 4/73.
• CJEU,Roland Rutili v Ministre de l'intérieur Case 36/75
• ECtHR Bosphorus Airways v Ireland Case C-84/95
• ECtHR Commission v Belgium Case 149/79.
• ECtHR Defrenne v SABENA Case 43/75.
• ECtHR Flaminio Costa v ENEL Case 6/64 [1964] ECR 585
• ECtHR Kadi, Joined cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P.
• ECtHR Haegeman v. Belgian State, Case 181/73
• ECtHR, Matthews v UK, Case 24833/94, 18/2/99
• ECtHR Marckx v Belgium Case 6833/74,
• ECtHR Pellegrin v France Case 28541/95.
• Omega Speilhallen, Case 36/02 [2004] ECR I-9609

Books

• Ahmed T, ‘The EU, the ECHR and the Effective Protection of Human Rights for Individuals’ in Duncan French, Matthew Saul and Nigel D White (eds.), International Law and Dispute Settlement
• New Problems and Techniques (Bloomsbury Publishing 2010)
• Cede P, ‘Report on Austria and Germany’, in G. Martinico and O. Pollicino (eds.), The National Judicial Treatment of the ECHR and EU Laws: A Comparative Constitutional Perspective (Europa Law Publishing 2010)
• Keller H and Alec Stone Sweet, A Europe of rights: the impact of the ECHR on national legal systems (Oxford University Press 2008
• Keller H and Alec Stone Sweet, ‘Assessing the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems’ in Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet (eds.), A Europe of Rights: A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems (Oxford University Press 2008)
• Jacobs FG, The sovereignty of law: the European way (Cambridge University Press 2007)
• Martinico G and Oreste Pollicino, The Interaction Between Europe's Legal Systems: Judicial Dialogue and the Creation of Supranational Laws (Edward Elgar 2012)
• Nakanishi Y, ‘Mechanisms to Protect Human Rights in the EU’s External Relations’ in Y Nakanishi, Contemporary Issues in Human Rights Law (Springer 2018),
• Pollicino O, ‘Toward a convergence between the EU and ECHR Legal Systems: A Comparative Perspective’ in Giorgio Repetto (ed.), The Constitutional Relevance of the ECHR in Domestic and European Law: An Italian Perspective (Intersentia Publishing Ltd 2013)
• Russell H, The Use of Force and Article 2 of the ECHR in Light of European Conflicts (Bloomsbury Publishing 2017)
• Ulrike Müßig U, Reason and Fairness: Constituting Justice in Europe, from Medieval Canon Law to ECHR (Brill 2019)
• Van Gend & Loos NV v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, Enschede Case 32/84

Journals

• Burca GD, ‘The EU, the European Court of Justice and the international legal order after Kadi’ (2009) 51 Harvard International Law Journal 1–49
• Commission Communication ‘Further strengthening the Rule of Law within the Union: State of play and possible next steps’ (2019) 163 COM 7.
• Costello C, ‘The Bosphorus Ruling of the European Court of Human Rights: Fundamental Rights and Blurred Boundaries in Europe’ (2006) 6 Human Rights Law Review 87–130
• Craig P, ‘EU Accession to the ECHR: Competence, Procedure and Substance’ (2014) Oxford Legal Studies Research Article
• Dembour MB, ‘Finishing Off" Cases: The Radical Solution to the Problem of the Expanding ECtHR Caseload’ (2002) European Human Rights Law Review 604-623
• Douglas-Scott S, ‘Opinion 2/13 on EU accession to the ECHR: a Christmas bombshell from the European Court of Justice’ (2014) Verfassungsblog: On Matters Constitutional
• Douglas-Scott S, ‘A tale of two courts: Luxembourg and the growing Euorpean Human Rights Acquis’ (2006) 43 Common Market Law Review 629-665
• Halberstam D, ‘It’s the Autonomy, Stupid!” A Modest Defense of Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR, and the Way Forward’ (2016) 16(1) German Law Journal 105-146
• Halberstam D and Eric Stein, ‘The United Nations, the European Union, and the King of Sweden: Economic Sanctions and Individual Rights in a Plural World Order’ (2009) 46 CMLR 13
• Helfer LR, ‘Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: embeddedness as a deep structural principle of the European human rights regime’ (2008) 19(1) European Journal of International Law 125-159
• Lindeboom J, ‘Why EU law claims supremacy’ (2018) 38(2) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 328-356.
• Martinico G, ‘Is the European Convention going to be ‘Supreme’? A comparative-constitutional overview of ECHR and EU law before national courts’ (2012) 23(2) European Journal of International Law 401-424;
• Smith M, ‘Staring into the abyss: a crisis of the rule of law in the EU’ (2019) 25(6) European Law Journal 561-576
• Türküler Isiksel NT, ‘Fundamental rights in the EU after Kadi and Al Barakaat’ (2010) 16 ELJ 551–577;
• Weiler J and N. J. S. Lockhart, ‘Taking rights seriously” seriously: the European Court and its fundamental rights jurisprudence–part II’ (1995) 32 CMLR 579–627

Reports

• Committee of Experts for the Improvement of Procedures for the Protection of Human Rights, ‘Report of the Evaluation Group to Examine Possible Means of Guaranteeing the Effectiveness of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2001) accessed 3 January 2022

Others

• Lord Hoffmann, ‘The Universality of Human Rights’, (2009) Judicial Studies Board Annual Lecture.

Looking for further insights on Stress and the Brain: Unpacking the Impact on Health? Click here.