Posted on

How to solve the problem of EU accession to the ECHR, described in decision ECJ 2/13:

Methodology: 2.

Theoretical Framework (and) Clearly states the relationship of the problem to a theoretical framework.

(ii) Demonstrates the relationship of the problem to the previous research studies.

(iii) Presents alternate hypotheses considered feasible within the framework of the theory. page

DAA

When lawyers analyze a legal problem from a traditional perspective, they usually try to solve the problem by careful analysis and (re) construction of concepts in relation to a specific context. Methodology of Legal Research: Challenges and Opportunities Philip Langbroek, Kees van den Bos, Marc Simon Thomas, Michael Milo, Wibo van Rossum *

1. The answer must be found at a higher axiological level at the level of human rights principles and not at the exclusive pacta sunt servanda.

Perhaps the thesis that the principle of human rights, the principle of maximum protection of human rights is valid in human rights, or that autonomy in the EU has another meaning and does not affect other spheres of autonomy in the EU.

This thesis can be supported by humanitarian intervention, which, although not under all the conditions of the UN Charter, has as its priority the protection of human rights and is therefore justified and legal, such as the 1999 NATO intervention in Kosovo.

If a solution cannot be found at this level of rationalization can it be found at a higher level according to the principle of human rights?

all positions of both courts and ru and AG are bona fide and cannot be attacked on that basis, they can be axiologically resolved at a higher level

The right of integration is a solution, although the followers of the pacta sunt servanda do not see who because they see human rights as civil law but human rights have a different open character, it is a solution with a hermeneutic interpretation.

It is a matter of human rights and not of economic contracts, so there must be a way out of humanism by trusting mutual trust between ecj and echtr.

Methods analogy concept analisyis, hermenautical normativ descriptiv, doctrinal paradigm integration of law real time.

The principle of openness to the protection of human rights

2. ECJ veto

Be fully informed and have control (up to veto) has control over all its proposals and amendments that it deems necessary for deciding on the ECJ in the preliminary proceedegns and until all ECJ requirements are not met ECHTR cannot proceed further in deciding on the merits and ECHR is bound by all ECJ decisions concerning EU law validity and interpretation , mutital trust, efficacy supermacy and unity division of responsibility, and with the participation of EU member states it has the right to veto 16 and 344 and mutal observation observation meets the conditions that the jurisdiction of the EU law cannot be placed exclusively in the jurisdiction of the EU body, because in prior and corespodent mechanism eu and ecj and nac court decide before ecthr

3. Composite answer:

The starting point is that the whole EU should join, not just the ECJ The EU is a party and participates in the prior involvement as the whole EU and not only as the EC, so the EU has all the responsibilities for the CFSP, and the ECJ only some, so on behalf of the EU the European Commission decides one part of the prior involvement procedure and the ECJ the other and the ECHR. composite response.



4. Direct judicial cooperation The paradigm solution is in direct institutionalized cooperation of courts not on the basis of pacta sunt servadna but the best protection of human rights hermeneutic interpretation of law, integration of law for prior involvement and pluralism for autonomy in EU law

Type of service: Dissertation services
Type of assignment: Dissertation
Subject: Law
Pages/words: 10 /2750
Number of sources: 0
Academic level: Doctoral
Paper format: MLA
Line spacing: Double
Language style: UK English