本文選題：歐洲人權(quán)保護(hù)一體化　切入點(diǎn)：歐盟第2/13號意見書　出處：《鄭州大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：歐洲人權(quán)保護(hù)一體化,亦即歐盟加入《歐洲人權(quán)公約》并形成相互式影響并促其二者共同發(fā)展。歐盟作為一個(gè)獨(dú)立整體已經(jīng)成為國際舞臺上的重要一員,并且深以其日臻完善的人權(quán)保護(hù)政策為驕傲。尊重并保護(hù)歐盟各成員國公民的基本權(quán)利和自由是歐盟得以組成的一個(gè)重要條件。而《歐洲人權(quán)公約》的人權(quán)保護(hù)機(jī)制為歐洲公民提供了一套最為基礎(chǔ)的權(quán)利與自由的保護(hù)方案。但截至目前,歐盟并未加入任何一個(gè)人權(quán)組織包括《歐洲人權(quán)公約》,這嚴(yán)重影響了歐盟人權(quán)保護(hù)方面的國際信用度;并且,歐盟公民對于歐盟法律的人權(quán)侵權(quán)行為不能尋求外部救濟(jì)。這也是歐盟亟待加入《歐洲人權(quán)公約》的迫切所在。因此,歐盟加入《歐洲人權(quán)公約》對歐盟公民的人權(quán)保護(hù)來說將會產(chǎn)生頗為重要的積極影響。即使歐洲人權(quán)保護(hù)一體化具有一定的迫切性和必要性,但其發(fā)展進(jìn)程卻伴隨著很多坎坷。《歐洲人權(quán)公約》第十六議定書的核心內(nèi)容是建立意見咨詢機(jī)制,意在建立歐洲人權(quán)法院與各締約國法院間的溝通與聯(lián)系,并在一定程度上減輕歐洲人權(quán)法院的案件壓力。但歐盟法院對歐洲人權(quán)保護(hù)一體化協(xié)議草案是否與歐盟基礎(chǔ)條約相兼容進(jìn)行了審查,并在其2/13意見書中認(rèn)為,《歐洲人權(quán)公約》第十六議定書中的意見咨詢機(jī)制與歐盟法律內(nèi)部的初步裁決機(jī)制相似,且將會對后者的有效性產(chǎn)生危害;另外,歐盟法院認(rèn)為歐洲人權(quán)法院可借意見咨詢機(jī)制之機(jī)對歐盟法律進(jìn)行解釋,將會影響歐盟法律的一致性和完整性。因此其認(rèn)為《歐洲人權(quán)公約》第十六議定書將會對歐盟法律的自治權(quán)產(chǎn)生威脅。對比意見咨詢機(jī)制和初步裁決機(jī)制發(fā)現(xiàn),二者只是在形式上有些許相似之處,但是其在申請主體、設(shè)立目的、法律效力和自由裁量空間等實(shí)質(zhì)內(nèi)容上皆有實(shí)質(zhì)性的不同。歐盟法院夸大了意見咨詢機(jī)制與初步裁決機(jī)制之間的相似性,兩機(jī)制間的競爭或平行關(guān)系從實(shí)際適用上來說是不成立的。歐盟法院在2/13意見書中忽視了《歐洲人權(quán)公約》司法體系中對歐盟及其成員國的邊界劃分,而且歐盟法院也忽視了歐洲人權(quán)一體化協(xié)議草案中已經(jīng)建立的共同被告制度與先期審查程序?qū)W盟法律自治權(quán)的保護(hù)。因此,《歐洲人權(quán)公約》第十六議定書沒有對歐盟法律的自治權(quán)產(chǎn)生威脅,相反將會是對歐盟人權(quán)保護(hù)的一種司法救濟(jì)性措施,對歐盟各成員國公民作為基本的權(quán)利與自由提供保護(hù)。
[Abstract]:The European Integration of the Protection of Human Rights, that is, the EU's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights and its mutual influence and mutual development, the EU as an independent whole has become an important member in the international arena. Respect for and protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens of the member states of the European Union is an important condition for the formation of the European Union. The protection of human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The mechanism provides European citizens with the most fundamental protection of their rights and freedoms. But so far, The European Union has not joined any human rights organization, including the European Convention on Human Rights, which seriously affects the international credibility of the European Union in the field of human rights protection; and, EU citizens cannot seek external remedies for human rights violations under EU law. This is also an urgent need for the EU to join the European Convention on Human Rights. EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights will have an important positive impact on the protection of human rights of EU citizens, even though the integration of European human rights protection is of a certain urgency and necessity. However, its development has been accompanied by many setbacks. The core content of the 16th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights is the establishment of an opinion advisory mechanism aimed at establishing communication and communication between the European Court of Human Rights and the courts of the States parties. And to some extent alleviate the pressure on the European Court of Human Rights. But the European Court of Justice has examined whether the draft European Agreement on the Integration of Human Rights Protection is compatible with the basic treaties of the European Union. In its opinion No. 2/13, the opinion consultation mechanism in the 16th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights is similar to the preliminary adjudication mechanism within EU law and will endanger the effectiveness of the latter. The European Court of Justice considered that the European Court of Human Rights could take the opportunity of the opinion advisory mechanism to interpret EU law, It believes that Protocol 16th to the European Convention on Human Rights will pose a threat to the autonomy of EU law. There are only some similarities in form between the two, but their purpose in the subject of the application, the purpose of the establishment, There are substantial differences in substance between legal effectiveness and discretionary space. The European Court of Justice exaggerates the similarities between the opinion advisory mechanism and the preliminary adjudication mechanism. Competition or parallel relations between the two mechanisms are untenable in practical terms. In its 2/13 opinion, the Court of Justice of the European Union ignored the demarcation of the borders of the EU and its member States in the judicial system of the European Convention on Human Rights. Moreover, the Court of Justice of the European Union has also neglected the protection of the right of autonomy of the European Union by the system of co-defendants already established in the draft European Agreement on Human Rights Integration and the pre-review procedure. Therefore, the 16th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights does not. Threatening the autonomy of EU law, On the contrary, it will be a kind of judicial remedy for the protection of human rights in the EU, which will protect the citizens of EU member states as basic rights and freedoms.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：鄭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D95;DD912.7

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉兆興;;論歐盟法律與其成員國法律之間的關(guān)系[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2006年03期

2 徐宏偉;劉敏;;歐盟基本法的本質(zhì)[J];懷化學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年07期

3 陳亞蕓;;論聯(lián)合國憲章在歐盟法律體系中的地位——由卡迪案引發(fā)的思考[J];國際論壇;2013年01期

4 ;帶有地域性限制的足球賽事直播權(quán)許可協(xié)議可能有違歐盟法律?[J];中國專利與商標(biāo);2011年02期

5 呂曉杰;;WTO規(guī)則在歐盟法律體系中效力的新發(fā)展——統(tǒng)一解釋原則的確定與適用[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2008年01期

6 赫爾塔·多伊布勒—格梅林;楊陽;;《歐洲人權(quán)公約》及其對歐洲的意義[J];中德法學(xué)論壇;2005年00期

7 顧敏康;《歐盟基本權(quán)利憲章》的啟迪[J];人權(quán);2002年04期

8 徐亞文;歐洲人權(quán)公約中的程序正義條款初探[J];法學(xué)評論;2003年05期

9 郝茹;;《歐洲人權(quán)公約》第6條第1款在仲裁中的適用[J];中山大學(xué)研究生學(xué)刊(社會科學(xué)版);2010年01期

10 李尊然;;《歐洲人權(quán)公約》體制下的“管制性征收”述評[J];國際經(jīng)濟(jì)法學(xué)刊;2007年04期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前2條

1 本報(bào)記者 李紅陽 馬瑩;學(xué)習(xí)與借鑒：他山之石 可以攻玉[N];中國貿(mào)易報(bào);2000年

2 曹晶;歐盟如何保護(hù)新型商標(biāo)[N];中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)報(bào);2008年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前9條

1 季翔斌;論第十六議定書對歐盟法律自治權(quán)的影響[D];鄭州大學(xué);2017年

2 張卓;歐盟法律區(qū)域化研究[D];西北大學(xué);2011年

3 韓松博;《歐洲人權(quán)公約》下的人權(quán)保護(hù)制度研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2015年

4 谷盛霞;歐盟難民保護(hù)的國際法律問題研究[D];遼寧大學(xué);2016年

5 房曉;《歐洲人權(quán)公約》對英國憲法的影響[D];山東大學(xué);2017年

6 楊旭;試析《歐洲人權(quán)公約》中的平等原則[D];中國政法大學(xué);2007年

7 羅鈺;歐洲人權(quán)公約視角下的平等武裝原則[D];中國政法大學(xué);2010年

8 韓尉;論《歐洲人權(quán)公約》對同性戀者權(quán)利的保護(hù)[D];中國政法大學(xué);2010年

9 侯瑩瑩;比較法視野下的網(wǎng)絡(luò)通訊自由探析[D];山東大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號：1611006