Suchergebnisse

Résumé La « doctrine de la pyramide des normes » ( Stufenbaulehre, SL ) constitue l'élément central sur lequel repose la théorie pure du droit . Si la plupart des critiques adressées à la SL peuvent aisément être réfutées, l'une d'entre elles lui est fatale. Elle remet en cause le fondement même de la SL en dénonçant l'idée d'une inférence de la validité entre les normes. Au cours du processus de création du droit, la validité ne résulte en réalité d'aucune forme d'inférence : seule une norme selon laquelle « la nouvelle norme devrait être considérée comme valide » est le résultat logique de ce processus. Si la nouvelle norme peut être considérée comme valide, l'origine de cette validité n'a plus à être recherchée dans le schéma proposé par la SL. On mesure alors toutes les conséquences qu'une telle position implique : sans l'idée même d'inférence, la SL ne peut survivre ; sans la SL , la théorie pure du droit s'effondre à son tour.

It is clear that the current crisis of the EU is not confined to the Eurozone and the EMU, evidenced in its inability to ensure the compliance of Member States to follow the principles and values underlying the integration project in Europe (including the protection of democracy, the Rule of Law, and human rights). This defiance has affected the Union profoundly, and in a multi-faceted assessment of this phenomenon, 'The Enforcement of EU Law and Values' dissects the essence of this crisis, examining its history and offering coping methods for the years to come

AbstractThe aim of this Article is to show that the enforcement of Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union ('TEU') values vis-à-vis Member States could benefit from the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights ('CFR') also in instances where the current interpretation of Article 51(1) CFR prevents this. This would be the case if the CFR were also applicable to purely domestic cases, eg—but not only—with regard to fundamental rights-relevant violations related to the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU. In this case, the European Court of Justice, which has already partly taken this path recently, could prevent the violation of core EU values. The most important historical challenge to those values in Europe today is the systematic dismantling of the rule of law and democracy in certain Member States. It is the very purpose of fundamental rights to provide answers to such dangers. When one speaks of the rule of law and democracy, one necessarily also means fundamental rights. This Article thus advocates an EU which perceives itself as a complete fundamental rights union. While the traditional interpretation of Article 51(1) CFR had a balanced division of competence between the EU and its Member States in mind, the disregard of Article 2 TEU values triggers a clausula rebus sic stantibus: the neat federal balance can only be upheld if both ends stick to the original promise made. It demonstrates two ways of completing the European fundamental rights union: treaty revision, on the one hand, and reinterpretation of Article 51 CFR, on the other hand. Both ways have in common that only a complete fundamental rights union can establish a system of fundamental rights protection that is uniform and thus equality-preserving in cases where national fundamental rights fail to provide sufficient protection.