Ekonomiska rättigheter i EU: EU-domstolens prövning av artikel 15–17 rättighetsstadgan.
(2019) JURM02 20191Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Rättighetsstadgan utgör en del av EU:s primärrätt och medlemsstaterna är bundna av stadgan när de tillämpar EU-rätten. Enligt domstolens praxis omfattar begreppet ”tillämpar” att medlemsstaten implementerar en bestämmelse; tillämpar ett i fördragen angivet undantag från fri rörlighet; och när de använder grundläggande rättigheter för att inskränka fri rörlighet.
I C-235/17 Kommissionen mot Ungern, aktualiseras en nationell lags förenlighet med fri rörlighet av kapital liksom dess förenlighet med rätt till egendom. Den nationella lagen förbjuder överlåtande av nyttjanderätt till mark till personer som inte är släkt med markägaren. I sitt förslag till avgörande ger generaladvokat Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe en utförlig diskussion angående... (More) - Rättighetsstadgan utgör en del av EU:s primärrätt och medlemsstaterna är bundna av stadgan när de tillämpar EU-rätten. Enligt domstolens praxis omfattar begreppet ”tillämpar” att medlemsstaten implementerar en bestämmelse; tillämpar ett i fördragen angivet undantag från fri rörlighet; och när de använder grundläggande rättigheter för att inskränka fri rörlighet.
I C-235/17 Kommissionen mot Ungern, aktualiseras en nationell lags förenlighet med fri rörlighet av kapital liksom dess förenlighet med rätt till egendom. Den nationella lagen förbjuder överlåtande av nyttjanderätt till mark till personer som inte är släkt med markägaren. I sitt förslag till avgörande ger generaladvokat Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe en utförlig diskussion angående domstolens behörighet att pröva nationell lagstiftnings förenlighet med rättighetsstadgan. Han anser att domstolen inte är behörig att pröva denna fråga eftersom medlemsstaten inte enligt honom implementerar vare sig EU-rätt eller unionspolitik. Kommissionens ståndpunkt är dock att rättighetsstadgan ska vara tillämplig eftersom den nationella lagen är oförenlig med fri rörlighet, vilket skulle öppna upp för en granskning av förenligheten med stadgan.
Även om domstolen var behörig vore det enligt generaladvokaten överflödigt att pröva förenligheten med artikel 17 eftersom det redan gjorts en prövning av förenligheten med artikel 63 FEUF, fri rörlighet av kapital.
Rättigheterna i artiklarna 15–17, yrkesfrihet, näringsfrihet och rätt till egendom, är ekonomiska i sin natur. De är även, enligt förklaringen till stadgan, delvis utformade utifrån bestämmelserna om fri rörlighet. I mål såsom Pfleger m.fl. har domstolen även angett att en inskränkning av friheten att tillhandahålla tjänster automatiskt är oförenligt med artiklarna 15–17 i stadgan. I Kommissionen mot Ungern gör domstolen dock en prövning av artikel 17 trots att den nationella lagen redan dömts som oförenlig med fri rörlighet. (Less) - Abstract
- The Charter of Fundamental Rights is part of the primary law of EU. The member states are bound by the charter when they are implementing EU law. The term “implementing” has by the court been confirmed to include when a member state is implementing an EU regulation; when they are using a legitimate exception to free movement; and when they are using fundamental rights to restrict free movement.
In C-235/17 Commission v Hungary, a national law is tested against free movement as well as against the right to property. The national law was inhibiting the transfer of the right of usufruct of a land to a person not related to the owner of the land. In his opinion, advocate general Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe, is giving a detailed discussion... (More) - The Charter of Fundamental Rights is part of the primary law of EU. The member states are bound by the charter when they are implementing EU law. The term “implementing” has by the court been confirmed to include when a member state is implementing an EU regulation; when they are using a legitimate exception to free movement; and when they are using fundamental rights to restrict free movement.
In C-235/17 Commission v Hungary, a national law is tested against free movement as well as against the right to property. The national law was inhibiting the transfer of the right of usufruct of a land to a person not related to the owner of the land. In his opinion, advocate general Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe, is giving a detailed discussion about the court’s competence to review a national law against the charter. He is of the opinion that the court is not competent to try this matter because the member state, according to the advocate general, is not implementing neither EU-law nor EU politics. The stand of the commission however is that the charter is applicable since the national law is incompatible with free movement, a fact that would open the possibility to review the compatibility with the charter.
The advocate general argues that even if the court would be competent to review the law against the charter, it would be needless because the law has already been reviewed against article 63 TFEU, free movement of capital.
The rights contained in articles 15-17 of the charter are the right to work, freedom to conduct a business and the right to property. These are all economic in their nature. They are also, according to the explanations related to the charter, partly drafted from the free movement rules. In cases such as Pfleger and others, the court has held that an infringement of the free movement of services is automatically violating the rights in articles 15-17 of the charter. In Commission v Hungary however, the court does review the national law against article 17 of the charter, even though the national law has already been said to not comply with free movement law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8977348
- author
- Roos, Katarina LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- EU and economic righs: The court's review of national law and its compliance with articles 15-17 in the charter
- course
- JURM02 20191
- year
- 2019
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- EU-rätt, EU law, mänskliga rättigheter, grundläggande rättigheter, Charter, Rättighetsstadgan, Rätt till egendom
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8977348
- date added to LUP
- 2019-06-11 17:24:30
- date last changed
- 2019-06-11 17:24:30
@misc{8977348,
abstract = {{The Charter of Fundamental Rights is part of the primary law of EU. The member states are bound by the charter when they are implementing EU law. The term “implementing” has by the court been confirmed to include when a member state is implementing an EU regulation; when they are using a legitimate exception to free movement; and when they are using fundamental rights to restrict free movement.
In C-235/17 Commission v Hungary, a national law is tested against free movement as well as against the right to property. The national law was inhibiting the transfer of the right of usufruct of a land to a person not related to the owner of the land. In his opinion, advocate general Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe, is giving a detailed discussion about the court’s competence to review a national law against the charter. He is of the opinion that the court is not competent to try this matter because the member state, according to the advocate general, is not implementing neither EU-law nor EU politics. The stand of the commission however is that the charter is applicable since the national law is incompatible with free movement, a fact that would open the possibility to review the compatibility with the charter.
The advocate general argues that even if the court would be competent to review the law against the charter, it would be needless because the law has already been reviewed against article 63 TFEU, free movement of capital.
The rights contained in articles 15-17 of the charter are the right to work, freedom to conduct a business and the right to property. These are all economic in their nature. They are also, according to the explanations related to the charter, partly drafted from the free movement rules. In cases such as Pfleger and others, the court has held that an infringement of the free movement of services is automatically violating the rights in articles 15-17 of the charter. In Commission v Hungary however, the court does review the national law against article 17 of the charter, even though the national law has already been said to not comply with free movement law.}},
author = {{Roos, Katarina}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Ekonomiska rättigheter i EU: EU-domstolens prövning av artikel 15–17 rättighetsstadgan.}},
year = {{2019}},
}