Pagrindinių teisių šaltinių ir jurisdikcijų pliuralizmas: Strasbūras ir Liuksemburgas

Abstract

In this paper the author analyses the system of human rights protection in the European Union. The first part of the work briefly discusses the historical background of fundamental rights protection in the EU and the need for human rights protection. Afterwards the author compares the European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights. The question is raised whether plurality of human rights sources guarantees better protection of those rights. The conclusion is reached that although all the rights of the Convention are incorporated into the Charter and even more rights are included, the declaratory status of this document does not enable it to contribute significantly to better human rights protection. In the third part of the paper the system of judicial protection of fundamental rights is analyzed. The author evaluates the efficiency of existing human rights protection mechanism in the EU and the probability of better human rights protection in case the EU joined the European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It is discussed what kind of judicial system would most effectively protect fundamental rights within the European Union. The conclusion reached is that in recent situation the Luxembourg court is not bound by the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court therefore the conflicts of jurisprudence may arise. A person may use the existing plurality of jurisdiction only when national legislature or EU acts that are directly implemented are questioned. Only such acts can be reviewed by the Strasbourg court. In the case of the EU accession to the Convention, there would be a possibility to review all the legislature of EU and this system would be more efficient in human rights protection in the European Union.