What are the key principles developed and applied by the European Court of Human Rights in respect of EU law and where do they come from?

These are the questions which the enclosed paper attempts to answer under the title: “Leading Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on EU law”. It is an updated and enriched version of the one which was first made available on this blog in 2024. The covered areas include:

• The responsibility of Member States under the Convention when they apply EU law
• The absence of responsibility of the EU under the Convention
• The equivalence of the EU protection of fundamental rights
• Mutual recognition in general
• The European arrest warrant
• The Dublin Regulation
• Deprivation of liberty
• International child abduction
• Referrals for a preliminary ruling by the CJEU
• The manifest error of law

The following are the main take-aways from the enclosed paper:

• Convention responsibility of EU Member States: Membership of the EU does not relieve Member States of their responsibility under the Convention. Consequently, they must apply EU law in compliance with the Convention, the protection level of which can however be raised.
• Equivalent EU law protection of fundamental rights: In areas where national authorities have no discretion, EU law can be presumed to offer a level of fundamental rights protection which is equivalent to that of the Convention. This presumption is to be rebutted on a case-by-case basis, in the event of a “manifest deficiency” in the EU protection of fundamental rights.
• Application of EU law by EU Member States: can be checked by the ECtHR on its compliance with the Convention
• Individual test: Based on the right of individual petition laid down in Article 34 of the Convention, the ECtHR applies an individual test, as opposed to a collective test or reliance on “systemic flaws”.
• Mutual recognition: In principle, mutual recognition mechanisms are compatible with the Convention. However, the Convention precludes their “automatic and mechanical application” and requires an individualised assessment of “serious and substantiated complaints”.
• Child’s best interests: The child’s best interests may require the judge of the State to which a child has been abducted to rule on his/her return, regardless of the exclusive competence of the judge of the habitual residence of the child under EU law.
• Referrals for a preliminary ruling by the CJEU: reasons are to be given for a refusal of a request to make such a referral.