지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
최근 유럽연합법원의 유럽연합과 캐나다 포괄적 경제 및 무역협정(EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA))에 대한 평가서에서에서 유럽연합의 유럽인권협약 가입과 관련된 새로운 장애물이 설치되었는지 여부에 대해서 검토하고 있다. 2019년 4월 30일의 자신의 평가서(Opinion) 1/17을 통해서 유럽연합법원은 이 협정 하에 있는 투자-국가분쟁해결 장(Investor-State Dispute Settlement Chapter (ISDS)) 유럽연합조약과 유럽연합의 기본권 헌장과의 합치여부에 대해서 판단하였다. 이에 대하여 유럽연합 범무관 Yves Bot의 의견서(Advocate General)와 유럽연합법원의 평가서 모두 유럽연합의 우선적 법(primary law)과 합치된다고 판단하였다.
유럽연합의 기능에 관한 조약(TFEU) 제281조 제11항에 의한 벨기에의 유럽연합법원에 대한 이 협정에 대한 유럽연합조약 위반여부에 대한 판단요청이 유럽연합법원에 제기되는 시점에 유럽연합은 유럽유럽연합과 캐나다 포괄적 경제 및 무역협정(CETA) 모델과 유사한 투자분쟁해결체계로서 투자분쟁해결 장 메커니즘(ISDS mechanism)에 대한 협상을 진행하고 있거나 이에 대한 몇몇 합의를 도출하고 있었다. 이에 대한 많은 비판이 제기되는 시점에 유럽연합은 진보적 입장에서 다자간 투자법원(Multilateral Investment Court(MIC))를 설치하는 안을 제안하였다. 유럽연합과 캐나다 포괄적 경제 및 무역협정 투자법원 체계(CETA Invest Court System (ICS))는 다자간 투자법원(MIC)의 설립을 위한 전단계적 조치였다. 투자의 중재적 조정 메커니즘의 법의 지배, 투명성, 독립성, 공정성 보장이 가장 중요한 논의대상이 되었다.
유럽연합법원은 이 협정의 유럽연합의 우선적 법과의 합치여부에 대한 심사기준으로서 헌법화된 유럽연합 법질서의 자율성(autonomy of the EU legal order), 일반적 평등원칙과 유럽연합-경쟁법의 효력유지의 명령(general principle of equal treatment and the requirement of effectiveness), 독립된 법원을 사법적 구제청구권(right of access to an independent tribunal)을 설정하고 있다. 유럽연합법원은 평가서에서 유럽연합과 캐나다 포괄적 경제 및 무역협정 투자법원 체계(CETA Invest Court System (ICS)의 유럽연합조약 그리고 유럽연합의 기본권 헌장과의 합치여부에 대하여 법제도적 측면 뿐만 아니라 실질적 권리보장의 측면에서 판단하였다.
유럽인권법원은 2019년의 Konkurrenten.No AS against Norway 판례 Application no. 47341/15.
속에서 처음으로 유럽경제지역(European Economic Area (EEA))에 관한 유럽경제지역 협약(EEA Agreement)에 대한 동법원의 견해를 표명하였다. 유럽인권법원은 이전의 Bosphorus 판결의 입장을 유럽경제지역법에 대하여 그대로 계승하는 것을 인정하지 않았다. 일반적으로 유럽경지역법과 유럽연합법이 내용적으로 상응하다는 점을 고려해 볼 때 이러한 유럽인권법원의 입장표명은 놀라운 것이었다. 그와 동시에 유럽인권법원은 이 결정을 통해서 간접적으로 유럽연합법을 심사할 가능성을 열어놓았다.
어떻게 유럽인권법원은 유럽인권협약 상의 기본권 보호를 유럽경제지역협약에 의하여 설립된 유럽경제지역 구성국가들에게 적용할 수 있는가? 이와 관련하여 우선적으로 Bosphorus 판결 속에서 나타난 유럽연합법의 유럽인권협약적합성 추정(Vermutung der Konventionskonformität)을 유럽경제지역법에도 확대적용할 수 있는가 하는 문제가 제기된다. 유럽인권법원은 Konkurrenten.No AS against Norway 판례 속에서 이러한 Bosphorus 판결에 나타난 유럽인권협약적합성 추정을 인정하지 않았다.
유럽연합조약(TEU) 제6조는 유럽연합(EU)의 법질서 속에서의 유럽연합의 기본권의 적용에 관한 핵심적 규정이다. 유럽연합조약 제6조 제1항은 유럽연합의 기본권 헌장(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)과 유럽연합조약은 동등한 법적가치를 가진다고 규정하면서 유럽연합의 기본권 헌장에 대하여 유럽연합의 우선적 법(primary law)으로서의 지위를 부여하고, 이를 통해서 기본권 헌장 속의 기본권에 대하여 유럽연합조약과 동일한 법적인 구속력을 부여하고 있다 Tobias Lock, in Manuel Kellerbauer/Marcus Klamert/Jonathan Tomkin (eds.)The EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary, Oxford University Press 2019, Article 6 TEU para 1.
. 더 나아가서 유럽연합조약 제6조 제2항은 유럽연합이 유럽인권협약(European Convention on Human Rights)에 가입한다고 규정하고 있다. 유럽연합조약 제6조 제3항은 유럽인권협약과 유럽연합의 구성국가의 공통적인 헌법적 전통에서 도출된 기본권은 유럽연합법의 일반적 원칙을 구성한다고 규정하고 있다.
유럽의 기본권 보호에 있어서 유럽연합의 기본권 헌장체제와 유럽인권협약 체제 사이의 상호간의 조화와 협력을 실현하기 위한 유럽연합의 유럽인권협약 가입을 통한 유럽의 기본권 보호의 일관성과 통일성을 달성하는 형태로 실현되는 것은 아니라고 유럽연합법원은 2014년의 유럽연합의 유럽인권협약 가입안(draft accession agreement)에 대한 자신의 평가서(Opionion) 2/14를 통해서 명백한 입장을 제시하였다. 유럽연합법원은 유럽연합의 법질서의 자율성과 유럽연합법원의 유럽연합법의 해석에 대한 독립성의 유지를 그 반대근거로 제시하였다.
유럽연합의 유럽인권협약 가입이 유럽의 기본권 보호에 있어서 유럽연합의 기본권 헌장체제와 유럽인권협약 체제 사이의 상호간의 조화와 협력을 실현하기 위한 가장 최선의 해결책이 될 것인가? 이러한 해결책의 완성은 유럽연합의 유럽인권협약 가입을 통한 유럽의 기본권 보호의 일관성과 통일성을 달성하는 형태로 실현되는 것은 아니라 유럽연합법원이 2014년의 유럽연합의 유럽인권협약 가입안(draft accession agreement)에 대한 자신의 평가서(Opionion) 2/14를 통해서 제시한 문제점들을 보완하고 극복하기 위한 법적 논거들의 확립을 통해서만 가능한다. 유럽의 인권보장체계의 완결성의 요구가 어떻게 유럽연합법원은 유럽연합의 법질서의 자율성과 유럽연합법원의 유럽연합법의 해석에 대한 독립성의 유지에 대한 보완논거가 될 수 있는가 하는 것이 가장 중요한 논점이라고 판단된다.
Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) is a key regulation regarding the application of the EU's fundamental rights within the legal order of the European Union (EU). Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the Treaty on the European Union stipulates that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Treaty on the European Union have equal legal value and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is the priority law of the European Union (EU). Through it primary law and the fundamental rights in the Charter of Fundamental Rights are given the same legal binding force as the European Union Treaty. Furthermore, Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the Treaty on European Union stipulates that the European Union will join the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Union Court of Justice presented a clear position through its Opionion 2/13 on the EU's draft accession agreement to the European Convention on Human Rights in 2014, ruled that this will not be realized because it is against the european union laws. The Court of Justice of European Union presented the autonomy of the European Union's legal order and the maintenance of the European Union Court's independence in the interpretation of European Union law as grounds for its opposition. Will the EU's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights be the best solution for realizing mutual harmony and cooperation between the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights system and the European Convention on Human Rights system in protecting fundamental rights in Europe? The completion of this solution will not be realized in the form of achieving consistency and unity in the protection of fundamental rights in Europe through the EU's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, but rather through the European Union's draft accession agreement in 2014 is only possible through the establishment of legal arguments to supplement and overcome the problems presented through Opionion 2/13 of the Court of Justice of EU. The most important issue is how the demand for the integrity of the European human rights protection system can be a complementary argument for maintaining the autonomy of the European Union's legal order and the independence of the European Union Court in interpreting EU law. In the Court of Justice of the European Union‘s recent opinion 1/17 on the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), Birgit Daiber questioned whether it created new obstacles to the EU's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. Through its Opinion 1/17 of 30 April 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the Investor-State Dispute Settlement Chapter (ISDS) European Union Treaty and the European Union under this Agreement. A judgment was made on whether it was consistent with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. With regard to it, the opinion written by Yves Bot, the European Union Commissioner General, and the evaluation by the European Union Court were judged to be in accordance with the primary law of the European Union. The EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Investment Court System (CETA Invest Court System (ICS)) was a preliminary step toward the establishment of a multilateral investment court (MIC). Ensuring the rule of law, transparency, independence, and fairness of investment arbitration mechanisms have become the most important topics of discussion. the Court of Justice of the European Union determines the constitutional autonomy of the EU legal order, the general principle of equality, and the order to maintain the effect of EU-competition law as criteria for reviewing whether this Agreement is consistent with the priority laws of the European Union (general principle of equal treatment and the requirement of effectiveness), it establishes the right of access to an independent tribunal to seek judicial relief. In its evaluation report, the the Court of Justice of the European Union reviewed the compatibility of the CETA Invest Court System (ICS) of the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the Treaty on the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, ensuring not only legal and institutional aspects but also substantive rights guarantees. At the time when a request is submitted to the Court of the European Union from Belgium for a decision on whether this Agreement is in violation of the European Union Treaty pursuant to Article 281, Paragraph 11 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the European Union Negotiations were underway or some agreements were reached on the ISDS mechanism, an investment dispute resolution system similar to the European Union and Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) model. At a time when many criticisms were being raised against this, the European Union took a progressive stance and proposed a plan to establish a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC). The EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Investment Court System (CETA Invest Court System (ICS)) was a preliminary step toward the establishment of a multilateral investment court (MIC). Ensuring the rule of law, transparency, independence, and fairness of investment arbitration mechanisms have become the most important topics of discussion. In 2019 the European Court of Human Rights ruled the case law Konkurrenten. No AS against Norway Application no.47341/15. For the first time, the Court expressed its views on the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement. The European Court of Human Rights did not recognize that the position of the previous Bosphorus decision was to be inherited with respect to European Economic Area law. Considering that European border law and European Union law are generally equivalent in content, this statement of the European Court of Human Rights was surprising. At the same time, the European Court of Human Rights opens up the possibility of indirectly reviewing EU law through this decision. How can the European Court of Human Rights apply the protection of fundamental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights to the constituent countries of the European Economic Area established by the Agreement on the European Economic Area? In this regard, the question first arises as to whether the presumption of conformity of European Union law with the European Convention on Human Rights (Vermutung der Konventionskonformität) expressed in the Bosphorus decision can be extended to European Economic Area law. The European Court of Human Rights did not recognize the presumption of compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights in the Bosphorus decision in the Konkurrenten. No AS against Norway Case.
Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) is a key regulation regarding the application of the EU's fundamental rights within the legal order of the European Union (EU). Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the Treaty on the European Union stipulates that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Treaty on the European Union have equal legal value and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is the priority law of the European Union (EU). Through it primary law and the fundamental rights in the Charter of Fundamental Rights are given the same legal binding force as the European Union Treaty. Furthermore, Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the Treaty on European Union stipulates that the European Union will join the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Union Court of Justice presented a clear position through its Opionion 2/13 on the EU's draft accession agreement to the European Convention on Human Rights in 2014, ruled that this will not be realized because it is against the european union laws. The Court of Justice of European Union presented the autonomy of the European Union's legal order and the maintenance of the European Union Court's independence in the interpretation of European Union law as grounds for its opposition. Will the EU's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights be the best solution for realizing mutual harmony and cooperation between the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights system and the European Convention on Human Rights system in protecting fundamental rights in Europe? The completion of this solution will not be realized in the form of achieving consistency and unity in the protection of fundamental rights in Europe through the EU's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, but rather through the European Union's draft accession agreement in 2014 is only possible through the establishment of legal arguments to supplement and overcome the problems presented through Opionion 2/13 of the Court of Justice of EU. The most important issue is how the demand for the integrity of the European human rights protection system can be a complementary argument for maintaining the autonomy of the European Union's legal order and the independence of the European Union Court in interpreting EU law. In the Court of Justice of the European Union‘s recent opinion 1/17 on the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), Birgit Daiber questioned whether it created new obstacles to the EU's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. Through its Opinion 1/17 of 30 April 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the Investor-State Dispute Settlement Chapter (ISDS) European Union Treaty and the European Union under this Agreement. A judgment was made on whether it was consistent with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. With regard to it, the opinion written by Yves Bot, the European Union Commissioner General, and the evaluation by the European Union Court were judged to be in accordance with the primary law of the European Union. The EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Investment Court System (CETA Invest Court System (ICS)) was a preliminary step toward the establishment of a multilateral investment court (MIC). Ensuring the rule of law, transparency, independence, and fairness of investment arbitration mechanisms have become the most important topics of discussion. the Court of Justice of the European Union determines the constitutional autonomy of the EU legal order, the general principle of equality, and the order to maintain the effect of EU-competition law as criteria for reviewing whether this Agreement is consistent with the priority laws of the European Union (general principle of equal treatment and the requirement of effectiveness), it establishes the right of access to an independent tribunal to seek judicial relief. In its evaluation report, the the Court of Justice of the European Union reviewed the compatibility of the CETA Invest Court System (ICS) of the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the Treaty on the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, ensuring not only legal and institutional aspects but also substantive rights guarantees. At the time when a request is submitted to the Court of the European Union from Belgium for a decision on whether this Agreement is in violation of the European Union Treaty pursuant to Article 281, Paragraph 11 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the European Union Negotiations were underway or some agreements were reached on the ISDS mechanism, an investment dispute resolution system similar to the European Union and Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) model. At a time when many criticisms were being raised against this, the European Union took a progressive stance and proposed a plan to establish a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC). The EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Investment Court System (CETA Invest Court System (ICS)) was a preliminary step toward the establishment of a multilateral investment court (MIC). Ensuring the rule of law, transparency, independence, and fairness of investment arbitration mechanisms have become the most important topics of discussion. In 2019 the European Court of Human Rights ruled the case law Konkurrenten. No AS against Norway Application no.47341/15. For the first time, the Court expressed its views on the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement. The European Court of Human Rights did not recognize that the position of the previous Bosphorus decision was to be inherited with respect to European Economic Area law. Considering that European border law and European Union law are generally equivalent in content, this statement of the European Court of Human Rights was surprising. At the same time, the European Court of Human Rights opens up the possibility of indirectly reviewing EU law through this decision. How can the European Court of Human Rights apply the protection of fundamental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights to the constituent countries of the European Economic Area established by the Agreement on the European Economic Area? In this regard, the question first arises as to whether the presumption of conformity of European Union law with the European Convention on Human Rights (Vermutung der Konventionskonformität) expressed in the Bosphorus decision can be extended to European Economic Area law. The European Court of Human Rights did not recognize the presumption of compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights in the Bosphorus decision in the Konkurrenten. No AS against Norway Case.
#유럽연합의 유럽인권협약가입
#유럽연합조약 제6조 제1항
#유럽연합조약 제6조 제2항
#유럽연합법원의 유럽연합과 캐나다 포괄적 경제 및 무역협정(EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA))에 대한 자신의 평가서
#유럽인권법원의 2019년의 KonkurrentenNo AS against Norway 판례
#The European Union's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights
#Article 6 (1) of the Treaty of the European Union
#Article 6 (2) of the Treaty of the European Union
#and the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CETA))
#the 2019 case law of the European Court of Human Rights in Konkurrenten No AS against Norway
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
유럽의 헌법재판소 연합에 대한 검토
헌법논총
2015 .11
-
유럽인권법원의 von Hannover v Germany (no. 2)와 (no. 3) 사건 속에서 나타난 사생활 보호와 공익의 조정
헌법학연구
2022 .12
-
사회권에 대한 유럽인권법원의 대응방안 연구
사회법연구
2019 .01
-
유럽인권협약상 권리보장을 위한 체약국의 의무 : 유럽인권재판소 결정례를 중심으로
법학연구
2016 .02
-
유럽에서 주거권 보장
일감부동산법학
2020 .01
-
유럽의 다층적 규범체계와 인권보호
인문사회 21
2020 .01
-
한국의 유럽 지역연구: 연구 동향과 과제
유럽연구
2024 .08
-
유럽의 기본적 인권과 유럽인권법원
법과정책
2019 .01
-
유럽사회권기둥(The European Pillar of Social Rights, EPSR)의 의미와 한계
유럽연구
2023 .05
-
유럽인권협약상 국내구제절차완료의원칙에 관한 연구-유럽인권재판소 결정례를 중심으로-
홍익법학
2016 .01
-
유럽인권재판소를 통해 살펴본 지역인권보장체계
헌법학연구
2015 .01
-
EU법과 EU의 유럽인권협약 가입 ― 유럽연합재판소(ECJ) 결정을 중심으로 ―
공법연구
2018 .12
-
European Identity: How the EU has used images to foster a European identity among its citizens
EU연구
2023 .02
-
유럽통합의 탈정치화 통합전략의 위기에 대해: 이동의 자유와 유럽연합의 사회질서
유럽연구
2020 .11
-
유럽연합의 자유안전사법지대: 새로운 유럽적 거버넌스의 발전과 의미
EU연구
2019 .01
-
국가의 국민 안전보장의무 : 유럽인권재판소 판례를 중심으로
강원법학
2017 .10
-
반유럽연합 정서 확산 원인 분석 : 폴란드와 헝가리 사례를 중심으로
세계지역연구논총
2019 .01
-
반유럽연합 정서 확산 원인 분석 : 폴란드와 헝가리 사례를 중심으로
세계지역연구논총
2019 .01
-
유럽인권협약의 실효적 보장을 위한 재판절차와 판결의 집행감독 변화에 관한 연구 - 유럽인권재판소 판례를 중심으로 -
유럽헌법연구
2021 .08
-
EU 경제거버넌스로서 유럽예산회기제(European Semester)와 그 실효성에 관한 연구
국제지역연구
2018 .04
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0