Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:09:50.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Lisbon vs. Lisbon”: Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Daniel Augenstein  and
Bert van Roermund

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In March 2000, the Lisbon European Council agreed upon a new strategic goal for the European Union: to become the “most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.” One decade and the sobering experience of a global economic crisis later, the European Commission's new 2020 Strategy sets out a vision of Europe's social market economy for the 21st century that “shows how the EU can emerge stronger from the economic crisis and how it can be turned into a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy delivering high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion.” If somewhat more modest in its targets, Europe 2020 reiterates the guiding ambition to enhance the EU's economic performance in the internal and global market that already dominated the Lisbon strategy. The lesson learned from Europe's “lost decade” is that the EU needs to replace the “slow and largely uncoordinated pace of reforms” with a “sustainable recovery” in order to regain its competitiveness, boost its productivity, and put it on “an upward path of prosperity.” This is, then, the EU's first “Lisbon” agenda that heavily relies on the internal market and that depicts social inclusion and political stability as conditioned upon further European economic integration. The recipe to defy what has grown from a “merely” economic crisis into a social and political crisis of the Union and its Member States is a combination of “smart,” “sustainable,” and “inclusive” growth.

Type
Lisbon vs. Lisbon: Introduction
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 14 , Issue 10: Special Issue—Lisbon vs. Lisbon , 01 October 2013 , pp. 1909 - 1915
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Presidency Conclusions, Lisbon European Council (Mar. 23–24, 2000), available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/00100-r1.en0.html.Google Scholar

2 European Commission, Europe 2020: A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, at 5, COM (2010) 2020 final (Mar. 3, 2010).Google Scholar

3 Id. at 8–9.Google Scholar

4 See European Union, The Treaty at a Glance, http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/glance/index_en.htm.Google Scholar

5 For a more detailed and differentiated account of the historical evolution of human rights in the European Union see Grainne de Búrca, The Road Not Taken: The EU as a Global Human Rights Actor, 105 Am. J. Int'l L. 649 (2011).Google Scholar

6 Article 15(2) EU Charter provides that “[e]very citizen of the Union has the freedom to seek employment, to work, to exercise the right of establishment and to provide services in any Member State”; pursuant to Article 45 EU Charter, “[e]very citizen of the Union has the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.” Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Oct. 26, 2012, 2012 O.J. (C 326) 398, 404. See also L. Besselink, The Protection of Fundamental Rights Post-Lisbon: The Interaction Between the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights and National Constitutions, 1 Reports of the XXV FIDE Congress 1, 1 (2012), available at http://www.fide2012.eu/index.php?doc_id=94.Google Scholar

7 Augenstein, Daniel, Engaging the Fundamentals: On the Autonomous Substance of EU Fundamental Rights Law, 14 German L.J. 1917 (2013).Google Scholar

8 Case C-34/10, Brüstle v. Greenpeace, 2011 E.C.R. I-09821, para. 38 (Oct. 18, 2011).Google Scholar

9 Roermund, Bert van, The Embryo and its Rights: Technology and Teleology, 14 German L.J. 1939 (2013).Google Scholar

10 Dawson, Mark & Muir, Elise, Hungary and the Indirect Protection of EU Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law, 14 German L.J. 1959 (2013).Google Scholar

11 Houwerzijl, Mijke & Wilkinson, Terry, The Effects of EU Law on the Social and Economic Goals of Europe 2020: A Decision-Theoretical Approach to Wage Liability Regimes in Modern Europe, 14 German L.J. 1981 (2013).Google Scholar

12 Christodoulidis, Emilios, The European Court of Justice and ‘Total Market’ Thinking, 14 German L.J. 2005 (2013).Google Scholar

13 Joerges, Christian, Will the Welfare State Survive European Integration?, 1 European Journal of Social Law 4, 10 (2011).Google Scholar

14 Polanyi, Karl, The Great Transformation: The Political And Economic Origins Of Our Time (1944).Google Scholar

15 Raucea, Chiara, Fundamental Rights: The Missing Pieces of European Citizenship?, 14 German L.J. 2021 (2013).Google Scholar

16 See Case C-34/09, Zambrano v. Office national de l'emploi, 2011 E.C.R. I-01177, para. 42.Google Scholar

17 Goodwin, Morag & Buijs, Roosmarijn, Making Good European Citizens of the Roma: A Closer Look at the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies, 14 German L.J. 2041 (2013).Google Scholar

18 The Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies Up to 2020, COM (2011) 173 final (Apr. 5, 2011).Google Scholar

19 Joined Case C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Kadi v Council and Comm'n, 2008 E.C.R. I-06351.Google Scholar

20 Avbelj, Matej, Security and the Transformation of the EU Public Order, 14 German L.J. 2057 (2013).Google Scholar

21 See Weiler, J.H.H., Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Boundaries: On the Conflict of Standards and Values in the Protection of Human Rights in the European Legal Space, in The Constitution of Europe: “Do The New Clothes Have An Emperor?” and Other Essays on European Integration 102 (J.H.H Weiler, 1999).Google Scholar

22 Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the Right of Citizens and Their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely Within the Territory of the Member States, 2004 O.J. (L 158) 77.Google Scholar

23 Besters, Michiel & Macenaite, Milda, Securing the EU Public Order: Between an Economic and Political Europe, 14 German L.J. 2075 (2013).Google Scholar

24 Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the Co-ordination of Special Measures Concerning the Movement and residence of Foreign Nationals Which Are Justified on Grounds of Public Policy, Public Security or Public Health, 1964 O.J. (L 56) 117.Google Scholar

25 Case C-177/06, Comm'n v Spain, 2007 E.C.R. I-07689.Google Scholar