This article focuses on the recent judgment of the Court of Justice, Aranyosi and Caldararu. After conducting a legal analysis on this case, three issues are identified and they are separately discussed in three sections. The aim of this paper is to show the impact of this judgment on public order and public security in Europe on the one hand and on the individual’s fundamental rights, on the other hand. It is going to be argued that even though there are limits to the principle of mutual recognition, this new exception based on fundamental rights establishes a new procedure for non-surrender. Therefore, the Court of Justice creates a non-execution ground which the EU legislator did not intend to include in the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant. This is explained by looking at the three interconnected notions of Freedom, Security and Justice.
While the right to adequate food is often discussed in the context of developing countries, especially in situations where access to adequate food is a problem on a larger scale, this book focusses on the right to food in two Western countries in which theoretically the circumstances allow this right to be enjoyed by each individual. Through a legal comparative study, the enforceability of the right to food is compared between the Netherlands and Belgium in light of the current UN Human Rights system. There seems to be a difference between what the countries do, what they say they do, and what they should do on the matter. As it appears, the coincidental constitutional circumstances mainly determine the enforceability of the right to food, rather than the content of the human right in itself. This book includes a thorough analysis of suitable comparative legal methodology and the embedment of the right to food in the UN human right system. Furthermore, for both countries, an in-depth analysis of the case law on the right to food (mostly concerning the status of foreigners), the constitutional context in which the Judiciary operates, and the relevant UN reports and subsequent procedures are outlined. Finally, recommendations are made to both countries and the relevant UN Committees.
Human rights groups are increasingly calling for the protection of their right to privacy in relation to the bulk surveillance and interception of their personal communications. Some are advocating through strategic litigation. This advocacy tool is often chosen when there is weak political or public support for an issue. Nonetheless, as a strategy it remains a question if a lawsuit is strategic in the context of establishing accountability for indiscriminate bulk data interception. The chapter concludes that from a legal perspective the effect of the decision to litigate on the basis of the claim that a collective right to group privacy was violated has not (yet) resulted in significant change. Yet the case study, the British case of human rights groups versus the intelligence agencies, does seem to suggest that they have been able to create more public awareness about mass surveillance and interception programs and its side-effects
LINK
