GLOBAL CROSSINGS PROJECT
PROFESSOR: CLAUDIA LOUREIRO
JEAN MONNET CHAIR/UFU
SECTION 1: MAIN JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
1. COSTEJA GONZALEZ CASE ON THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN[1]
Written by João Lázaro Machado de Assis Matos
In 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on a case on the right to be forgotten. This is a request for a preliminary ruling in a dispute between the search giant Google and the Spanish Data Protection Agency and the Spaniard Mario Costeja González, due to an appeal against a prior decision favorable to Costeja González. In the previous case, a complaint by Costeja González filed in 2010 at that Agency against Google and a local newspaper, the Spanish Data Protection Agency ordered Google to take the necessary measures to remove Costeja González’s personal data from its index and make it impossible to future access to such data. The details of the information which was intended to prevent access via the internet have been intentionally omitted in this newsletter out of respect for the original wishes of Costeja González. Google appealed to the Spanish National Audiencia, which considered it necessary to bring the European Union Court of Justice into action for the interpretation of European Union rules.
As pointed out by Niilo Jääskinen (2013), at the time Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union, there were three main groups of questions brought to the Court in this case, case C-131/12, all new questions: the first group deals with the territorial scope of European data protection rules; the second, the legal position of internet search engine service provider, especially concerning the material scope of application of the Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council); the third, the right to be forgotten and whether people can demand the inaccessibility of part or all of the search results concerning them through search engines. The nine questions are transcribed in item no. 20 of the judgment.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (2014, nos. 28, 33, 38, 41, 60, 88, disp. 1-3) decided on the first two groups of questions: the operations of search engines with information containing personal data configure data processing under legal terms, regardless of whether or not the engine distinguishes personal data from other information, and the engines are also responsible for the treatment; data processing takes place in the territory of a Member State when the operator of the engine creates a branch or subsidiary in the country for advertising or commercial purposes and with activity aimed at the inhabitants of that country, and, furthermore, the operator of a search engine is obliged, when applicable, to remove links to pages containing information about a person from the list of results when a search is carried out based on that person’s name, even if the data remains on the pages and even when such publications are lawful.
Regarding the right to be forgotten in the context of searches indexed by search engines on the internet, this Court (2014, nos. 96-99, disp. 4) declares that, first, a judgment is required in each concrete case on the person in cause to have the right to demand that certain information not be associated with their name in searches, taking into account the existence or not of special reasons, such as their role in public life and any overriding public interest in accessing information about the person’s life. Not being the case of overriding public interest, considering the fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [respect for private life and right to protection of personal data], the data subject may demand that the information in question is no longer accessible through the search results list, without a presumption of harm caused by such inclusion.
The definitions of the Court of Justice of the European Union about the right to be forgotten represent an important milestone in the construction of this right, not only in the European Union but throughout the globe, as a precedent of great relevance and solid foundation. Although not a right to be forgotten per se was established, but a right to suppress data of non-public figures, the decision underscores the value of fundamental individual rights and their prevalence over economic interests and the public interest in accessing data from common people.
REFERENCES:
JÄÄSKINEN, Niilo. Processo C-131/12. Conclusões do Advogado-Geral Niilo Jääskinen. Luxemburgo: InfoCuria, 2013. Available: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=138782&pageIndex=0&doclang=PT&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2167984. Access: 10 apr. 2023.
UNIÃO EUROPEIA. Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia (Plenário). Processo C-131/12. Google Spain SL e Google Inc. contra Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) e Mario Costeja González. Luxemburgo: InfoCuria, 2014. Available: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=BCE3BA82E2232EF68948C590E931B6CC?text=&docid=152065&pageIndex=0&doclang=PT&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2167984. Access: 10 apr. 2023.
SECTION 2: EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS – MAIN JUDGMENTS
1. EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ISLAMIC VEILING CASES[2]
Written by Claudia Regina de Oliveira Magalhães da Silva Loureiro
European Court of Human Rights, which judged some cases related to the use of the Islamic veil, consolidating the following arguments, public security, public order, collective interest, and secularization of the State, judging that the cases did not present offenses to article 9 of the Convention Human Rights, which refers to the right to religious freedom and which restricts State interference in these rights to extremely necessary and exceptional situations.
The cases were preceded by the approval of Laws nº 2004-228[3] and 2010-1192[4], which concerned, respectively, the prohibition of the use of the veil and any other religious garment in French public schools and the prohibition of wearing full veils, such as burqa or niqab. As mentioned, the enactment of these laws in France generated a demand for cases before the European Court of Human Rights, which confirmed, repeatedly, that the legislative measures mentioned above did not violate the fundamental rights of citizens, but, on the contrary, protected the interests of the collectivity and the idea of secularization of the French state.
For the purpose of this study, it is worth mentioning the following precedents of the European Court of Human Rights: El Morsli v. France, Case of Dogru v. France[5], Kervanci v. France[6], Aktas v. France, Bayrak v. France, Gamaleddyn v. France, Case of Ghazal v. France and S.A.S. v. France.[7]
A succinct analysis of the cases is considered salutary, to demonstrate the position of the European Court on the subject.
The first case, El Morsli v. France, judged in 2008[8], concerns the Muslim woman who refused to remove her veil in front of the male consular officer, having her visa to enter France denied. It is important to clarify that the Muslim woman did not refuse to comply with the recognition and identification law and requested to be assisted by a female officer. Under the allegation of the lack of an employee, the official denied the visa to the Muslim woman, who appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, alleging an offense against Article 9, § 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights[9]. The Court understood that the case should be restricted to the context of the French State’s margin of appreciation since it had not envisaged an offense against the aforementioned legal provision.
On the other hand, the case of Dogru v. France and the Case of Kervanci v. França, 2008, also reflect France’s opposition to respect for multiculturalism. In this case, two French women, practitioners of the Muslim faith and students from French public schools, refused to comply with the Physical Education Teacher’s request to remove the veil, considering the incompatibility of the clothing with the classes in question. The students were expelled from the school, on the grounds of lack of attendance, and, in the French courts, the school’s attitude was considered correct.
The case was taken to the European Court of Human Rights and the decision was not different from the cases previously cited, that is, the Court understood that there was no offense to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which should prevail against secularism in French public schools. and that the expulsion was not a disproportionate measure.
Aktas, Bayrak, Gamaleddyn, and Ghazal, all of those cases versus France, also reflect the same understanding previously set forth by the European Court regarding the expulsion of Muslim students from French public schools who refused to comply with the request of the school board to remove the headscarves. The Court rejected all actions on the grounds of respect for public safety, public order, and the interests of the community, stating that said position did not represent an objection to the faith professed by the students.
Finally, in the most recent case, S.A.S. v. France, which was taken to the European Court to question the French law that prohibits the use of clothing that covers the face, the Court reiterated the same understanding expressed in previous cases. As it was possible to perceive, the position of the European Court of Human Rights reflected the idea that there is a dominant culture, which decides whether to accept cultural diversity or not (SOUSA SANTOS, 2009), which does not reflect post-multiculturalism, which advocates the acceptance of differences and harmonious coexistence between different cultures, without supporting unacceptable behavior such as female genital mutilation or forced marriage.
SECTION 3: INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
TRANSHUMANITY
- ANALYSIS OF THE CASE OF ARTAVIA MURILLO ET AL. V. COSTA RICA[10]
Written by Izabella Vieira Nunes
In 1995, Costa Rica, through Executive Decree No. 24029-S, authorized the practice of assisted human reproduction techniques, with emphasis on in vitro fertilization (IVF), in addition to regulating its practice. However, in the same year, Mr. Hermes Navarro Del Valle filed a lawsuit in which he questioned the constitutionality of said decree, basing it on alleged violations of the right to life.
The plaintiff sought the declaration of unconstitutionality of the aforementioned decree and IVF practices in Costa Rican territory. As an argument, he raised that the method caused extreme percentages of fetal malformation. For the author, the authorization of these techniques would act as a pretext for the disposal of unused embryos, which violates the right to life, which would start from fertilization.
In judgment, in the year 2000, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica upheld the action of unconstitutionality.
Among the dissenting votes, the magistrates, Arguedas Ramírez and Miranda argued as to the compatibility of IVF with the national legal system, as it is a valid instrument for the full exercise of the right to reproduction, arising from freedom, self-determination, personal privacy, and the right to start a family.
The Costa Rican Court argued that practices resulting from in vitro fertilization put the life of the embryo at risk, which entails a violation of the right to life and human dignity, in addition to highlighting the risks of eugenic selection. Thus, Executive Decree No. 24029-S was annulled, as it confronted the principle of legal reserve in the face of the content of the normative text, including reinforcing the theory of conception.
For the court, there is no distinction between the stages of human development, consequently, the right to life must be protected from the beginning, considering in vitro fertilization techniques as an act that violates the dignity of the human person.
Among the victims of Costa Rican conduct, Ms. Grettel Artavia Murillo and Mr. Miguel Mejías Carballo stand out, who sought IVF to implement family planning after Mr. Mejías’ accident, which resulted in paraplegia. The couple found themselves unable to exercise their right because, in addition to national prohibitions, there were not enough financial resources to carry out the RHA techniques.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) was summoned in 2001, through a petition, and, in 2004, it approved the Merits Report nº 85/10, to verify whether the prohibition issued by the Costa Rican Court would be an arbitrary interference or not to the rights to privacy, family planning and equality. In the exercise of its institutional role, the Commission issued recommendations to the State to reverse the decision rendered, which was considered arbitrary. With the State’s denials, in 2011, the Commission submitted the situation to the analysis of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IAHR), through case No. , 11.2, 17.2, and 24, of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR).
In response, Costa Rica presented bills to regulate assisted human reproduction, which did not achieve the desired result, mainly due to the device that determined the forced implantation of embryos in women who opted for these techniques.
When analyzing the situation portrayed, the IAHR stated that the RHA techniques comprise methods of manipulation of genetic materials for human procreation, so that IVF manipulates them in the laboratory, consequently, the generated embryos can be implanted in the mother’s uterus.
The IAHR concluded that the conduct of the State of Costa Rica violated articles 5.1[11], 7[12], 11.2[13], and 17.2[14] concerning article 1.1[15], in addition to art. 4.1[16], all of the American Convention on Human Rights. On the occasion, he listed reparations to be made by the State, in addition to its international responsibility.
REFERENCES:
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. ItCHR. Case nº 12.361. Artavia Murillo et al. vs. Costa Rica, 2012. Available: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_257_por.pdf. Access: 5 abr. 2023.
LOUREIRO, C. R. O. M. S.; NUNES, I. V. O direito à vida e as pesquisas com células-tronco embrionárias à luz dos direitos humanos. Congresso Brasileiro de Direito Internacional (20:2021) Anais do XIX Congresso Brasilero de Direito Internacional. In: Direito internacional em expansão: Vol. 20 / [org.] Wagner Menezes. Belo Horizonte: Arraes Editores, 2021. cap. 9, p. 134-154.
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES. American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR – “Pact San Jose de Costa Rica”), 1969. Available: https://www.cidh.oas.org/basicos/portugues/c.convencao_americana.htm. Access: 5 abr. 2023.
- PACHECO TINEO FAMILY CASE V PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA AT THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS[17]
Written by Andressa Pimenta
For the Court, the argument prevailed that, even in the face of existing disagreements on the subject, whether in the moral, ethical, or scientific field, the beginning of life must consider the full development capacity of the embryo, whose initial milestone is a conception and consequent implantation of the embryo in the maternal uterus as an essential criterion. In addition, there was significant argumentation regarding the disproportionate restriction of the victims’ rights to freedom and self-determination.
The case of the Pacheco Tineo family v the Plurinational State of Bolivia analyzed at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is considered one of the main examples of human rights violations regarding the right of refugees. Briefly reviewing the context of the case, it is worth remembering that the Pacheco Tineo family, of Peruvian nationality, fled to Bolivia in search of protection and political asylum amidst a context of violence and persecution in Peru.
If we consider the Peruvian historical context, in the mid-1990s, the country was going through a period marked by violence and political persecution. Still, due to the consequences and constraints of the dictatorial period in Peru, conflicts in the final years of the 20th century reflected serious violations of human rights, such as murders, forced disappearances, torture, and other forms of violence. In the following case presented, Rumaldo Pacheco and Fredesvinda Tineo were accused, without evidence, by the Peruvian government of alleged crimes of terrorism in the early 1990s.
Thus, the Pacheco Tineo family alleged that they were the target of political persecution by the country’s authorities, and they ended up being detained in the early 1990s. After the couple’s acquittal, the family decided to seek protection in Bolivia, a country where they hoped to be a safer place for their children (Juana Guadalupe, Frida Edith, and Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo), also having the recognition of the National Refugee Commission, as refugees.
However, in December 2001, the Bolivian police detained the Pacheco Tineo family without any legal justification and deported them back to Peruvian territory. The deportation ended up being carried out without the family being able to exercise their right to request asylum or to undergo a legal procedure that would guarantee the protection of their rights. After the deportation, the family was once again subjected to an environment of violence and persecution in Peru, where their rights ended up being violated.
If we analyze the complaint presented to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, after the deportation to Peru, the family was still the target of serious violations. According to the facts presented, in addition to continuing to be targets of persecution, the family was threatened, interrogated, and had their home searched by the authorities without any type of court order.
In 2002, Rumaldo Pacheco and Fredesvinda Tineo filed a complaint against the Bolivian State at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, as the country violated rights provided for in the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), such as the right to request and receive asylum, the right to judicial protection, the right to personal freedom concerning movement and residence, in addition to the right to protection of children. In 2006, the Commission ended up presenting the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which would be responsible for judging the following case.
In November 2013, the Court ended up issuing its judgment in the case of Pacheco Tineo v Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia, in which it determined that Bolivia had violated the rights of the Pacheco Tineo family by deporting them back to Peru without granting minimal protection for the family. The Court also determined that Bolivia violated other rights provided for in the ACHR, such as the right to personal integrity and the right to judicial protection.
Consequently, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights established that Bolivia should make amends to the victims for the acts committed, in addition to the country having to adopt measures to ensure that similar cases do not happen again. In the sentence, the Court ordered the Bolivian State to adopt various measures to repair the human rights of the family, among them: carrying out an impartial investigation into the facts; the punishment of those responsible for the installments; the granting of financial compensation to the family, and finally, the adoption of measures to ensure that the case does not happen again shortly
REFERENCES:
MENESES, Alcebiades Meireles; SOUZA, Isabelle Louise Traub Soares de. A separação de crianças migrantes e a reunião familiar no sistema interamericano de direitos humanos. Cosmopolita, July 1, 2021. Available: https://www.cosmopolita.org/post/a-separa%C3%A7%C3%A3o-de-crian%C3%A7as-migrantes-ea-reuni%C3%A3o-familiar -no-sistema-interamericano-de-direitos-humanos. Access: 8 abr. 2023.
INTER´-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS. Admissibility and merits. Case 12.363, Pacheco Tineo et al. (Bolívia). Washington, DC: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 2011. Available: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2004eng/Bolivia.301.02eng.htm. Access: 9 apr. 2023.
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Case Pacheco Tineo et al. vs. Bolívia Judgement of July 25, 2018. San José: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2018. Available: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_272_ing.pdf. Access: 8 aOr. 2023.
SECTION 4: NEWS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
- INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONING[18]
Written by Guilherme Rodrigues da Silva
The European Union is currently made up of twenty-seven countries in Europe. Initially, the small block was composed of the following countries: Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. The UK decided to leave the European Union in June 2016.
The legislative, executive, as well as independent judicial systems and the central bank, make up the European Union. These are supported and complemented by several other institutions and bodies with attributions established in founding treaties.
Over the years and from the elaboration of treaties, the powers of the European Union have increased significantly, as well as the decision-making processes. The European Parliament and the Council also consider issues related to European Union policy. To achieve its objectives, the Union also has its budget. Under the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament and the Council have the prerogative to decide on equal terms over the entire budget of the European Union and the multiannual financial framework.
Thus, the main institutions and bodies that structure the European Union, responsible for its operation are (I) the European Parliament[19]; (II) the European Council[20]; (III) the Council of the European Union[21]; (IV) the European Commission[22]; (V) the Court of Justice of the European Union[23]; (VI) the European Central Bank[24]; (VII) the Court of Auditors[25]; (VIII) the European Economic and Social Committee[26]; (IX) the Committee of the Regions[27]; (X) the European Investment Bank[28]; and, (XI) the European Ombudsman[29].
Parliament[30] plays an institutional role in European policy-making through the exercise of its various functions. Parliament’s participation in the legislative process, its budgetary and control powers, its participation in the revision of the Treaties, and its right to intervene in cases submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union allow this body to ensure respect for the democratic principles to which European level.
The European Council[31] is made up of the Heads of State or Governments of the Member States. It is responsible for driving the development of the European Union and defining general policy guidelines. The Presidency of the Commission is still a member of the European Council, albeit without voting rights. The President of the Parliament, at the beginning of its meetings, addresses the European Council. Under the terms of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Council is an institution of the Union with a long-term presidency.
The Council of the European Union[32] is the institution that approves Union legislation through regulations and directives, as well as preparing non-binding decisions and recommendations, always with the European Parliament. In its areas of competence, the Board takes decisions – having to decide by simple majority, qualified majority, or unanimity – according to the legal basis of the act that requires its approval.
The European Commission[33] is the only institution that has the prerogative to initiate the legislative process with executive powers in areas such as competition and foreign trade. It is considered the executive body par excellence of the European Union, being formed by a college of commissioners and one commissioner per Member State. The Commission is responsible for overseeing the application of European Union law and respect for the Treaties, as well as for the Member States. He is also the chairman of the committees responsible for the application of European Union legislation.
The Court of Justice of the European Union[34] brings together two jurisdictions: the Court of Justice proper and the General Court. It is responsible for ensuring the correct interpretation and application of primary law and secondary law of the European Union itself. It supervises the legality of the institutions’ acts and has decision-making powers, especially about compliance by Member States with obligations arising from primary and secondary law. The Court of Justice also interprets European Union law at the request of national judges.
The European Central Bank[35] is the central institution of the Economic and Monetary Union, being responsible for monetary policy in the euro area since January 1, 1999. The European Central Bank and the national central banks of all Member States constitute the European System of Central Banks. The primary objective of the European System of Central Banks is to maintain price stability. Since 4 November 2014, the Central Bank has been entrusted with specific matters relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions within the scope of the Single Supervisory Mechanism. As a banking supervisor, the Bank also has an advisory role in assessing the resolution plans of credit institutions.
The European Court of Auditors[36] is responsible for auditing the finances of the European Union. As an external auditor, it contributes to the improvement of its financial management and acts as an independent guardian of the financial interests of Union citizens.
The European Economic and Social Committee[37] is an advisory body of the European Union, based in Brussels. It is composed of 329 members. Their consultation by the Commission, the Council, or the Parliament may be mandatory, in the areas laid down in the Treaties, or optional. It may also issue opinions on its initiative. Its members are not bound by any instructions. They exercise their functions with complete independence, in the general interest of the Union.
The Committee of the Regions[38] is made up of 329 members representing the regional and local authorities of the 27 Member States of the Union. It issues opinions in cases of mandatory consultation laid down by the Treaties, in cases of optional consultation, and on its initiative, when it deems it appropriate. Its members are not bound by any orders or instructions. They exercise their functions independently, in the general interest of the Union.
The European Investment Bank[39] promotes the objectives of the European Union by providing long-term finance and guarantees, as well as advising and supporting projects both inside and outside the Union. Its shareholders are the Member States. The Bank is the majority shareholder of the European Investment Fund and these two organizations together form the EIB Group. As part of the Commission’s Investment Plan for Europe, the EIB Group is part of a broader strategy aimed at overcoming the considerable investment deficit by relieving investors of some of the risks inherent in investments.
The European Ombudsman[40] carries out inquiries to clarify possible cases of maladministration in the actions of institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies of the European Union and his intervention occurs: on his initiative, through complaints presented by citizens of the Union, by any person – individual or collective – with residence or registered office in a Member State. Finally, the European Ombudsman is elected by the European Parliament for a mandate – five years – which lasts for the parliamentary term.
REFERENCES:
EUROPEAN UNION. Easy reading – The European Union. Available: https://european-union.europa.eu/easy-read_pt . Access: 24 Apr. 2023.
EUROPEAN UNION. European Ombudsman. Available: https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/institutions-and-bodies/institutions-and-bodies-profiles/european-ombudsman_pt#:~:text=O%20Provedor%20de %20Justi%C3%A7a%20European,or%20companiesestablished%20in%20EU. Access: 24 Apr. 2023.
2. EUROPEAN UNION SANCTIONS IN RESPONSE TO RUSSIA’S INVASION OF UKRAINE[41]
Written by Guilherme Rodrigues da Silva
The European Union adopted sanctions in response to Russia’s unprecedented and unprovoked military attack on Ukraine and the illegal annexation of the Ukrainian regions of Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporizhia, and Cherson. The measures were intended to weaken Russia’s economic base by depriving it of access to critical technologies and markets, to significantly reduce its ability to wage war.
The sanctions adopted against Russia can be divided into four categories: (I) sanctions against individuals and entities; (II) economic sanctions; (III) restrictions on the media; and, (IV) greater rigor in issuing visas.
Concerning sanctions against individuals and entities, asset freezes and travel bans have occurred. These measures were applied to the following Russian citizens: President Vladimir Putin; Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov; the oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin; businessmen Viktor and Oleksandr Yanukovych; members of the Russian State Duma; the members of the Russian National Security Council; as well as other military personnel and high-ranking officials, among other businessmen, propagandists, and oligarchs.
Other prohibitive measures were also applied, such as the freezing of assets belonging to both the private and state spheres. Thus, assets are owned by banks and financial institutions, companies in the military and defense sector, companies in the field of aviation, shipbuilding, machine building, armed forces, and paramilitary groups, political parties, as well as media organizations responsible for Russian propaganda and disinformation.
As for economic sanctions, these were adopted through measures that directly influenced sectors such as finance[42], transport[43], energy[44], defense[45], raw materials, and other goods[46] and services[47].
Media restrictions included the suspension of broadcasting activities in the European Union of some Russian media. They are Sputnik and Russia Today, as well as their respective affiliates; Rossiya RTR / RTR Planeta; Rossiya 24 / Russia 24; Rossiya 1; TV Center International; NTV / NTV Mir; RENTV; and, Pervyi Kanal. About the analysis and issuance of visas, the agreement between the European Union and Russia was suspended, as well as the suspension of provisions relating to facilitation and procedures that favored their granting to Russian diplomats and businessmen.
REFERENCES:
UROPEAN UNION. EU response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Available: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/pt/policies/eu-response-ukraine-invasion/#:~:text=Em%2013%20de%20abril%20de,e%20a%20independ% C3%AAncia%20da%20Ucr%C3%A2nia.. Access: 24 Apr. 2023.
EUROPEAN UNION. EU restrictive measures against Russia regarding Ukraine – since 2014. Available: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/restrictive-measures-against-russia-over-ukraine/# :~:text=Since%20mar%C3%A7o%20de%202014%20that,Donetsk%2C%20Lugansk%2C%20Zapor%C3%ADjia%20e%20Qu%C3%A9rson. Access: 24 Apr. 2023.
EUROPEAN UNION. EU sanctions against Russia explained. Available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/pt/policies/sanctions/restrictive-measures-against-russia-over-ukraine/sanctions-against-russia-explained/. Access: 24 Apr. 2023.
EUROPEAN UNION. Infographic – EU sanctions against Russia over Ukraine – since 2014. Available: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/eu-sanctions-against-russia-over-ukraine/. Access: 01 may. 2023.
EUROPEAN UNION. EU sanctions against Russia following the invasion of Ukraine. Available at: https://eu-solidarity-ukraine.ec.europa.eu/eu-sanctions-against-russia-following-invasion-ukraine_pt. Access: 24 Apr. 2023.
[1] Text translated into English by Daniel Urias Pereira Feitoza, Federal University of Uberlândia Jean Monnet’s Chair Researcher.
[2] Text translated into English by Daniel Urias Pereira Feitoza, Federal University of Uberlândia Jean Monnet’s Chair Researcher.
[3] Available: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000000417977/. Access 07 jul. 2021.
[4] Available: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000022911670/. Acesso em 07 jul. 2021.
[5] Available: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{“itemid”:[“003-2569490-2781270%23”]}. Access: 07 jul. 2021.
[6] Available: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{“itemid”:[“003-2569490-2781270%23”]}. Access: 07 jul. 2021.
[7] Available: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_por.pdf. Access: 07 jul 2021.
[8] Available: //www.legislationline.org/download/id/4592/file/ECHR_case_EL%20MORSLI%20v.%20FRANCE_2008_en.pdf. Access: 07 jul. 2021.
[9] Available: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_por.pdf. Access: 07 jul 2021.
[10] Text translated into English by Daniel Urias Pereira Feitoza, Federal University of Uberlândia Jean Monnet’s Chair Researcher.
[11] “Art. 5.1, ACHR – “Every person has the right to have his physical, mental and moral integrity respected.”
[12] Art. 7, ACHR – “1. Everyone has the right to personal liberty and security.
2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for t beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto.”
[13] Art. 11.2, ACHR – “No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation.”
[14] Art. 17.2, ACHR- “The right ht of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to raise a family shall be recognized, if they meet the conditions required by domestic laws, insofar as such conditions do not affect the principle of nondiscrimination established in this Convention.”
[15] Art. 1.1, ACHR – “The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.”
[16] Art. 4.1, ACHR – “Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”
[17] Text translated into English by Daniel Urias Pereira Feitoza, Federal University of Uberlândia Jean Monnet’s Chair Researcher.
[18] Text translated into English by Daniel Urias Pereira Feitoza, Federal University of Uberlândia Jean Monnet’s Chair Researcher.
[19] Access the European Parliament website at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en.
[20] Access the European Council website: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/pt/european-council/.
[21] Access the website of the Council of the European Union: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/pt/.
[22] Access the European Commission website: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/pt/.
[23] Access the website of the Court of Justice of the European Union: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo1_6308/fr/.
[24] Access the website of the European Central Bank: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/home/html/index.pt.html.
[25] Access the website of the Court of Auditors: https://www.eca.europa.eu/pt/Pages/ecadefault.aspx.
[26] Access the website of the European Economic and Social Committee: https://www.eesc.europa.eu/pt.
[27] Access the website of the Committee of the Regions: https://cor.europa.eu/pt.
[28] Visit the European Investment Bank website: https://www.eib.org/en/index.htm.
[29] Access the website of the European Ombudsman: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/pt/home.
[30] It finds its legal basis in articles 223 to 234, and 314, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
[31] It finds its legal basis in articles 13, 15, 26, 27 and 42, paragraph 2, of the Treaty on European Union.
[32] Within the single institutional framework of the European Union, the Council exercises the powers entrusted by Article 16 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 237 to 243 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
[33] Its legal basis is dictated by Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union, Articles 234, 244 to 250, 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the European Communities (Treaty of Fusion).
[34] Legal basis found in article 19 of the Treaty on European Union; articles 251 to 281 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; Article 136 of the Euratom Treaty and Protocol No. 3 annexed to the Treaties relating to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union; Regulation 2015/2422, of the European Parliament and the Council, of 16 December 2015, which amends Protocol No. 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union; and, section 4, of the budget of the European Union.
[35] Its legal basis is Articles 3 and 13 of the Treaty on European Union. The main provisions can be found in article 3, paragraph 1, letter c); Articles 119, 123, 127 to 134, 138 to 144, 219 and 282 to 284 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is also important to mention Protocol No. 4 on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and the European Central Bank, and Protocol No. 16 on certain provisions concerning Denmark, both annexes to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Regulation No. 1024/2013, of the Council, of 15 October 2013, confers specific powers on the European Central Bank with regard to policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (SSM Regulation). Regulation no. 806/2014, of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 15 July 2014, establishes uniform rules and procedures for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms (Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation ( MUR).
[36] Legal basis in Articles 285 to 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Also, in Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046, of the European Parliament and of the Council, of July 18, 2018, on the financial provisions applicable to the general budget of the Union (notably in Title XIV on external audit and discharge).
[37] The Committee’s legal basis is found in article 13, paragraph 4, of the Treaty on European Union; in articles 300 to 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; in Decision (EU) 2019/853, of the Council, which determines the composition of the European Economic and Social Committee and subsequent decisions of the Council, which appoint the members of the European Economic and Social Committee proposed by different Member States; in Council Decision 2020/1932, which appoints the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period between 21 September 2020 and 20 September 2025.
[38] It is provided for in article 13, paragraph 4, of the Treaty on European Union; in articles 300 and 305 to 307 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; and several Council decisions appointing members and alternates to the Committee, on a proposal from Member States, for a 5-year term.
[39] Legal basis in Articles 20, 24 and 228 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 43 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The status and functions of the European Ombudsman were defined in the decision of the European Parliament of March 9, 1994, adopted after consulting the European Commission and with the approval of the Council of the European Union. The European Ombudsman subsequently adopted implementing provisions relating to this decision. The decision was revoked and replaced by a regulation of the European Parliament of 24 June 2021, following the same procedure. Rules 231 to 233 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament set out the procedures relating to the election and dismissal of the European Ombudsman.
[40] Banning access to SWIFT for ten Russian banks; restrictions on Russia’s access to EU financial and capital markets and services; prohibition of carrying out transactions with the Central Bank of Russia; banning the supply of euro banknotes to Russia; and, ban on providing cryptocurrency wallet services to Russian citizens.
[41] Text translated into English by Daniel Urias Pereira Feitoza, Federal University of Uberlândia Jean Monnet’s Chair Researcher.
[42] Banning access to SWIFT for ten Russian banks; restrictions on Russia’s access to EU financial and capital markets and services; prohibition of carrying out transactions with the Central Bank of Russia; banning the supply of euro banknotes to Russia; and, ban on providing cryptocurrency wallet services to Russian citizens.
[43] Closure of EU airspace to all Russian aircraft; closure of European Union ports to Russian ships; ban on entry into the European Union for Russian road transport operators; prohibition of the maritime transport of Russian oil to third countries; and, prohibition of the export to Russia of goods and technologies for use in the space, maritime and aviation sectors.
[44] Ban on the import of oil and coal from Russia; setting a price cap related to the maritime transport of Russian oil; banning the export of goods and technologies to Russia for use in the oil refining sector; prohibition of new investments in Russia’s energy and mining sectors; and, ban on making gas storage capacity available to Russian citizens.
[45] Ban on the export to Russia of: dual-use goods and technologies for military use, drone engines, civilian weapons and firearms, ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, and paramilitary equipment.
[46] Ban on the export of luxury goods to Russia; ban on importing from Russia: steel, iron, cement and asphalt, wood, paper, synthetic rubber and plastic, seafood, spirits, cigarettes and cosmetics, gold, including jewelry.
[47] Prohibition of providing the following services to Russia or to Russian citizens: architectural and engineering services computer consulting services and legal advice services advertising services, market research and opinion polls.
