CYIL vol. 10 (2019)

ELENA JÚDOVÁ CYIL 10 ȍ2019Ȏ the Brussels II.bis Regulation, which was emphasized by the above-mentioned decision of the CJ EU. As regards to the equivalence of protection of human rights by the European Union, the Court simply stated that this condition has been fulfilled. 30 Thus, it remained to assess the existence or non-existence of a third condition. Here, however, the Court also had no doubts that the protection of the applicants’ human rights was available and sufficient, since, although the Austrian courts couldn´t take into account the applicants’ objection, there was still a possibility to present them before the Italian court, and subsequently, in case of failure, to put forward their rights under the European Convention in an application against Italy. 31 In view of the above, Austria was not found to have breached the European Convention. 6. … and is it really not responsible? The Court decision seemingly opens up a free (and unlimited ?) space for Euro-Union cooperation in cross-border legal relations, based on mutual trust in the judicial systems of the Member States, of which one of the main results should be the free movement of judicial decisions in the EU. At a first glance this conclusion is supported, even strengthened, by the judgment in Avotinš v. Latvia. 32 The Court here for the first time was deciding on the situation concerning the principle of mutual recognition in the EU. Moreover, this decision came after Opinion 2/13 of the CJ EU, in which the CJ EU rejected the accession of the EU to the European Convention, pointing out the doubts that the principle of mutual trust between EU Member States could be undermined by the requirements imposed on Member States by the Convention. 33 Although the Court, Grand Chamber, by a convincing majority, sixteen votes to one, decided that Latvia had not violated the applicant´s right to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention by recognizing the Cypriot judgment in default, the Court made the EU human rights protection mechanism subject to a much more detailed survey than in the case of Povse . 34 30 Povse against Austria , § 77: „ the Court reiterates, firstly, that it has already found that the protection of fundamental rights afforded by the European Union is in principle equivalent to that of the Convention system as regards both the substantive guarantees offered and the mechanisms controlling their observance. In respect of the latter aspect, the Court had particular regard to the role of the European Court of Justice “. However, already in the case of Bosphorus , 7 judges expressed doubts about the possibility of generally state that the EU fulfilled this condition, expressing in particular their doubts about the possibility of individual application of individual human rights – Joint concurring Opinion of judges Rozakis, Tulkens, Traja, Botoucharova, Zagrebelsky and Garlicki a Concurring opinion of judge Ress (Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int). See also SAKTOROVÁ, Ľ.: Systémy ochrany medzinárodných ľudských práv a slobôd v rámci Organizácie spojených národov. [Protection systems of international human rights and freedoms within the United Nations] In.: Visegrad Journal on Human Rights vol. 4 (1) 2018, p. 130. 31 Compare Šneersone and Kampanella v. Italy, no 14737/09, ECHR 2011 (Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int). 32 Avotin š v. Latvia [GC], no 17502/07, ECHR 2016 (Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int). 33 See Opinion of the Court of 18 December 2014, Opinion 2/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454, §§ 192-193. SIMAN M. Právne otázky súvisiace s pristúpením Európskej únie k Dohovoru.[ Legal issues relating to the accession of the European Union to the Convention]. In: Ľudské práva v súčasnom globalizovanom svete. Bratislava : Lonfinger, 2012, p. 47 et seq. 34 See especially §§ 101-112 of the Judgment.

430