This technique is probably the one that implies the highest degree of interference of supranational/international law in the domestic legal orders of the Member States, as it requires national judges to set aside a domestic norm conflicting with EU law, the ECtHR or international law. Thus, it presupposes an assessment of incompatibility between the national provision and the relevant supranational/international norm. The determined incompatibility of a national norm with the European level norm that could lead to disapplication of a national norm does not render the latter provision void. It merely precludes its application in specific cases. The implications of disapplication on the life of the disapplied domestic provision is not regulated by international/supranational law, which rather leaves this issue to be dealt with under national law.
Categories: United Kingdom - Ordinary Court - Non-discrimination - Art. 21 - Non-discrimination - Art. 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial - Art. 6 - Right to a fair trial - CharterClick
Categories: Romania - National Courts - Ordinary Court - Art. 7 - Respect for private and family life - Art. 17 - Right to property - Art. 21 - Non-discrimination - Gender - Art. 48 - Presumption of innocence and right of defence - Art. 8 - Right to respect for private and family life - Art. 14 - Prohibition of discrimination - Protocol 12 Art.1 - General prohibition of discrimination
Categories: Romania - Court of Justice of European Union - Constitutional Court - Supreme Court - Ordinary Court - Criminal law - Art. 5 - Right to liberty and security - Art. 6 - Right to a fair trial
Project implemented with financial support of the Fundamental Rights & Citizenship Programme of the European Union