Avotiŋš v. Latvia
Zdeněk Nový
Public International Law: Alternative Seminar

Three cases
oBosphorus v. Ireland
oMichaud v. France
oAvotiŋš v. Latvia
o

Bosphorus presumption
oMeaning?
oConditions?

The so-called Bosphorus presumption
oThe protection of rights guaranteed in the ECHR by EU law is equivalent (comparable) to the
protection given by the ECHR (and the ECoHR)

Why the Avotiŋš case is important
oDelivered after the 2/13 CJEU Opinion
oGrand Chamber (16 to 1 vote)

Facts
oThe recognition and enforcement of a judgment under the Brussels I Regulation when allegedly the
right to a fair trial of the obligated subject was breached

The evaluation by the ECHR
oFair hearing and mutual trust
oArt. 52 (3) EU Charter ensures equvivalent protection
o“Margin of manouevre“
o“Deployment of the full potential of the supervisory mechanism“

Cont.
oThe request of preliminary ruling as an  integral part of the evaluation of the breach of the
right to a fair trial
o

Rebuttal of the Bosphorus presumption
oThe protection of the ECHR rights “manifestly deficient”
oIs mutual trust reconcilble with the ECHR?
oToo mechanical application of the exceptions to mutual trust – burden of proof (art. 34 odst. 2
Brussels I Reg.)

No ECHR breach found
oA specific case argument