This chapter argues against the common consensus regarding the EU 14’s measures against Austria in 2000 by not only retracing the core part of the story but also extending the perspectives on the year 2000 to the past and the future. First, the chapter analyses the historical dimension of Haider’s Freedom Party and the political relevance of the developments in the year 2000 from an Austrian perspective. The chapter contends that the EU did not learn effectively from the measures and failed to develop proper institutional and procedural mechanisms to deal with the questioning of basic values by a Member State. Hereafter, the chapter looks critically back on the participation of the Freedom Party in the Austrian government and the effects of Jörg Haider to Rule of Law and democracy in Austria. Emphasis is placed in acknowledging the different layers of the narrative on the EU 14’s measures.

No abstract

The report shows that the Austrian constitutional framework is composed of a range of domestic and international instruments. The core constitutional act from 1920 is detailed, as are amendments regarding EU and international law. However, the 1867 State Basic Law provides only a generic bill of rights, and therefore the ECHR is the main, constitutionalised source of fundamental rights protection. The Constitutional Court reads the relevant provisions from the different instruments together, to provide a comprehensive protection. Earlier, the constitutional culture had been characterised as formalistic; this changed in the 1980s under the influence of the German Constitutional Court and the ECtHR towards a strict approach to the rule of law and rights. Constitutional review is marked by the principles of legality and reasonability. It is notable that several cases at the heart of the present research project have originated from Austrian courts, such as Data Retention (Seitlinger), Heinrich, Schmidberger and Weidacher. Regarding the European Arrest Warrant, the Austrian courts stand out with a rights-protective approach. The challenge to the ESM Treaty led to constitutional amendments that ensure parliamentary authorisation for increased expenditure. The report outlines areas where EU law has improved fundamental rights protection as well as those where it has been weakened. The report makes a case for retaining the pluralism and diversity of constitutional cultures, finding that it is necessary to see the incommensurability of the various legal traditions and the impracticability of attempting to unify all traditions in one common constitutional tradition.

No abstract

This collection presents a comparative analysis of the principle of effective legal protection in administrative law in Europe. It examines how European states con sider and enforce the related requirements in their domestic administrative law. The book is divided into three parts: the first comprises a theoretical introductory chap ter along with perspectives from International and European Law; part two presents 15 individual country reports on the principle of effective legal protection in mostly EU member states. The core function of the reports is to provide an analysis of the domestic instruments and procedures. Adopting a contextual approach, they con sider the historical, political and legal circumstances as well as analysing the relevant case law of the domestic courts; the third part provides a comparative analysis of the country reports. The final chapter assesses the influence and relevance of EU law and the ECHR. The book thus identifies the most important trends and makes a valu able contribution to the debate around convergence and divergence in European national administrative systems.