English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Just before Christmas 2014, the CJEU unexpectedly put a stop to the EU’s accession to the ECHR. Several developments since then seem to suggest that we might have entered a new period of increasing tensions between both courts. These tensions warrant the question as to whether Opinion 2/13 has led to a changing dialogue or interaction between both courts. Opinion 2/13 could easily be interpreted as an illustration of the increasing alleingang of the CJEU whereby the CJEU primarily tries to come up with its own autonomous interpretation on the basis of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, thereby sidelining the ECHR and the case law of ECtHR. But is it truly so that the CJEU has begun to cite the ECtHR less often and in different ways since Opinion 2/13? This chapter examines the case law of the CJEU after Opinion 2/13 in order to identify how the CJEU has dealt with the jurisprudence from Strasbourg and whether there has been a marked change since Opinion 2/13.

The CJEU's Reliance on the Case Law by the ECtHR since 2015: Opinion 2/13 as a Game Changer?