scroll to top
0

Mobile Menu

Header Layout

EBSCO Auth Banner

Let's find your institution. Click here.

Page title

How to Deal with Really Good Bad-Faith Interpreters: M.A. v Denmark

Additional Information
Ubiquity Press, 2022.
2022
LCC:Law
LCC:Law of Europe
Can a State that no-longer officially pursues an integration agenda for a group of refugees claim integration as a legitimate aim to interfere with the fundamental rights of said group? If domestic courts’ careful consideration of international human rights law and practice widens the State’s margin of appreciation, is it then narrowed when States ignore national and international organisations’ warnings of non-compliance with human rights law? Can the European Court of Human Rights refer to EU-law to establish the existence of a European consensus when the respondent State in question has opted out of EU-regulation in the area? The Grand Chamber judgment M.A. v Denmark from 9 July 2021 raises these questions but answers only some. This article aims, through an analysis of M.A. v Denmark and its political and legal background, to seek some answers in this carefully worded judgment.
electronic resource
2053-5341
https://www.utrechtjournal.org/articles/563; https://doaj.org/toc/2053-5341
10.5334/ujiel.563
edsdoj.0e2aa7ace76e4786adc7c6e2e07489de

banner_970x250 (970x250)

sponsored