Éditorial 385 De quoi le « Brexit » est- il le nom ? par Florence Chaltiel Régime linguistique 388 Le régime linguistique applicable aux relations entre les institutions et les fonctionnaires et autres agents de l’Union européenne par Fabrice Andreone Droits fondamentaux 398 Après l’avis 2/ 13 de la Cour de justice par Christophe Maubernard 400 Le rôle de la Charte dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne depuis l’avis 2/ 13 : vers un modus vivendi avec le droit de la Convention ? par Romain Tinière 406 La protection des données à caractère personnel en droit européen par Christophe Maubernard 416 Un destin divergent : les relations entre l’Union européenne et la Charte sociale européenne par Carole Nivard 426 Des réponses potentielles de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme à l’avis 2/ 13 par Caroline Picheral Droit constitutionnel européen 436 « Peuple ou Peuples européen( s) » ? – Deuxième partie par Sylvie Torcol, Selma Josso, Hélène Hurpy et Gaëlle Marti Note de lecture 448 Le multilinguisme dans l'Union européenne, Isabelle Pingel ( dir.) par Florence Chaltiel THE LINGUISTIC REGIME APPLICABLE TO RELATIONS BETWEEN THE INSTITUTIONS AND CIVIL SERVANTS AND OTHER AGENTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION by Fabrice Andreone p. 388 Languages constitute an issue of the highest rank inside the European Union ( EU), both for member states and for citizens. Also, re-cent developments in the linguistic practices of the Union and its bodies witness to the re-lationship of forces inside the European community. If the problem of languages in-side the EU has been studied, in an in depth manner, by legal theory, one of its aspects has remained largely ignored: the linguistic regime applicable to the relations between the institutions and European civil ser-vants. To approach this problem as a whole, this text first examines the legal framework applicable to this matter, then the case law of the community judge in the area. THE ROLE OF THE CHARTER IN THE CASE LAW OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION SINCE THE 2/ 13 OPINION: TOWARDS A MODUS VIVENDI WITH THE LAW OF THE CONVENTION? by Romain Tinière p. 400 The 2/ 13 opinion reflects more the evolu-tion of the respective place of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the Charter in the case law of the Court of Jus-tice of the Union which it has not really in-fluenced. A study of case law subsequent to this opinion, far from showing the pursuit of the empowerment in European Union law of fundamental rights, points rather to the search for a modus vivendi with the law of the Convention. PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION IN EUROPEAN LAW FROM PRIVATE LIFE TO PRIVATE DIGITAL LIFE by Christophe Maubernard p. 406 The right to the protection of personal data is dedicated to article 8 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. Different from respect for private life, in spite of its closed link with it, and not ex-pressly enshrined by the European Conven-tion on Human Rights, the protection of personal data appears as a key right in a di-gital world. Going beyond the case- law of the Court of Strasbourg, the Court of justice has the opportunity to reconcile the protec-tion of fundamental rights with economic freedoms on which digital activities are founded. Much more than the question of accession of the European Union to the Eu-ropean Convention on Human Rights re-mains the problematic of a new catalogue of rights for a new society. A DIVERGENT DESTINY: THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER by Carole Nivard p. 416 Relationships between the European Social Charter and the European Union strongly differ from the ones between this last orga-nization and the European Convention on Human rights. The Charter is an underva-lued source of inspiration of EU law and contradictions between their standards of protection already appeared and could in-crease in the future. However, an accession of the European Union to the Charter ap-pears legally less problematic even if not po-litically wished.. SOME POTENTIAL RESPONSES OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS TO THE 2/ 13 OPINION by Caroline Picheral p. 426 If the 2/ 13 opinion has not aroused imme-diate and express reactions in the Euro-pean common law on human rights, its meaning and its scope nonetheless raise the question of a possible « palliative » reaction from the Strasbourg Court. In this perspective, an extension of the control of the Union’s law with respect to the ECHR appears however operationally difficult when in the absence of adhesion, the com-petence of the Court must be justified with respect to the responsibility of the states. On the other hand, even before the judge of the Convention has shown any spirit of reconciliation, in the recent Grand Cham-ber ruling Avotins v. Latvia, a deepening of the control exerted on the national acts of implementation of EU law could seem problematic. “ PEOPLE OR EUROPEAN PEOPLES”? THE UNDISCOVERABLE EUROPEAN PEOPLE. JURISPRUDENTIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH – SECOND PART by Sylvie Torcol, Selma Josso p. 436 Hélène Hurpy and Gaëlle Marti Is it not incongruous, indeed, provocative to ponder today again, and in a particular context of identitarian closure, on the pos-sibility of a European People? Particularly since the previous report did not allow any response to be made. It is consequently the European judges and institutions who continue the search. The authors of the re-port here give us the result of original re-search in the common law of the Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights. But the European People remains « undiscoverable » . In the end, it seems that « civil society » has supplanted the Euro-pean People, at least in the institutional lan-guage. If opinion 2/ 13 has not aroused any immediate and express reactions in the Eu-ropean common law of human rights, its meaning and scope has nonetheless raised the question of a possible « palliative » reac-tion from the Strasbourg Court. In this pers-pective, an extension of the control of the Union’s law with respect to the ECHR ap-pears however operationally difficult when in the absence of adhesion, the competence of the Court must be justified with respect to the responsibility of the states. On the other hand, even before the judge of the Convention has shown any spirit of recon-ciliation, in the recent Grand Chamber ru-ling Avotins v. Latvia, a deepening of the control exerted on the national acts of im-plementation of EU law could seem proble-matic.
