{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023614895549500452, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01634877384196185, 'mean_word_length': 4.956756756756757, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Lack of Effective Remedies at the European Court of Human Rights after Opinion 2/13

This article investigates whether, after Opinion 2/13,1 victims have effective means of redress at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) when the European Union (EU) violates their fundamental rights. In Opinion 2/13, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) dismissed the Draft revised agreement on the accession of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Draft Agreement),2 which was the product of more than four years of negotiations between the European Commission (EC) and the Council of Europe. A number of human rights and EU scholars have already analysed the detrimental consequences that Opinion 2/13 may have on the institutional relationship between the EU and the Council of Europe.3 What receives less attention is that the Draft Agreement, if effective, would have entitled victims of human rights abuses to file complaints against the EU at the ECtHR. This article analyses what avenues Opinion 2/13 left for perspective I.