Senior Lecturer
(Currently on sabbatical 2016/2017)

PhD (Dr. iur. Erlangen 2009); Second State Examination (Bavaria 2006); First State Examination (Bavaria 2004); Diploma in Common Law (NUI 2001); Rechtsanwalt (German barrister/solicitor, OLG Nürnberg)
View my full research profile

Biography

Tobias Lock joined Edinburgh Law School as a lecturer in EU Law in 2013 and was promoted to Senior Lecturer in 2016.

He is also a co-director of the Europa Institute.

Tobias' previous places of work included University College London, the University of Surrey and the University of Erlangen (Germany), where he also received most of his legal education. 

He is admitted to the German bar as Rechtsanwalt.

Willingness to take Ph.D. students: Yes

Current Research Interests

Tobias’ research interest lies broadly speaking in the EU’s multilevel relations with other legal orders. His main focus is on courts as frontline actors in this plural legal environment. He has published two books on the relations between the European Court of Justice and international courts and has done much work on the relationship between the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular the EU’s accession to the Convention. 

Tobias' research in this regard has recently been dominated by the many legal questions surrounding 'Brexit'.

Tobias also works on the application of European law and legal remedies by national courts in different Member States with a particular focus on the UK and Germany. This allows him to combine his interest in comparative law with that in European law. As part of this research he published an article on Member State liability in the national courts and another article addressing the differences in the application of the law on belief discrimination in England and Germany.  His other other research interests include EU constitutional law; (comparative) German constitutional law, and law and religion.

Much of his work is accessible on his SSRN page and via the Edinburgh Research explorer.

Tobias welcomes enquiries from potential students interested in undertaking research degrees in any of these fields.

He contributes regularly to parliamentary and government enquiries, has drafted policy papers, and was the UK national rapporteur on fundamental rights for the FIDE 2012 congress. 

Websites

Dr Tobias Lock's Homepage at Edinburgh Law School

Courses Taught

EU Constitutional Law (LLM)

Human Rights Law in Europe (LLM)

EU Law (Honours)

European Union Law A (Ordinary)

PhD Supervisees

Emily Hancox  'The Interplay between Norms in the EU Legal Order: Implications for the Scope of EU Law'

Mihail Vatsov  'Multidimensional External Common Fisheries Policy'

Books and Reports

Tobias Lock, The Human Rights Implications of the European Union Referendum, (Scottish Human Rights Commission, 2016)

Tobias Lock, The European Court of Justice and International Courts, (Oxford University Press, 2015)
Abstract: The Court of Justice of the European Union has exclusive jurisdiction over European Union law and holds a broad interpretation of these powers. This, however, may come into conflict with the jurisdiction of other international courts and tribunals, especially in the context of so-called mixed agreements. While the CJEU considers these 'integral parts' of EU law, other international courts will also have jurisdiction in such cases. This book explores the conundrum of shared jurisdiction, analysing the international legal framework for the resolution of such conflicts, and provides a critical and comprehensive analysis of the CJEU's far-reaching jurisdiction, suggesting solutions to this dilemma. The book also addresses the special relationship between the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights. The unique interaction between these two bodies raises fundamental substantive concerns about overlaps of jurisdiction and interpretation in the courts. Conflicts of interpretation manage largely to be avoided by frequent cross-referencing, which also allows for much cross-fertilization in the development of European human rights law. The link between these two courts is the subject of the final section of the book.

Tobias Lock, Kanstantin Dzehtsiarou, Paul Johnson, Fiona De Londras, Alan Greene, Ed Bates, The legal implications of a repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 and withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, (Social Science Research Network (SSRN), 2015)
Abstract: The UK general election of 7 May 2015 has returned a Conservative government so that the Conservative Party’s plans for reforming human rights law in the United Kingdom are likely to become reality. It is therefore important to discuss some of the legal implications a repeal of the Human Rights Act and withdrawal from the ECHR might bring. This policy paper is the product of a one-day workshop held at Edinburgh Law School on 13 February attended by Ed Bates, Christine Bell, Colm O’Cinneide, Fiona de Londras, Sir David Edward, Alan Greene, Paul Johnson, Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou and Tobias Lock.Key findings include: Any attempt to repeal and/or replace the Human Rights Act would have to take into account the devolution settlement. A repeal of the Human Rights Act might require the consent of the devolved legislatures under the Sewel Convention. A repeal would at present run counter to the UK’s international treaty obligations under the British-Irish Agreement which was incorporated in, and agreed as part of the UK-Ireland obligations under the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. A new Bill of Rights may require the consent of the devolved legislatures.If the Human Rights Act were not replaced, individuals would still be able to rely on common law remedies, as far as they exist, as well as the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in cases in which the UK has acted within the scope of EU law. Hence, in some areas repealing of the Human Rights Act without more will not lead to the ‘regaining of sovereignty’ anticipated by the proponents of such proposals.A replacement of the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights would enable Parliament to provide for the protection of additional rights, such as a right to trial by jury. It would also allow Parliament to introduce certain procedural changes, such as no longer making it mandatory for courts ‘to take into account’ the case law of the European Court of Human Rights or to read legislation ‘as far as it is possible to do so’ compatibly with Convention rights. It should be noted, however, that the Supreme Court has relaxed the conditions under which courts are required to follow the European Court of Human Rights and that a removal of these requirements could result in an increased number of cases brought against the UK in the European Court of Human Rights.A complete withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights would deprive people in the UK from the possibility of bringing their human rights complaints to the European Court of Human Rights. However, it would not relieve the UK of the duty to comply with judgments already handed down by the European Court of Human Rights, for instance on prisoner voting. The UK would also be setting a negative example so that the protection of human rights within Europe as a whole would suffer. Withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights is technically possible with six months’ notice, however it would lead to wider consequences for the UK’s other international commitments. Long-term membership of the Council of Europe may become impossible. A withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights may be incompatible with the UK’s commitments as a member of the European Union. Withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights could also result in a substantial reduction of human rights protection for minority and vulnerable groups in the UK.

Tobias Lock, Kanstantin Dzehtsiarou, Theodore Konstadinides, Noreen O'Meara, Human Rights Law in Europe: The Influence, Overlaps and Contradictions of the EU and the ECHR, (Routledge, 2014)
Abstract: This book provides analysis and critique of the dual protection of human rights in Europe by assessing the developing legal relationship between the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The book offers a comprehensive consideration of the institutional framework, adjudicatory approaches, and the protection of material rights within the law of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It particularly explores the involvement and participation of stakeholders in the functioning of the EU and the ECtHR, and asks how well the new legal model of ‘the EU under the ECtHR’ compares to current EU law, the ECHR and general international law.Including contributions from leading scholars in the field, each chapter sets out specific case-studies that illustrate the tensions and synergies emergent from the EU-ECHR relationship. In so doing, the book highlights the overlap and dialectic between Europe’s two primary international courts. The book will be of great interest to students and researchers of European Law and Human Rights.

Tobias Lock, Das Verhältnis zwischen dem EuGH und internationalen Gerichten, (Mohr Siebeck Gmbh & Co, 2010)
Abstract: The growing number of international courts and tribunals has led to conflicts of jurisdiction and conflicts of interpretation. Due to the European Union’s increasing activity on an international level, the European Court of Justice has been affected by these conflicts. Before the background of the ECJ’s exclusive jurisdiction, the book discusses the relationship between the European Court and international courts, and examines whether the solutions found in international law can be applied to the ECJ.

Articles

Tobias Lock, 'The EU Accession to the ECHR, by Vassiliki Kosta et al ', (2016), European Law Review, Vol 41, pp 289

Tobias Lock, 'The future of the European Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights after Opinion 2/13: is it still possible and is it still desirable?', (2015), European Constitutional Law Review, Vol 11, pp 239-273
Abstract: EU Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights – Hurdles erectedby Opinion 2/13 of 18 December 2014 – Analysis of soundness of the ECJ’sreasoning – Discussion of necessary changes to the Draft Accession Agreement –Criticism that not all obstacles can be removed by amending the DraftAgreement – Treaty change may be necessary – Question whether accession isworth it from a human rights perspective under these conditions.

Tobias Lock, 'The Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights by Paul Gragl ', (2013), Yearbook of European Law, Vol 32, pp 535-37

Tobias Lock, 'European Constitutional Law by Robert Schütze ', (2013), Yearbook of European Law, Vol 32, pp 501-03

Tobias Lock, 'Are there Exceptions to a Member State's Duty to Comply with the Requirements of a Directive? ', (2013), Common Market Law Review, Vol 50, pp 217-30
Abstract: This decision by the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice is characterized by an unusual factual situation resulting in a legal dilemma for the referring court. That court had to decide whether to annul a programme adopted in accordance with one EU directive because no environmental assessment had been carried out as required by another directive. The problem was that if the programme were annulled, the Member State would be in breach of the first directive; whereas if it was upheld the breach of the other directive would persist. The judgment raises important questions of national procedural autonomy, whether procedural requirements can be overridden by substantive considerations and, more generally, whether there is a right for Member States to derogate from directives. It is argued that by allowing the Member State to temporarily uphold the validity of the programme the Court has reached the correct conclusion, albeit on the basis of an unsatisfactory argument.

Tobias Lock, 'Religious Freedom and Belief Discrimination in Germany and the United Kingdom: Towards a Common European Standard?', (2013), European Law Review, Vol 38, pp 655-76
Abstract: This article compares how two closely related remedies, freedom of religion and belief discrimination, are applied by domestic courts in the United Kingdom and Germany. It concludes that the current practice of the courts in these two countries differs considerably and questions why this is so, given that the courts in both countries operate under essentially the same European legal framework determined by the ECHR and EU law. It is suggested that decision-making by domestic courts is still influenced by traditional domestic remedies and that domestic courts seem to find it difficult to adapt new remedies. The article then gauges the potential for a common European approach, which, while theoretically possible, is unlikely to be triggered by either of the two European Courts. This is because cases dealing with religion often touch on core constitutional values, with both Courts usually respect.

Tobias Lock, 'Is Private Enforcement of EU Law through State Liability a Myth?: An Assessment 20 Years after Francovich', (2012), Common Market Law Review, Vol 49, pp 1675-1702

Tobias Lock, 'End of an Epic? ', (2012), Yearbook of European Law, Vol 31, pp 162-97
Abstract: This contribution aims to analyze and assess the draft agreement on the European Union's (EU) accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The paper first discuss the effects which accession will have on the system of human rights protection under the ECHR focusing on the most relevant features of the accession agreement, such as the co-respondent mechanism and the prior involvement of the ECJ. The second part of this contribution explores the future status of the ECHR in the EU's legal order. It is argued that accession will not affect the status quo of fundamental rights protection before the EU's courts or domestic courts in any material way. Nonetheless, accession is to be welcomed as it will allow for full external scrutiny by the European Court of Human Rights.

Tobias Lock, 'Walking on a Tightrope: The Draft Accession Agreement and the Autonomy of the EU Legal Order', (2011), Common Market Law Review, Vol 48, pp 1025-1054
Abstract: This contribution measures the first draft agreement on the accession of the EU to the ECHR by the strict requirements of the autonomy of the EU legal order. It concludes that the review of EU action by the ECtHR would be compatible with the autonomy. However, the procedure before the ECtHR provided for in the draft agreement raises serious problems. Both the co-respondent mechanism and the prior involvement of the ECJ are well-intended suggested solutions, but may not pass the hurdles erected by the ECJ in its case law on the autonomy.

Tobias Lock, 'EU Accession to the ECHR: Implications for Judicial Review in Strasbourg', (2010), European Law Review, Vol 35, pp 777-98

Tobias Lock, 'Beyond Bosphorus: The European Court of Human Rights’ Case Law on the Responsibility of Member States of International Organisations under the European Convention on Human Rights', (2010), Human Rights Law Review, Vol 10, pp 529-545
Abstract: This note is an attempt to provide an overview of and critically analyse the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR or ‘Court’) most recent case law on the responsibility of member states of international and supranational organisations. The focus will be on the Court’s application of its Bosphorus decision in later cases and how it distinguished the Bosphorus case law from the more recent Behrami decision.

Tobias Lock, 'Why the European Union is not a State: Some Critical Remarks', (2010), European Constitutional Law Review, Vol 5, pp 407-20
Abstract: German Constitutional Court decision of 30 June 2009 on the compatibility of the Lisbon Treaty with the German Constitution – Analysis of inconsistencies – Differences between the EU and a state – Sovereignty of the member states and Kompetenz-Kompetenz – Argument for a relative concept of sovereignty – Sovereignty and the right to withdraw – Critical analysis of BVerfG's assessment of the EU's democratic deficit and denial of the importance of the European Parliament.

Tobias Lock, 'The ECJ and the ECtHR: The Future Relationship between the Two European Courts', (2009), The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol 8, pp 375-398
Abstract: The current relationship between the two European courts has been discussed in some great detail while the future of that relationship has been widely neglected. This is somewhat surprising as the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and with it of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as well as the EU's succession to the ECHR are probably going to take place before too long. The article first examines Article 52(3) of the Charter, which prescribes that the ECHR be the minimum standard of human rights in the EU. It is argued that Article 52 (3) does not entail a reference to the ECtHR's case law so that the ECJ will not be bound by that case law. After an accession of the EU to the ECHR, it is likely that both courts will assert that they have exclusive jurisdiction over the ECHR in inter-state cases, which creates a jurisdictional conflict for which a solution must be found. In addition, the article explores whether after an accession, the Bosphorus case law will have a future and whether the dictum found in Opinion 1/91 will be applicable, according to which the ECJ is bound by the decisions of courts created by an international agreement to which the EC is a party.

Tobias Lock, 'The European Court of Justice: What are the Limits of European Jurisdiction?', (2009), Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, Vol 16, pp 291-314
Abstract: The article explores the limits of the ECJ’s exclusive jurisdiction by addressing two main issues: firstly, whether there are exceptions to that exclusivity, such as the application of the CILFIT case law or the exclusion of Community law from the dispute. Secondly, it asks whether other international courts must respect the ECJ’s jurisdiction over a case. The article commences by briefly discussing the ECJ’s exclusive jurisdiction as it was established in Opinion 1/91 and the Mox Plant-Case and draws conclusions from this case law. It then addresses the above-mentioned points and comes to the conclusion that there are generally no exceptions to the ECJ’s exclusive jurisdiction and that the only option open to Member States is to exclude Community law from a dispute (and even that option is subject to limitations). Furthermore, after exploring several routes advanced in the academic discussion, the article comes to the conclusion that other courts must respect the ECJ’s jurisdiction and as a consequence declare the case inadmissible.

Tobias Lock, Julia Riem, 'Judging Nuremberg: The Laws, the Rallies, the Trials', (2005), German Law Journal, Vol 6, pp 1819-1832
Abstract: The 60th anniversary of the trial against the major war criminals of World War II before the International Military Tribunal Trial (IMT) in Nuremberg was the subject matter of an international conference held in Nuremberg from Sunday, July 17 to Wednesday, July 20, 2005. The conference was presented by Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, Institute on the Holocaust and the Law, Huntington, USA, in association with the Foundation “Remembrance, Responsibility and Future” – “Remembrance and Future” Fund, supported, amongst others, by the Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg, the Faculty of Law, Friedrich-Alexander University, Erlangen-Nuremberg and the German-American Lawyers’ Association.

Tobias Lock, Bernhard Wegener, 'Die Kleinen "hängt" man, die Großen lässt man laufen?: Berlusconi und Niselli – Ungleiche vor dem EuGH', (2005), Europarecht, pp 802-08

Chapters

Tobias Lock, 'Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm veTicaret Anonim Sirketi v Ireland, App. No. 45036/98, European Court of Human Rights, 30 June 2005 ' in Cedric Ryngaert, Ige F Dekker, Ramses A Wessel, Jan Wouters (ed.) Judicial Decisions on the Law of International Organizations (Oxford University Press 2016) 309-318
Abstract: Bosphorus is relevant in that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) introduced the so-called Bosphorus presumption: if a member state of an organization acted in compliance with an obligation arising from its membership and had no discretion, there is a rebuttable presumption that the member state has complied with its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights provided that the organization itself ensures a protection of fundamental rights equivalent to what the Convention requires. If that is so, the presumption can only be rebutted if this protection was manifestly deficient.

Tobias Lock, 'Gasparini v Italy and Belgium, App. No. 10750/03, Admissibility Decision, European Court of Human Rights, 12 May 2009 ' in Cedric Ryngaert, Ige F Dekker, Ramses A Wessel, Jan Wouters (ed.) Judicial Decisions on the Law of International Organizations (Oxford University Press 2016) 328-335
Abstract: Gasparini is relevant in that it extended the Bosphorus presumption to NATO. It also refined the requirement that the violation must have occurred within the jurisdiction of the member state by introducing the notion of a ‘structural lacuna’.

Tobias Lock, 'Industrie-, Forschungs- und Entwicklungspolitik ' in Bernhard W. Wegener (ed.) Europäische Querschnittpolitiken (Nomos 2014) 375

Tobias Lock, 'Of Crucifixes and Headscarves Religious Symbols in German Schools' in Myriam Hunter-Henin (ed.) Law, Religious Freedoms and Education in Europe (Ashgate Publishing 2012) 347-69
Abstract: The paper is concerned with religious symbols in Germany. It mainly focuses on decisions by the Federal Constitutional Court on religious symbols in schools. Court had to deal with two landmark cases concerning the topic of religious symbols. The facts and the outcome of the first decision very much resemble those in the recent Lautsi case: the parents of a child objected to a Bavarian law requiring that a crucifix be affixed in every class room. The Court regarded this as a violation of the student's freedom of religion. The second case added another dimension: the school authority refused to employ a Muslim teacher who insisted on wearing a headscarf in class. In that case not only the students' freedom of religion was at issue but also that of the teacher. The Court managed to avoid a ruling on this conflict of fundamental rights by arguing that the school authority had acted without a legislative basis, which made the refusal to employ the teacher illegal. The paper will look at the arguments made in the academic discussion and by inferior courts (most importantly by the Federal Administrative Court). Furthermore, it will examine the reaction by the legislatures of the Länder, which ranged from categorically banning all religious symbols to allowing only those which are in accordance with 'Christian and occidental cultural and educational values', a provision which was upheld by the Bavarian Constitutional Court. The paper also discusses unsuccessful challenges under anti-discrimination law as well as the possibilities of banning religious symbols worn by students.

Tobias Lock, 'Accession of the EU to the ECHR Who Would Be Responsible in Strasbourg?' in Diamond Ashiagbor, Nicola Countouris, Ioannis Lianos (ed.) The European Union after the Treaty of Lisbon (Cambridge University Press 2012) 109-35

Working Papers

Tobias Lock, 'The Future of EU Accession to the ECHR after Opinion 2/13: Is It Still Possible and Is It Still Desirable?' 2015
Abstract: Opinion 2/13 of the European Court of Justice on the European Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights has dealt a severe blow to the ambitions of the EU and the Council of Europe to put the relations between the EU and the ECHR system on a sure and formal footing. The CJEU held numerous aspects of the Draft Accession Agreement to be incompatible with the Treaties. Accession cannot therefore go ahead as planned. This article explores whether and how accession could still be achieved and if in light of the Court’s demands it can still be maintained that it would improve the human rights protection of individuals in the EU. The argument proceeds in four steps: first, the article outlines the background to Opinion 2/13 and the basic tenets of the Draft Accession Agreement; second, it explores the technical options available to overcome the hurdles to accession, such as changes to the accession agreement, reservations, unilateral declarations, and Treaty change; third, it provides a diagnosis of the shortcomings identified by the Court and proposes possible solutions; and fourth, it expresses some doubts whether in light of these proposed solutions, accession is still desirable.

Tobias Lock, 'Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union: Fundamental Rights' 2014
Abstract: This is a submission to the United Kingdom’s Balance of Competence Review on EU fundamental rights. It provides answers to a catalogue of questions compiled by the Ministry of Justice. The questions revolve around the impact (application) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in the United Kingdom, in particular the UK’s “opt-out” of the Charter and the case law by domestic courts on the Charter so far. It also discusses the differences in the fundamental rights protection provided by the Charter and by the HRA 1998 and the indirect effects the Charter has on the UK legal order. In addition, a short answer is provided to a question concerning the EU’s accession to the ECHR. Furthermore, the submission highlights some legal and cultural challenges for the application of the Charter in the UK.

Tobias Lock, 'An Additional Protective Layer: The Case of Religious Discrimination in the United Kingdom and Germany' 2013
Abstract: This paper compares how two closely related remedies, freedom of religion and the belief discrimination, are applied by domestic courts in the United Kingdom and Germany. It concludes that the current practice of the courts in these two countries differs considerably and questions why that is so given that the courts in both countries operate under essentially the same European legal framework determined by the ECHR and the EU law. It is suggested that decision-making by domestic courts is still influenced by traditional domestic remedies and that domestic courts seem to find it difficult to adapt to new remedies. The article then gauges the potential for a common European approach, which, while theoretically possible, is unlikely to be triggered by either of the two European courts. This is because cases dealing with religion often touch on core constitutional values, which both courts usually respect.

Tobias Lock, 'Is Private Enforcement of EU Law Through State Liability a Myth?: An Assessment 20 Years after Francovich' 2012
Abstract: This paper article assesses the success of Member State liability as a tool for the private enforcement of European Union law. The argument made is that Member State liability, first established 20 years ago in Francovich, is not a suitable and reliable mechanism to compensate for the weaknesses of public enforcement. The article presents statistical findings regarding the case law on Member State liability in two key Member State jurisdictions, England and Germany. These reveal that surprisingly little litigation has taken place and that only a handful of cases were litigated successfully. This leads the author to conclude that Member State liability has not been successful as an enforcement mechanism. The article then goes on to analyze why it is that most of the proceedings initiated are unsuccessful. The author establishes that there the criteria for the remedy are very difficult to satisfy and that there is a reluctance on the part of national courts to award damages for the failure of Member States to comply with EU law. Before this background it is suggested that state liability under EU law should be viewed as a means of individual compensation and that it does not contribute to overall compliance of Member States with EU law.

Tobias Lock, 'Taking National Courts More Seriously?: Comment on Opinion 1/09' 2011
Abstract: Opinion 1/09 on the draft agreement for a unified patent litigation system reveals a degree of scepticism and distrust on part of the ECJ when it comes to the European Union’s international co-operation, especially its participation in international frameworks for dispute settlement. The Opinion not only made it far more complicated to achieve the aim of a unified patent litigation system in Europe but is also of great constitutional significance. By placing emphasis on the role that the courts of the Member States play in the Union’s legal order, the Court restricted the Member States’ room for manoeuvre when organising their own court systems. Furthermore, it made it harder for the European Union to subject itself to the jurisdiction of an international court. This article will address the wider constitutional implications of the ECJ’s Opinion and comment on the European Commission’s latest proposal to rescue the agreement at issue.

Tobias Lock, 'End of an Epic?: The Draft Agreement on the EU's Accession to the ECHR' 2011
Abstract: This contribution aims to analyze and assess the draft agreement on the European Union’s (EU) accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The paper first discuss the effects which accession will have on the system of human rights protection under the ECHR focusing on the most relevant features of the accession agreement, such as the co-respondent mechanism and the prior involvement of the ECJ. The second part of this contribution explores the future status of the ECHR in the EU’s legal order. It is argued that accession will not affect the status quo of fundamental rights protection before the EU's courts or domestic courts in any material way. Nonetheless, accession is to be welcomed as it will allow for full external scrutiny by the European Court of Human Rights.

Tobias Lock, 'Walking on a Tightrope: The Draft Accession Agreement and the Autonomy of the EU Legal Order' 2011
Abstract: This contribution measures the first draft agreement on the accession of the EU to the ECHR by the strict requirements of autonomy of the EU legal order. It concludes that a review by the ECtHR would be compatible with the autonomy. However, the procedure before the ECtHR provided for in the draft agreement raises serious problems. Both the co-respondent mechanism and the prior involvement of the ECJ are well intended but may not pass the hurdles erected by the ECJ in its case law on the autonomy.

Tobias Lock, Patrick Layden, 'Protection of Fundamental Rights Post-Lisbon: The Interaction between the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and National Constitutions (FIDE National Report for the United Kingdom)' 2011
Abstract: This is the United Kingdom national report for the FIDE XXV Congress on the 'Protection of Fundamental Rights Post-Lisbon'. The national report consist of answers from a UK perspective to questions posed by the general rapporteur on the following general topics: Nature and scope of fundamental rights protected; Horizontal Effect and Collision of rights; Consequences of the entry into force of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; Consequences of the accession of the EU to the ECHR; The future of fundamental rights protection, national and European, in the EU as an ‘area of fundamental rights’.

Xavier Groussout, Tobias Lock, Laurent Pech, 'EU Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights: A Legal Assessment of the Draft Accession Agreement of 14th October 2011' 2011
Abstract: This Paper offers a legal assessment of the draft agreement on the Accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights published by the Steering Committee for Human Rights of the Council of Europe on October 14, 2011. It will recall the most contentious points debated before and during the drafting of the draft accession agreement before offering a critical review of how these points were addressed by the European Commission and Council of Europe’s experts.

Tobias Lock, 'Accession of the EU to the ECHR: Who Would Be Responsible in Strasbourg?' 2010
Abstract: Chief among the many issues, which an accession of the EU to the ECHR, will raise, is the question of the appropriate respondent before the European Court of Human Rights in cases involving EU law. EU law is typically implemented by the Member States. Against whom should an individual address their individual complaint in a case where they argue that a violation of the ECHR can be found in EU law: the EU or the Member State? This paper discusses various options and proposals made in the wake of the negotiations, which started in July 2010. Both actions and omissions will be dealt with. It is argued that a solution must not only protect the autonomy of EU law but at the same time offer an effective remedy for the individual.

Tobias Lock, 'Religious Symbols in Germany ' 2010
Abstract: The paper is concerned with religious symbols in Germany. It mainly focuses on decisions by the Federal Constitutional Court on religious symbols in schools. Court had to deal with two landmark cases concerning the topic of religious symbols. The facts and the outcome of the first decision very much resemble those in the recent Lautsi case: the parents of a child objected to a Bavarian law requiring that a crucifix be affixed in every class room. The Court regarded this as a violation of the student’s freedom of religion. The second case added another dimension: the school authority refused to employ a Muslim teacher who insisted on wearing a headscarf in class. In that case not only the students’ freedom of religion was at issue but also that of the teacher. The Court managed to avoid a ruling on this conflict of fundamental rights by arguing that the school authority had acted without a legislative basis, which made the refusal to employ the teacher illegal. The paper will look at the arguments made in the academic discussion and by inferior courts (most importantly by the Federal Administrative Court). Furthermore, it will examine the reaction by the legislatures of the Länder, which ranged from categorically banning all religious symbols to allowing only those which are in accordance with ‘Christian and occidental cultural and educational values’, a provision which was upheld by the Bavarian Constitutional Court. The paper also discusses unsuccessful challenges under anti-discrimination law as well as the possibilities of banning religious symbols worn by students.

Tobias Lock, 'Beyond Bosphorus: The European Court of Human Rights’ Case Law on the Responsibility of Member States of International Organisations Under the European Convention on Human Rights' 2010
Abstract: The paper examines and critically assesses the ECtHR’s case law applying and distinguishing the Bosphorus decision. The discussion revolves around two major points: the first is the ECtHR’s distinction between cases where there was a domestic act or omission of some sort so that the Bosphorus case applies and member states can (generally) be held responsible; and cases where no such act can be found so that they are dismissed as inadmissible ratione personae. It is argued that this distinction is not convincing. The second point is the application of the Bosphorus decision in a number of cases. The paper tries to explore whether the exact conditions for the applicability of the presumption and its rebuttal have become any clearer.

Tobias Lock, 'EU Accession to the ECHR: Implications for the Judicial Review in Strasbourg' 2010
Abstract: The accession of the European Union to the ECHR raises fundamental questions surrounding the protection of individual rights in the Strasbourg court and the autonomy of EU law. It is argued that any solution should ensure an effective protection for the individual applicant. Thus the appropriate respondent in Strasbourg should be the party which has acted in the concrete case as it can be easily identified. The European Union’s autonomy can be preserved by allowing it to join as a co-respondent. Since the individual has no influence over whether a national court makes a reference under art.267 TFEU, the lack of such a reference should not lead to the inadmissibility of the complaint.

Tobias Lock, 'The ECJ and the ECtHR: The Future Relationship between the Two European Courts' 2009
Abstract: The current relationship between the two European courts has been discussed in some great detail while the future of that relationship has been widely neglected. This is somewhat surprising as the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and with it of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as well as the EU’s succession to the ECHR are probably going to take place before too long. The article first examines Article 52(3) of the Charter, which prescribes that the ECHR be the minimum standard of human rights in the EU. It is argued that Article 52 (3) does not entail a reference to the ECtHR’s case law so that the ECJ will not be bound by that case law. After an accession of the EU to the ECHR, it is likely that both courts will assert that they have exclusive jurisdiction over the ECHR in inter-state cases, which creates a jurisdictional conflict for which a solution must be found. In addition, the article explores whether after an accession, the Bosphorus case law will have a future and whether the dictum found in Opinion 1/91 will be applicable, according to which the ECJ is bound by the decisions of courts created by an international agreement to which the EC is a party.

Tobias Lock, 'The European Court of Justice: What are the Limits of Its Exclusive Jurisdiction?' 2009
Abstract: The article explores the limits of the ECJ’s exclusive jurisdiction by addressing two main issues: firstly, whether there are exceptions to that exclusivity, such as the application of the CILFIT case law or the exclusion of Community law from the dispute. Secondly, it asks whether other international courts must respect the ECJ’s jurisdiction over a case. The article commences by briefly discussing the ECJ’s exclusive jurisdiction as it was established in Opinion 1/91 and the Mox Plant-Case and draws conclusions from this case law. It then addresses the above-mentioned points and comes to the conclusion that there are generally no exceptions to the ECJ’s exclusive jurisdiction and that the only option open to Member States is to exclude Community law from a dispute (and even that option is subject to limitations). Furthermore, after exploring several routes advanced in the academic discussion, the article comes to the conclusion that other courts must respect the ECJ’s jurisdiction and as a consequence declare the case inadmissible.

Tobias Lock, 'The Bundesverfassungsgericht On: Why the European Union is Not a State - Some Critical Remarks' 2009
Abstract: The article critically assesses the German Constitutional Court's (Bundesverfassunsgericht) arguments on why the EU is currently not a state. It is argued that the EU has got a certain degree of Kompetenz-Kompetenz and that the Bundesverfassungsgericht's argument in that respect is not convincing. Furthermore, the article addresses the Bundesverfassungsgericht's discussion of the EU's democracy deficit and questions whether the court's argument that the EU is democratic precisely because it is not a state is convincing.