HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER

4. Mechanisms for the protection of LGBTQ+ rights in the EU Protection of human rights in the EU is encompassed by institutional procedural and substantive measures. 46 These means and mechanisms can be categorized into non-judicial and judicial entities. Mechanisms refer to institutional tools that are relevant in terms of safeguarding rights. Especially concerning the protection of a person’s rights, reference is made to those mechanisms that would not be available to the individual if the country was not a member of the EU. These include possibilities beyond national regulation, such as the protection of rights by general or constitutional courts, the national ombudsman, etc. Court of Justice of the European Union In the context of judicial protection beyond national courts, CJEU plays a pivotal role. Its part in the process of strengthening the protection of human rights is undoubtedly significant. Through its decisions, which are erga omnes relevant, human rights have been brought up to the limelight. The Court’s broader impact lies in its interpretation of treaties, which include detailed policy prescriptions, as its rulings directly influence policy-making at both the European and national levels. 47 Since 2009, an increasingly broad spectrum of LGBTQ+ issues has come before the CJEU. Unlike in the past, the CJEU could now adjudicate on issues extending beyond employment issues. Its significant impact in LGBTQ+ rights cases arises from the EU legislation’s frequent vagueness and imprecision in primary and secondary law. CJEU has thus played a crucial role in clarifying provisions, particularly those related to anti-discrimination laws, and has also contributed to greater uniformity in national laws addressing SOGI. Due to the absence of harmonization in the domain of family law within the European Union, the CJEU has generally exhibited caution, deferring to national choices and traditions. 48 The CJEU’s decisions in this area have primarily been driven by principles related to the free movement of persons rather than direct intervention in national family law systems. 49 In the Maruko case (2008) 50 , the issue centered on 46 MURAVIOV, Viktor and SVIATUN, Olena. Protection of Human Rights in the European Union. [online] 2016, p. 7 [cit. 2024-02-20]. Available at: 10.1007/978-94-017-7465-9_10. 47 BLAUBERGER, Michael, and SCHMIDT, Susanne K. The European Court of Justice and its political impact. In: West European Politics [online]. 2017, p. 908 [cit. 2024-02-20]. Available at: https://www. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402382.2017.1281652. 48 GERARDS, Janneke. Non-Discrimination, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights: Who Takes the Lead? European Non-Discrimination Law: Comparative Perspectives on Selected Thematic Issues, edited by J. Gerards, & M. Bell, In: Springer , [online] 2020, p. 153 [cit. 2024 08-13].https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43764-0_7. 49 Ibid. p. 154. 50 Court of Justice of the European Union. C-267/06. Tadao Maruko v. Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen [online]. Judgment of April 1, 2008 [cit. 2024-02-14]. Available at: https://curia.europa.eu/ juris/liste.jsf?num=C-267/06.

133