Tensions Between Fundamental Freedoms and Fundamental Rights: A Comparative Study of the European Union Court of Justice, the American Supreme Court, and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights

Human rights are central to the legitimacy of legal systems, not only through their recognition but also through the manner in which courts resolve conflicts between rights. Judicial decisions require well-founded reasoning, drawing on interrelated legal sources to ensure coherence, legitimacy, and predictability while minimizing non-legal influences. In EU law, the Court of Justice employs grammatical, contextual, comparative, and teleological methods of interpretation, alongside principles such as proportionality, to deliver coherent judgments. However, it has faced criticism for prioritizing fundamental freedoms over fundamental rights, for the unpredictability of its balancing methods, and for insufficient sensitivity to non-economic values. This orientation is often linked to the economic teleology of EU integration, yet alternative approaches could address these criticisms without undermining the internal market framework.  

In Africa, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights represents a significant advancement in continental human rights enforcement, although challenges relating to access and operational limitations persist. Comparisons with the U.S. Supreme Court highlight alternative approaches to resolving conflicts between economic and other rights, suggesting that legislative solutions could complement judicial reasoning in both EU and AU contexts. The article argues that refining case law remains a practical path to improving conflict-of-rights adjudication, while comparative analysis offers lessons to enhance legitimacy, coherence, and the protection of diverse rights across jurisdictions.