Human rights in the council of Europe and the EU: Towards 'individual', 'constitutional' or 'institutional' justice?

European Law Journal

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 462-481

  Greer, Steven ^a   Williams, Andrew ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67650216250     PISSN: 13515993     EISSN: 14680386     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2009.00473.x     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Material for this section derives from S. Greer, The European Convention on Human Rights: Achievements, Problems and Prospects (Cambridge University Press, 2006), 'What's Wrong with the European Convention on Human Rights?', (2008) 30 Human Rights Quarterly 680 and 'Towards a Socio-Legal Analysis of the European Convention on Human Rights', in G. Verschraegen and M. Madsen (eds), Towards a Sociology of Human Rights: Theoretical and Empirical Contributions (Hart, 2009), forthcoming.
2. Material for this section derives from A. Williams, EU Human Rights Policies: A Study In Irony (Oxford University Press, 2004) and 'Fundamental Rights in the New European Union', in C. Barnard (ed.), The Fundamentals of EU Law Revisited: Assessing the Impact of the Constitutional Debate (Oxford University Press, 2007), 71.
3. Greer, The European Convention on Human Rights, op cit n 1 supra, ch 1.
4. H. Robertson, The Council of Europe: Its Structure, Functions and Achievements (Stevens & Sons, 2nd edn, 1961), at 2.
5. There are now 47. Montenegro briefly left the Convention system when it gained independence from Serbia on 3 June 2006, but rejoined on 11 May 2007.
6. Protocol 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Amending the Control System of the Convention, Cets No194, Explanatory Report as Adopted by the Committee of Ministers at its 114th Session on 12 May 2004, at para 11, n 3.
7. Greer, The European Convention on Human Rights, op cit n 1 supra, at 39.
8. E. Lambert-Abdelgawad, The Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (Council of Europe Human Rights Files No 19, 2nd edn., 2008), at 18-24.
9. Lord Woolf, Review of the Working Methods of the European Court of Human Rights (Council of Europe, 2005), at 4.
10. Council of Europe press releases of 21 June 1999, 8 June 2000 and 25 January 2007.
11. Greer, The European Convention on Human Rights, op cit n 1 supra, at 42-47.
12. Woolf, op cit n 9 supra.
13. Report of the Group of Wise Persons to the Committee of Ministers, Cm (2006)03, 15 November 2006.
14. Greer, The European Convention on Human Rights, op cit n 1 supra, ch 2.
15. ibid, at 274-276.
16. Decisions, such as those of the Grand Chamber in Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm v Ireland (2006) 42 EHRR 1 may indicate that the ECtHR is willing to scrutinise some EU action and, under certain circumstances, the actions of Member States when giving effect to EU law. But, in the process, they raise further questions while others have yet to be considered at all. See C. Costello, 'The Bosphorus Ruling of the ECtHR: Fundamental Rights and Blurred Boundaries in Europe', (2006) 6 Human Rights Law Review 87.
17. See, for instance, S. Benhabib, Another Cosmopolitanism (Oxford University Press, 2006) and U. Beck, Cosmopolitan Vision (Polity Press, 2006).
18. Von Bogdandy reminds us that the creation of the EEC was 'legitimated by goals that were to a large extent neutral with regard to constitutional issues'. These include respect for fundamental or human rights. See A. von Bogdandy, Doctrine of Principles, Jean Monnet Working Paper 9/03, at 9, available at http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/03/030901-01.html
19. Opinion 2/94 on Accession by the Community to the ECHR [1996] ECR I-1759, para 27. The statement was ambiguous because it did not articulate what the EU could do with regard to human rights. It certainly did not preclude the adoption of specific rather than general legislative measures.
20. ibid, para 33.
21. ibid, para 34.
22. G. de Búrca has rightly identified these three elements as key in the assessment of human rights policies. See 'Beyond the Charter: How Enlargement has Enlarged the Human Rights Policy of the European Union', (2004) 27 Fordham International Law Journal 679, at 681.
23. European Guidelines on Human Rights Dialogues (Council of the EU, 2001), available at http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/human_rights/doc/ ghd12_01.htm.
24. Council Conclusions on the Implementation of EU Human Rights Policy (Council of the EU, 2004), available at http://ue.eu.int/cms3_fo/ showPage.asp?id=822&lang=EN&mode=g.
25. See, for instance, Regulation (EC) No 1889/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing a financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide, [2006] OJ L386/1.
26. See Williams, EU Human Rights Policies, op cit n 2 supra, ch 3.
27. ibid, ch 2.
28. For the ECJ's position, see a recent reiteration in Case C-305/05, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others [2007] ECR I-305, para 29.
29. See the studies prompted by the Commission in 1976 The Report of the Commission on the Protection of Fundamental Rights as Community Law, EC Bull Supp. 5-1976, and 1979, Memorandum on the Accession of the European Communities to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, EC Bull Supp. 2-1979 6-21 and the ECJ's consideration of the issue in Opinion 2/94, op cit n 19 supra.
30. Opinion 2/94, ibid, para 33.
31. ibid, para 34.
32. See, for instance, D. Mabbett, 'The Development of Rights-Based Social Policy in the European Union: The Example of Disability Rights', (2005) 43 Journal of Common Market Studies 97.
33. We cannot provide a review of these issues here. However, our point is that human rights related activity has developed as an important aspect of the EU's work during its history.
34. See A. Williams 'The Indifferent Gesture: Article 7 TEU, the Fundamental Rights Agency and the UK's Invasion of Iraq', (2006) 31 European Law Review 1 for a critique of Art 7 following the example of the Iraq War.
35. The Preamble to the Charter refers to the EU placing 'the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice'.
36. Case C-50/00P, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [2002] ECR I-6677 (UPA), paras 38 and 39.
37. See, for instance, Case C-432/05, Unibet [2007] ECR I-2271, para 37.
38. Case 25/62, Plaumann & Co. v Commission [1963] ECR 95, at 107.
39. See UPA, op cit n 36 supra, Opinion of AG Jacobs, para 62.
40. ibid, para 42.
41. EC Treaty, Art 68(2).
42. See the cases of Behrami v France (Application No 71412/01) and Saramati v France and Others (Application No 78166/01), 2 May 2007 and R (Al-Jedda) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 58, [2008] AC 332.
43. Opinion 1/91 (re the EEA Agreement) [1991] ECR 6079, para 21. See Case 294/83, Les Verts v Parliament [1986] ECR 1339, para 23 for the original statement in this respect.
44. See, for instance, B. Vesterdorf, 'A Constitutional Court for the EU?', (2006) 4 International Journal of Constitutional Law 607.
45. Case C-402/05P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro delivered on 16 January 2008.
46. ibid, para 24. See, also Opinion 2/94, op cit n 19 supra, paras 30, 34 and 35.
47. ibid, para 37.
48. Conjoined cases C-402/05P and C-415/05P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 3 September 2008, para 285.
49. For instance, those claims that the case of Omega (Case C-36/02, Omega v Bonn [2004] ECR I-9609) solidified a right to human dignity should really be scrutinised. No such individual right has been established, certainly not one that could logically attract any application beyond the circumstances of that case. The deference paid to a national authority's interpretation of human dignity may suggest a willingness to give greater reign to human rights, but in the absence of any definition or indeed substance evaluated by the Court, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to understand how this might give rise to a more substantive approach to the respect for human rights both specifically and in general.
50. S. Douglas-Scott, 'A tale of Two Courts: Luxembourg, Strasbourg and the Growing European Human Rights Acquis', (2006) 43 Common Market Law Review 629.
51. Carol Harlow refers to a form of 'economic constitutionalism' which does not capture the meaning we ascribe to the institutional model. The latter reflects a deeper commitment not just to a perceived end (say, a liberal capitalist system focused around a single market) but also a presence that entitles the EU to act on issues that transcend this one-dimensional vision. See C. Harlow, 'Global Administrative Law: The Quest for Principles and Values', (2006) 17 European Journal of International Law 187, at 212.
52. T. Tridimas, The General Principles of EU Law (Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 2006), at 303.
53. See, in particular, the ubiquitously quoted essay, J. Coppell and A. O'Neill, 'The European Court of Justice: Taking Rights Seriously', (1992) 29 Common Market Law Review 669.
54. See, for instance, S. Besson, 'The European Union and Human Rights: Towards a New Kind of Post-National Human Rights Institution', (2006) 6(2) Human Rights Law Review 323.
55. See M. Cremona, 'External Relations and External Competence: The Emergence of an Integrated Policy', in P. Craig and G. de Búrca (eds), The Evolution of EU Law (Oxford University Press, 1999), at 137-175.
56. See Williams, EU Human Rights Policies, op cit n 2 supra, ch 4.
57. The recent cases of C-112/00, Schmidberger [2003] ECR I-5659 and Case C-36/02, op cit n 49 supra, are notable examples.
58. Opinion of Advocate General Maduro, op cit n 45 supra.
59. See, for instance, Douglas-Scott, op cit n 50 supra and the reflections on the key case of Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Ireland (2006) 42 EHRR 1.