The EU and issues of human rights protection: Same solutions to more acute problems?

European Law Journal

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 112-157

  van den Berghe, Frederic ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77349112190     PISSN: 13515993     EISSN: 14680386     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2009.00501.x     Document Type: Article

References (354)

1. Unless specified otherwise, any general reference to the Convention must be understood as including all its Protocols which have entered into force.
2. Unless specified otherwise, any general reference to the ECJ must be understood as including the Court of First Instance.
3. Opinion 2/94 on Accession by the Community to the Convention [1996] ECR I-1759.
4. See the Memorandum on the accession of the European Communities to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, adopted on 4 April 1979, EC Bulletin Supplement 2/79.
5. Unless specified otherwise, any general reference to the Court of Human Rights must be understood as including the European Commission of Human Rights. For the sake of convenience, reference is made only to the application number and date of Court of Human Rights cases, and not to their official publication in the Series A (until 1996) or the Reports (thereafter). Court of Human Rights cases are accessible on HUDOC, at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/search.asp?sessionid=6160010&skin=hudoc-en.
6. While inconsistencies between the Court of Human Rights' and the ECJ's case-law will be most flagrant where the jurisdiction of both courts overlaps, inconsistencies can also arise if the Court of Human Rights and the ECJ, each within their own jurisdiction, interpret the same human right differently.
7. Case C-36/02, Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn [2004] ECR I-9609, para 33. See also Case 11-70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel [1970] ECR 1125, para 4; Case 4-73, J. Nold, Kohlen- und Baustoffgroßhandlung v Commission [1974] ECR 491, para 13; Case 44/79, Liselotte Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz [1979] ECR 3727, para 15; Joined Cases 46/87 and 227/88, Hoechst AG v Commission [1989] ECR 2859, para 13; Case C-260/89, Elliniki Radiophonia Tiléorassi AE and Panellinia Omospondia Syllogon Prossopikou v Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis and Sotirios Kouvelas and Nicolaos Avdellas and others [1991] ECR I-2925, para 41; Case C-305/05, OBFG and others [2007] ECR I-5305, para 29.
8. Case T-112/98, Mannesmannröhren-Werke v Commission [2001] ECR II-729, para 75. See also Opinion of Advocate General Trabucchi in Case 118/75, Lynne Watson and Alessandro Belmann [1976] ECR 1185 at 1207.
9. Art 2 TEU.
10. Michel Cantoni v France, Application 17862/91, judgment of 15 November 1996, para 30, versus Case 222/84, Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1986] ECR 1651, paras 18-20.
11. Procola v Luxembourg, Application 14570/89, admissibility decision of 1 July 1993, versus Case 5/88, Hubert Wachauf v Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft [1989] ECR 2609, para 19.
12. Informationsverein Lentia and others v Austria, Applications 13914/88, 15041/89, 15717/89, 15779/89 and 17207/90, judgment of 24 November 1993, versus Case C-260/89, Elliniki Radiophonia Tiléorassi AE and Panellinia Omospondia Syllogon Prossopikou v Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis and Sotirios Kouvelas and Nicolaos Avdellas and others [1991] ECR I-2925, paras 42-44. See also Case 249/86, Commission v Federal Republic of Germany [1989] ECR 1263, para 10 and Case C-368/95, Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags- und vertriebs GmbH v Heinrich Bauer Verlag [1997] ECR I-3689, paras 18-27.
13. R. Lawson, 'Confusion and conflict? Diverging Interpretations of the European Convention on Human Rights in Strasbourg and Luxembourg', in R. Lawson and M. De Blois (eds), The Dynamics of the Protection of Human Rights in Europe, Essays in Honour of H. G. Schermers (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994), Vol III, 251.
14. A. Bultrini, 'La Responsabilité des Etats Membres de l'Union européenne pour les Violations de la Convention Européenne des Droits de l'homme imputables au Système communautaire', (2002) 1 Revue Trimestrielle des Droits de l'homme 9.
15. ibid, at 13.
16. M & Co v Germany, Application 13258/87, admissibility decision of 9 February 1990.
17. Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Ireland, Application 45036/98, judgment of 30 June 2005.
18. ibid, para 148.
19. ibid, para 6.
20. ibid, para 137.
21. For a description of the informal contacts between the judges of the two courts, see L. Scheeck, 'Solving Europe's Binary Human Rights Puzzle. The Interaction between Supranational Courts as a Parameter of European Governance', (2005) 15 Research in Question 40-43, available at http://www.ceri-sciences-po.org/publica/question/qdr15.pdf.
22. A.G. Toth, 'The European Union and Human Rights: The Way Forward', (1997) 34 Common Market Law Review 499.
23. On the basis of Art 10 EC.
24. On the basis of Art 1 of the Convention.
25. Scheeck, op cit n 21 supra, 21.
26. Lawson, op cit n 13 supra, 251.
27. Scheeck, op cit n 21 supra, 23.
28. Case C-185/95, Baustahlgewebe v Commission [1998] ECR I-8417, para 29 and Case C-94/00, Roquette Frères v Directeur général de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes [2002] ECR I-9011, para 52.
29. Case C-94/00, Roquette Frères v Directeur général de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes [2002] ECR I-9011, para 29 and Joined Cases C-482/01 and C-493/01, Georgios Orfanopoulos and Raffaele Oliveri v Land Baden-Württemberg [2004] ECR I-5257, para 99.
30. Which became Art II-112(3) of the now defunct Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (hereinafter Constitution), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2004:310:SOM:EN:HTML.
31. Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Ireland, Application 45036/98, judgment of 30 June 2005, Joint concurring opinion of Judges Rozakis, Tulkens, Traja, Botoucharova, Zagrebelsky and Garlicki, para 4.
32. Which has become Art II-113 of the Constitution.
33. M. Mahlmann, 'Die Grundrechtscharta der Europaeischen Union', (2000) 4 Zeitschrift fur Europarechtliche Studien 442, available at http://archiv.jura.uni-saarland.de/projekte/Bibliothek/text.php?id=205.
34. Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Ireland, Application 45036/98, judgment of 30 June 2005, paras 140 and 150.
35. ibid, para 155.
36. ibid, para 156.
37. ibid, paras 159-164, referring to paras 73-99. The Cilfit doctrine, which clarifies when a court of final instance is not obliged to refer to the ECJ, and to which the Court of Human Rights refers in para 98, was interpreted broadly a couple of months after the Bosphorus judgment. It does not seem, however, that this reassessment of the Cilfit doctrine could lead the Court of Human Rights to depart from its current conclusion that the EC's human rights protection system is equivalent to that of the Convention.
38. ibid, paras 165 and 166.
39. ibid, Joint concurring opinion of Judges Rozakis, Tulkens, Traja, Botoucharova, Zagrebelsky and Garlicki, para 3.
40. ibid, para 3.
41. ibid, para 4. For some clarifications of the 'manifestly deficient' test, see Concurring opinion of Judge Ress, para 3.
42. S. Douglas-Scott, 'Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Ireland, application No 45036/98, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber) of 30 June 2005, (2006) 42 EHRR 1', (2006) 43 Common Market Law Review 250.
43. ibid, 251.
44. Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Ireland, Application 45036/98, judgment of 30 June 2005, para 142.
45. ibid, para 121. JAT is the national carrier of Yugoslavia (now Serbia).
46. ibid, para 57.
47. ibid, para 52.
48. ibid, para 166.
49. ibid, Joint concurring opinion of Judges Rozakis, Tulkens, Traja, Botoucharova, Zagrebelsky and Garlicki, para 3.
50. ibid, para 72.
51. Bultrini, op cit n 14 supra, 28-29
52. Saunders v UK, Application 19187/91, judgment of 17 December 1996, para 69.
53. Case 374/87, Orkem v Commission [1989] ECR 3283, paras 34-35. See section II A c).
54. Kress v France, Application 39594/98, judgment of 7 June 2001, para 76, referring to para 26.
55. Bultrini, op cit n 14 supra, 28-29, footnote 53. See section II C.
56. F. Kauff-Gazin, 'L'arrêt Bosphorus de la CEDH: quand le juge de Strasbourg décerne au système communautaire un label de protection satisfaisante des droits fondamentaux (CEDH, 30 juin 2005)', (2005) 234 Les Petites affiches 9.
57. Case C-50/00, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [2002] ECR I-6677, para 40.
58. Lawson, op cit n 13 supra, 235, 246 and 251.
59. D. Spielmann, 'Human Rights Case Law in the Strasbourg and Luxembourg Courts: Conflicts, Inconsistencies, and Complementarities', in Ph. Alston, J. Heenan and M. Bustelo (eds), The EU and Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 1999), 766-767, footnote 60.
60. Case 374/87, Orkem v Commission [1989] ECR 3283, paras 34-35.
61. Funke v France, Application 10828/84, judgment of 25 February 1993, para 44.
62. Case T-34/93, Société Générale v Commission [1995] ECR II-545; Joined Cases T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94 to T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94, T-329/94 and T-335/94, Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and others v Commission [1999] ECR II-931, paras 443-449, and on appeal Joined Cases C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, C-250/99 P to C-252/99 P, Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and others v Commission [2002] ECR I-8375, paras 258-293; Case C-301/04 P, Commission v SGL Carbon AG [2006] ECR I-5915.
63. Saunders v UK, Application 19187/91, judgment of 17 December 1996, para 69.
64. J. Dine, 'Criminal Law and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination', in S. Peers and A. Ward (eds), The European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights (Hart Publishing, 2004), 273
65. ibid, 275, referring to Case 374/87, Orkem v Commission [1989] ECR 3283, para 29.
66. ibid, 278.
67. Case 374/87, Orkem v Commission [1989] ECR 3283, paras 30 and 33.
68. Saunders v UK, Application 19187/91, judgment of 17 December 1996, para 67 and Fayed v UK, Application 17101/90, judgment of 21 September 1994, para 62.
69. Joined Cases 46/87 and 227/88, Hoechst AG v Commission [1989] ECR 2859, paras 17 and 18. See also Joined Cases T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94 to T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94, T-329/94 and T-335/94, Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and others v Commission [1999] ECR II-931, para 420, and on appeal Joined Cases C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, C-250/99 P to C-252/99 P, Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and others v Commission [2002] ECR I-8375, para 251, in which the ECJ did not rule on the issue.
70. Chappell v UK, Application 10461/83, judgment of 30 March 1989.
71. Lawson, op cit n 13 supra, 241.
72. Niemietz v Germany, Application 13710/88, judgment of 16 December 1992, para 29. See also Colas Est and Others v France, Application 37971/97, judgment of 16 April 2002, para 41.
73. Case C-94/00, Roquette Frères v Directeur général de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes [2002] ECR I-9011, para 29. See also Joined Cases C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, C-250/99 P to C-252/99 P, Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and others v Commission [2002] ECR I-8375, para 254, which indicates that Commission practice now complies with Art 8 of the Convention, as interpreted by the Court of Human Rights.
74. Case C-189/02, Dansk Rørindustri and others v Commission [2005] ECR I-5425, para 204. '[T]he main innovation in the Guidelines consisted in taking as a starting point for the calculation a basic amount, determined on the basis of brackets laid down for that purpose by the Guidelines; those brackets reflect the various degrees of gravity of the infringements but, as such, bear no relation to the relevant turnover. The essential feature of that method is thus that fines are determined on a tariff basis, albeit one that is relative and flexible.', para 225. For an analysis of this case, see E. Barbier de la Serre, 'Amendes: la légalité de principe des lignes directrices et de leur application retroactive', (2005) 4 Rev Lamy de la concurrence 21-26; and K. Nordlander, 'Joined Cases C-189/02 P, C-205/02 to C-208/02 P and C-213/02 P, "Dansk Rørindistri and others v. Commission", judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 June 2005, not yet reported', (2006) 43(2) Common Market Law Review 571-582
75. Case C-189/02, Dansk Rørindustri and others v Commission [2005] ECR I-5425, para 231.
76. Michel Cantoni v France, Application 17862/91, judgment of 15 November 1996, para 35.
77. P. Drzemczewski, 'The Council of Europe's Position with respect to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights', (2001) 22(1-4) Human Rights Law Journal 28. See also O. De Schutter, "L"influence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme sur la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes', (2005) 7 CRIDHO Working Paper 14, available at http://cridho.cpdr.ucl.ac.be/en/publications/working_papers.php.
78. It has been argued that the ECJ could have extended its jurisdiction if the Matthews case had been brought before it. See C. Costello, 'The Bosphorus Ruling of the European Court of Human Rights: Fundamental Rights and Blurred Boundaries in Europe', (2006) 6(1) Human Rights Law Review 92-93.
79. Matthews v UK, Application 248333/94, judgment of 18 February 1999, para 35.
80. Douglas-Scott, op cit n 42 supra, 250. See also J. Crawford, 'Democracy in international law - a reprise', in G. Fox and B. Roth (eds), Democratic Governance and International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2000), 119-120. Concerning the litigation brought by Spain against the UK, see Case C-145/04, Spain v United Kingdom [2006] ECR I-7917.
81. Council Decision 76/787 (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) relating to the Act concerning the election of the representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage [1976] OJ L278/1.
82. At that time still called 'Assembly'.
83. Bultrini, op cit n 14 supra, 21-22.
84. Matthews v UK, Application 248333/94, judgment of 18 February 1999, para 33.
85. Bultrini, op cit n 14 supra, 23.
86. Scheeck, op cit n 21 supra, 21. See also op cit nn 318-342 infra.
87. T. King, 'Ensuring human rights review of intergovernmental acts in Europe', (2000) 25(1) European Law Review 86.
88. Concerning this issue, see Bultrini, op cit n 14 supra, 23-24, footnote 45, and 31.
89. Case 314/85, Firma-Foto Frost v Hauptzollamt Lubeck-Ost [1987] ECR 4199, para 20.
90. Concerning this issue, see I. Tappeiner, 'The fight against terrorism. The lists and the gaps', (2005) 1 Utrecht Law Review 116-117.
91. King, op cit n 88 supra, 87.
92. Klass and others v Germany, Application 5029/71, judgment of 6 September 1978, paras 33 and 34; Marckx v Belgium, Application 6833/74, judgment of 13 June 1979, para 27; and Campbell and Cosans v The United Kingdom, Applications 7511/76 and 7743/76, judgment of 25 February 1982, para 26. See also Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v Ireland, Applications 14234/88 and 14235/88, judgment of 29 October 1992; Norris v Ireland, Application 10581/83, judgment of 26 October 1988; and de Jong, Baljet and van den Brink v The Netherlands, Applications 8805/79, 8806/79 and 9242/81, judgment of 22 May 1984.
93. Segi and Gestoras Pro-Amnistía and Others v 15 EU Member States, Applications 6422/02 and 9916/02, admissibility decision of 23 May 2002.
94. For an analysis of the extension of the right of action under Art 230(4) EC which the Lisbon Treaty introduces, see O. De Schutter, 'Les droits fondamentaux dans l'Union européenne', (2008) 148 Journal de Droit Européen 126-131, at 130 and J.-V. Louis, 'Le Traité de Lisbonne', (2007) 144 Journal des Tribunaux de Droit Européen 289-298, at 295. In particular, Art 263 (ex-230) of the new Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter TFEU) provides that '[a]ny natural or legal person may, under the conditions laid down in the first and second paragraphs, institute proceedings against an act addressed to that person or which is of direct and individual concern to them, and against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures'.
95. Case C-263/02, Commission v Jégo-Quéré [2004] ECR I-3425, para 45. See also, amongst others, Case C-50/00, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [2002] ECR I-6677, para 36; Case 25/62, Plaumann v Commission [1963] ECR 95, at 107; Case C-142/00 P, Commission v Nederlandse Antillen [2003] ECR I-3483, para 65; and Case C-452/98, Nederlandse Antillen v Council [2001] ECR I-8973, para 60.
96. Case C-50/00, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [2002] ECR I-6677, para 40.
97. Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Ireland, Application 45036/98, judgment of 30 June 2005, paras 161-165.
98. Case 314/85, Firma-Foto Frost v Hauptzollamt Lubeck-Ost [1987] ECR 4199, para 20.
99. Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Case C-50/00, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [2002] ECR I-6677, para 41.
100. ibid, para 42. See also B. De Witte, 'The Past and Future Role of the European Court of Justice in the Protection of Human Rights', in Ph. Alston, J. Heenan and M. Bustelo (eds), The EU and Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 1999), 877
101. Case C-50/00, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [2002] ECR I-6677, para 43. See also De Witte, ibid, at 876.
102. Case C-50/00, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [2002] ECR I-6677, para 44.
103. De Witte, op cit n 101 supra, 876-877.
104. Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Case C-50/00, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [2002] ECR I-6677, paras 45 and 46.
105. ibid, para 47.
106. ibid, para 48.
107. European Convention, 'EU External Action', CONV 161/02, available at http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/02/cv00/00161en2.pdf 9. For an analysis of the extension of the ECJ's jurisdiction under the Second Pillar which the Lisbon Treaty introduces, see Art 24 (ex-11) of the revised TEU, which provides that '[t]he Court of Justice of the European Union shall not have jurisdiction with respect to these provisions, with the exception of its jurisdiction to monitor compliance with Article 40 of this Treaty and to review the legality of certain decisions as provided for by the second paragraph of Article 275 of the [TFEU]', Art 40 (ex-47) of the revised TEU and Art 275 (ex-240a) of the new TFEU, which provides that 'the Court shall have jurisdiction to monitor compliance with Article 40 [TEU] and to rule on proceedings, brought in accordance with the conditions laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 of this Treaty, reviewing the legality of decisions providing for restrictive measures against natural or legal persons adopted by the Council on the basis of Chapter 2 of Title V of the [TEU]', as well as J.-V. Louis, 'Le Traité de Lisbonne', (2007) 144 Journal des Tribunaux de Droit Européen 289-298, at 295.
108. Case T-338/02, Segi and Others v Council [2004] ECR II-1647, paras 24, 41-42 and 47.
109. For an overview of the measures adopted by the EU in this field, such as a framework decision on combating terrorism, a framework decision on a European arrest warrant, several measures listing individuals or organisations considered to be linked to terrorism, or freezing suspect terrorist assets and funds, international agreements on sharing airline passenger data, and extradition agreements, see http://ue.eu.int/showPage.asp?id=406&lang=en. For the latest information on terrorist lists, see http://www.statewatch.org/terrorlists/listslatest.html.
110. For an example of the civil law implications these instruments might have, see Case C-117/06, Möllendorf and Möllendorf-Niehuus [2007] ECR I-8361, in which it was held that a sale of immovable property must not be completed if Community law has meanwhile frozen the economic resources of the buyer.
111. See, for instance, Case T-299/04, Selmani v Council and Commission [2005] ECR II-20*, summ pub, in which the action for annulment was declared manifestly inadmissible on five counts. See also Case T-2/06, Yusef v Council, Order of 31 May 2006 (unpublished) and Joined Cases T-75/07 and T-363/07, Hamdi v Council, Order of 2 September 2008 [2008] OJ C272/95.
112. Council Regulation (EC) 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism [2001] OJ L344/70, Article 2(1)(a).
113. Case T-229/02, PKK and KNK v Council [2005] ECR II-539, paras 34, 37 and 38.
114. Case C-229/05 P, PKK and KNK v Council [2007] ECR I-439. For an analysis of this case, see A. Cuyvers, 'Case comment' (2008) 45(5) Common Market Law Review 1487-1505.
115. ibid. Case T-229/02, PKK and KNK v Council [2005] ECR II-539, para 56. See also Case T-206/02, KNK v Council [2005] ECR II-523, para 39.
116. Even before this inadmissibility order, an organisation succeeding to the PKK brought an annulment action against its listing following its characterisation 'as an alias of the PKK'. See Case T-229/02, PKK and KNK v Council [2005] ECR II-539, para 55 and Case T-253/04, Kongra-Gel and Others v Council [2008] ECR II-46.
117. Case T-306/01 R, Aden and Others v Council and Commission [2002] ECR II-2387, paras 88-119.
118. Case T-47/03 R, Sison v Council [2003] ECR II-2047.
119. Case T-348/07, Al-Aqsa v Council [2007] OJ C269/61 (Application); Joined Cases T-362/07 and T-76/07, El Fatmi v Council [2007] OJ C269/65 (Application); Case T-135/06, Al-Faqih v Council [2006] OJ C165/29 (Application); Case T-136/06, Sanabel Relief Agency v Council [2006] OJ C165/30 (Application); Case T-137/06, Abdrabbah v Council [2006] OJ C165/30 (Application); Case T-138/06, Nasuf v Council [2006] OJ C165/30 (Application); Case C-340/08, The Queen (on the application of M) (FC) v Her Majesty's Treasury and two other actions [2008] OJ C260/8 (Reference for a preliminary ruling), Case T-127/09, Abdulrahim v Council and Commission [2009] OJ C167/12 (Application); Case T-45/09, Al Barakaat International Foundation v Commission [2009] OJ C153/39 (Application) and Case T-85/09, Kadi v Commission [2009] OJ C90/37 (Application). For an overview of challenges to terrorist lists, http://www.statewatch.org/terrorlists/listschallenges.html.
120. Case T-333/02, Gestoras Pro-Amnistía and Others v Council [2004] OJ C228/40 (unpublished). This order has been confirmed on appeal. See Case C-354/04 P, Gestoras Pro-Amnistía and Others v Council [2007] ECR I-1579. Apart from their factual context, both judgments are essentially identical. Therefore, for the sake of clarity, reference will only be made to the Segi case.
121. Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism [2001] OJ L344/93.
122. Case T-338/02, Segi and Others v Council [2004] ECR II-1647, para 26. This order has been confirmed on appeal. See Case C-355/04 P, Segi and Others v Council [2007] ECR I-1657.
123. Case T-338/02, Segi and Others v Council [2004] ECR II-1647, para 37.
124. ibid, para 38.
125. Case C-70/88, European Parliament v Council [1990] ECR I-2041, para 21.
126. ibid, para 27.
127. Case C-355/04 P, Segi and Others v Council [2007] ECR I-1657, para 53.
128. Case T-338/02, Segi and Others v Council [2004] ECR II-1647, paras 8, 25 and 39; Case C-355/04 P, Segi and Others v Council [2007] ECR I-1657, para 60.
129. Case T-338/02, Segi and Others v Council [2004] ECR II-1647, para 39. See also Case C-368/96, The Queen v The Licensing Authority established by the Medicines Act 1968 (acting by The Medicines Control Agency), ex parte Generics (UK) Ltd, The Wellcome Foundation Ltd and Glaxo Operations UK Ltd and Others [1998] ECR I-7967, paras 26 and 27.
130. See Case 136/78, Ministère Public v Auer [1979] ECR 437, paras 25 and 26 and Case 131/86, UK v Council [1988] ECR 905, paras 26 and 27.
131. Case T-338/02, Segi and Others v Council [2004] ECR II-1647, paras 10 and 38; Case C-355/04 P, Segi and Others v Council [2007] ECR I-1657, para 36. The applicants brought this case again to the Court of Human Rights following the ECJ's 2007 decisions. See Segi and Gestoras Pro-Amnistía v 27 EU Member States, Application 3750/08 and O De Schutter, 'Les droits fondamentaux dans l'Union européenne', (2008) 148 J de Droit Eur 126-131, at 131, footnote 53.
132. Segi and Gestoras Pro-Amnistía and Others v 15 EU Member States, Applications 6422/02 and 9916/02, admissibility decision of 23 May 2002.
133. See section II B b).
134. Anon, 'Case Comment. Freedom of Association: Adoption by European Union of Common Positions on Terrorism. Case: SEGI v Germany (6422/02) (Unreported, May 23, 2002) (Court of Human Rights)', (2002) 5 European Human Rights Law Review 685.
135. Segi and Gestoras Pro-Amnistía and Others v 15 EU Member States, Applications 6422/02 and 9916/02, admissibility decision of 23 May 2002.
136. Case T-306/01, Ahmed Ali Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2005] ECR II-3533 and Case T-315/01, Yassin Abdullah Kadi v Council and Commission [2005] ECR II-3649. Apart from their factual context, both judgments are essentially identical. Therefore, for the sake of clarity, reference will only be made to the first one. For a brief analysis of these cases, see N. Angelet and A. Weerts, 'La mise en oeuvre par la Communauté européenne des mesures adoptées par les Nations unies en matière de lutte contre le financement du terrorisme', (2006) 127 Journal des Tribunaux de Droit Européen 73-74 and Th. U. Do, 'Arrêt T-306/01, Yusuf'', (2005) 3 Revue du Droit de l'Union européenne 637. Both judgments have been appealed. See Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2008] I-6351. Advocate General Poiares Maduro rendered his opinions on the appeals on 23 and 13 January 2008, respectively. In his opinions, he argued that the ECJ should set aside the Court of First Instance's judgment and annul the contested regulation insofar as it concerns the applicants. In particular, the Advocate General was of the opinion that the Court of First Instance had erred in finding that the Community Courts had only limited jurisdiction to review the regulation. As will be explained below, the ECJ followed the Advocate General's opinions.
137. D. Simon and Fl. Mariatte, 'Le Tribunal de première instance des Communautés: Professeur de droit international? A propos des arrêts Yusuf, Al Barakaat International Foundation et Kadi du 21 septembre 2005', (2005) 12 Europe 6.
138. For another unsuccessful challenge of the legal basis of a regulation freezing financial assets (in this case of Liberia's Charles Taylor and his associates), see Case T-362/04, Minin v Commission [2007] ECR II-2003. See also, concerning the freezing of funds in view of preventing Iran's nuclear proliferation, Case T-390/08, Bank Melli Iran v Council [2009] not yet reported, paras 109-112.
139. Case T-306/01, Ahmed Ali Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2005] ECR II-3533, para 231.
140. ibid, para 277. For a criticism of this proposition, see Simon and Mariatte, op cit n 140 supra, 9.
141. Simon and Mariatte, op cit n 140 supra, 9-10 and M.G. Garbagnati, 'The Court of First Instance and the Protection of Human Rights in the Fight against Terrorism: A Case of Bravery or Recklessness? (Ahmed Ali Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation and Yassin Abdullah Kadi/Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, judgments of the Court of First Instance of 21 September 2005, Cases T-306/01 and T-315/01)', (2005) 11 European Law Reporter 411.
142. Case T-306/01, Ahmed Ali Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2005] ECR II-3533, para 294.
143. ibid, para 298.
144. ibid, para 299.
145. ibid, para 300.
146. ibid, para 301.
147. ibid, para 307.
148. ibid, para 308.
149. ibid, para 309.
150. ibid, para 314.
151. ibid, para 315.
152. ibid, para 325.
153. ibid, para 328.
154. ibid, para 340.
155. ibid, para 341.
156. ibid, para 343.
157. ibid, para 345.
158. Douglas-Scott, op cit n 42 supra, 253. See also Kauff-Gazin, op cit n 56 supra, 2-3.
159. Case T-253/02, Chafiq Ayadi v Council [2006] ECR II-2139 and Case T-49/04, Faraj Hassan v Council and Commission [2006] ECR II-52. Like the Al Barakaat and Kadi judgments, both judgments were overruled on appeal. See Joined Cases C-403/06 P and C-399/06 P, Faraj Hassan and Chafiq Ayadi v Council [2009] not yet reported. For an analysis of these cases, see J. Heliskoski, 'Case comment', (2007) 44 Common Market Law Review 1143-1157. Apart from their factual context, both judgments are essentially identical. Therefore, for the sake of clarity, reference will only be made to the first one.
160. Case T-253/02, Chafiq Ayadi v Council [2006] ECR II-2139, para 145.
161. ibid, para 146-147.
162. ibid, para 150.
163. Case T-228/02, Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran v Council [2006] ECR II-4665. For an analysis of this case, see Y. Moiny, 'Le contrôle, par le juge européen, de certaines mesures communautaires visant à lutter contre le finacement du terrorisme', (2008) 149 Journal de Droit Européen 137-143 and Chr. Eckes, 'Case comment', (2007) 44 Common Market Law Review 1117-1119.
164. Case T-228/02, Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran v Council [2006] ECR II-4665, paras 108-110.
165. ibid, para 137
166. ibid, para 151
167. ibid, para 152
168. Case T-47/03, Sison v Council [2007] ECR II-73*, summ pub; Case T-327/03, Al-Aqsa v Council [2007] ECR II-79*, summ pub; Case T-229/02, PKK and KNK v Council [2008] ECR II-45; Case T-253/04, Kongra-Gel and Others v Council [2008] ECR II-46.
169. Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2008] I-6351. For an analysis of this case, see P. D'Argent, 'Arrêt "Kadi": le droit communautaire comme droit interne', (2008) 153 Journal de Droit Européen 265-268
170. J. d'Aspremont and F. Dopagne, 'KADI: The ECJ's Reminder of the Elementary Divide between Legal Orders', (2008) 5 International Organizations Law Review 1-9, Th. U. Do, 'Arrêt "Yassin Abdullah Kadi et Al Barakaat International Foundation c. Conseil et Commission"', (2008) 4 Revue du Droit de l'Union européenne 867-873, and C. Janssens, 'Het Kadi-arrest van het Hof van Justitie inzake terrorismelijsten', (2009) 34 Rechtskundig Weekblad 1410-1426.
171. Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2008] I-6351, para 236.
172. ibid, para 327. In the meantime, the Court of First Instance has brought its case-law into line with the ECJ's case-law (see Case T-318/01, Othman v Council and Commission [2009] not yet reported).
173. ibid, para 285.
174. ibid, para 286.
175. ibid, para 288.
176. ibid, para 326.
177. ibid, para 334.
178. ibid, para 336.
179. ibid, paras 339-340.
180. ibid, para 341.
181. ibid, para 345.
182. ibid, para 346.
183. ibid, para 348.
184. ibid, para 366.
185. ibid, para 361.
186. ibid, para 364.
187. ibid, para 369.
188. ibid, para 372.
189. ibid, para 373.
190. ibid, para 374.
191. ibid, paras 375-376.
192. Case T-256/07, Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran v Council [2008] not yet reported, para 62.
193. ibid, para 63.
194. ibid, para 131.
195. ibid, para 142.
196. ibid, para 157.
197. ibid, para 183.
198. ibid, para 184.
199. Case T-284/08, Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran v Council [2008] not yet reported, paras 2, 6 and 7. For an analysis of this case, see O. De Schutter, 'Les droits fondamentaux dans l'Union européenne', (1er février 2008-1er février 2009) 158 Journal de Droit Européen 115-121, at 118. This judgment has been appealed by France. See Case C-27/09 P, France v Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran Council [2009] OJ C82/14 (Application).
200. ibid, para 10.
201. ibid, paras 36-37.
202. ibid, para 40.
203. ibid, para 56.
204. ibid, paras 63 et seq.
205. ibid, para 71.
206. ibid, para 73.
207. ibid, para 76.
208. Joined Cases T-37/07 and T-323/07, El Morabit v Council [2009] not yet reported.
209. Case T-341/07, Sison v Council [2009] not yet reported, para 111.
210. For an analysis of the extension of the ECJ's jurisdiction under the Third Pillar which the Lisbon Treaty introduces, see O. De Schutter, 'Les droits fondamentaux dans l'Union européenne', (2008) 148 Journal de Droit Européen 126-131, at 130-131 and J.-V. Louis, 'Le Traité de Lisbonne', (2007) 144 Journal des Tribunaux de Droit Européen 289-298, at 294-295. Although the First Pillar's jurisdictional rules will in principle apply to the Third Pillar as well, a number of exceptions persist. In particular, Art 276 (ex-240c) of the new TFEU provides that '[i]n exercising its powers regarding the provisions of Chapters 4 and 5 of Title V of Part Three relating to the area of freedom, security and justice, the Court of Justice of the European Union shall have no jurisdiction to review the validity or proportionality of operations carried out by the police or other law-enforcement services of a Member State or the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security'. In addition, Art 10 of the Protocol on transitional provisions, attached to the Lisbon Treaty, provides that '[a]s a transitional measure, and with respect to acts of the Union in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters which have been adopted before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the powers of the institutions shall be the following at the date of entry into force of that Treaty: the powers of the Commission under Article 226 of the [TFEU] shall not be applicable and the powers of the Court of Justice of the European Union under Title VI of the [TEU], in the version in force before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, shall remain the same, including where they have been accepted under Article 35(2) of the said [TEU]'. This transitional period shall cease when the concerned acts are modified or, at the latest, five years after the date of entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.
211. Case C-105/03, Criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino [2005] ECR I-5285. For an analysis of this case, see S. Peers, 'Salvation outside the church: judicial protection in the third pillar after the Pupino and Segi judgments', (2007) 44 Common Market Law Review 883-929.
212. Protocol integrating the Schengen Agreement into the framework of the EU, Art 2(1).
213. Art 34(d) TEU.
214. N. Fennelly, 'Preserving the Legal Coherence within the New Treaty: The European Court of Justice after the Treaty of Amsterdam', (1998) 5(2) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 193.
215. Art 35 TEU.
216. S. Peers, EU Justice and Home Affairs Law (European Law Series) (Pearson Education Limited, 2000), 46
217. Fennelly, op cit n 216 supra, 193
218. Fennelly, op cit n 216 supra, 193
219. Art 35(2) TEU. Seventeen Member States have already accepted this jurisdiction (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden). See [2008] OJ L70/23 and [2008] OJ C69/1.
220. Art 35(3) TEU. Apart from Spain, all 17 Member States having accepted this jurisdiction have extended it to any court or tribunal.
221. Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Spain.
222. Declaration No 10 on Art 35 TEU.
223. Art 35(4) TEU.
224. Peers, op cit n 218 supra, 46-47.
225. Case C-70/88, European Parliament v Council [1990] ECR I-2041.
226. Art 39 TEU.
227. See n 213 supra.
228. A. Albors-Llorens, 'Changes in the Jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice under the Treaty of Amsterdam', (1998) 35 Common Market Law Review 1287.
229. Peers, op cit n 218 supra, 47.
230. Case C-221/88, ECSC v Acciaierie e Ferriere Busseni [1990] ECR I-495.
231. Peers, op cit n 218 supra, 48.
232. Peers, op cit n 218 supra, 47.
233. S. Langrish, 'The Treaty of Amsterdam: Selected Highlights', (1998) 23(1) European Law Review 3 and 8.
234. Fennelly, op cit n 216 supra, 194. The same need for very speedy decisions led to the adoption by the Council on 20 December 2007, of an urgent preliminary ruling procedure applicable as of 1 March 2008, to references concerning the area of freedom, security and justice?. The ECJ's first judgment on the basis of the urgent preliminary ruling procedure was delivered on 11 July 2008, in Case C-195/08 PPU, Rinau [2008] I-5271. For an analysis of this new procedure, see the ECJ's Press Release No 12/08 of 3 March 2008 and S. Van Der Jeught and I. Kolowca, 'La nouvelle procédure préjudicielle d'urgence devant la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes', (2008) 150 Journal de Droit Européen 175-176.
235. Opinion of Advocate General Leger in Case C-416/96, Eddline El-Yassini [1999] ECR I-1209.
236. The ECJ laid down a similar rule in its case-law. See Case C-234/04, Kapferer [2006] ECR I-2585.
237. Opinion 1/91 on the Draft agreement between the Community, on the one hand, and the countries of the EFTA, on the other, relating to the creation of the EEA [1991] ECR I-6079, para 61.
238. However, the Council has still not taken this Decision. See COM/2006/0346 and CNS/2006/0808. To consult the current status of this decision, see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=5386862.
239. Fennelly, op cit n 216 supra, 195.
240. Art 2 in both Protocols annexed to the TEU and to the EC Treaty.
241. Langrish, op cit n 235 supra, 10.
242. Albors-Llorens, op cit n 230 supra, 1281
243. Albors-Llorens, op cit n 230 supra, 1288
244. Albors-Llorens, op cit n 230 supra, 1282
245. Albors-Llorens, op cit n 230 supra, 1282
246. Case C-221/88, ECSC v Acciaierie e Ferriere Busseni [1990] ECR I-495, para 13
247. See, for instance, concerning Art 68(1) EC, Case C-45/03, Oxana Dem'Yanenko [2004] OJ C106/16 (unpublished), in which the ECJ held that it clearly lacks jurisdiction to answer preliminary questions referred by a lower national court.
248. Toth, op cit n 22 supra, 497.
249. G. Amato and J. Batt, 'Minority Rights and Enlargement to the East, Report of the First Meeting of the Reflection Group on the Long-Term Implications of EU Enlargement: the Nature of the New Border', RSC No 98/5 EUI Working Papers-Policy Papers 12, available at http://www.iue.it/RSCAS/WP-Texts/98_05p.htm.
250. M. Bell, 'The New Article 13 EC Treaty: A Sound Basis for European Anti-Discrimination Law?', (1999) 6(1) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 22 and the case-law cited therein.
251. Which entered into force on 1 April 2005 and is ratified by the following EU Member States: Cyprus, Finland, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Romania and Spain. See http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=177&CM=8&DF=8/10/2008&CL=ENG.
252. Case 12/86, Meryem Demirel v Stadt Schwäbisch Gmünd [1987] ECR 3719, para 28.
253. Toth, op cit n 22 supra, 497.
254. P. Craig and G. de Búrca, EU Law Texts Cases and Materials (3rd edn, Oxford University Press, 2003), 720 and 742-743.
255. Case C-206/91, Koua Poirrez v Caisse d'allocations familiales de la Seine-Saint-Denis [1992] ECR I-6685.
256. Koua Poirrez v France, Application 40892/98, judgment of 30 September 2003.
257. Concerning the Advocate General's role before the ECJ, see Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Case C-466/00, Kaba II [2003] ECR I-2219, paras 84-117; Case C-17/98, Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v Aruba [2000] ECR I-665; Case C-434/02, Arnold André GmbH & Co KG v Landrat des Kreises Herford [2004] ECR I-11825, paras 24-27 and Case C-210/03, Swedish Match AB v Secretary for Health [2004] ECR I-11893, paras 22-25.
258. Concerning the Advocate General's role before the ECJ, see Emesa Sugar NV v the Netherlands, Application 62023/00, admissibility decision of 13 January 2005 and Cooperatieve Producentenorganisatie van de Nederlandse Kokkelvisserij v the Netherlands, Application 13645/05, admissibility decision of 20 January 2009. Concerning irregularities in the procedures before the ECJ, see Guérin Automobiles v 15 EU Member States, Application 51717/99, admissibility decision of 4 July 2000.
259. Case T-338/02, Segi and Others v Council [2004] ECR II-1647, paras 16, 26 and 48.
260. Vermeulen v Belgium, Application 19075/91, judgment of 20 February 1996.
261. Case C-17/98, Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v Aruba [2000] ECR I-665, para 16.
262. ibid, para 17.
263. ibid, para 18. See Rule 61 of the ECJ's Rules of Procedure.
264. R. Lawson, 'Case C17/98, Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v. Aruba, Order of the Court of Justice of 4 February 2000, nyr. Full Court', (2000) 37 Common Market Law Review 987.
265. ibid, 988.
266. Kress v France, Application 39594/98, judgment of 7 June 2001, para 71. See also para 74.
267. Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Case C-466/00, Kaba II [2003] ECR I-2219, para 86.
268. ibid. See, in particular, para 105, which reads: 'It seems that what was being sought was not so much the protection of a fundamental right as the imposition of a uniform conception of the organisation of the procedure, without explaining the need for it in terms going beyond the doctrine of appearances. It is legitimate to wonder . . . whether, for the purposes of the Convention, the limits of European control may not be exceeded in the light of the specific nature of national rules . . . Alternatively, . . . the Convention does not aim at uniform law but lays down directives and standards, which, as such, imply a certain freedom for Member States. . . . These contradictory features create a certain internal tension which requires . . . the Court to act with prudence and to take care not to interfere without a convincing justification.'.
269. ibid, para 106.
270. Case C-466/00, Kaba II [2003] ECR I-2219, para 56.
271. Emesa Sugar NV v the Netherlands, Application 62023/00, admissibility decision of 13 January 2005.
272. Cooperatieve Producentenorganisatie van de Nederlandse Kokkelvisserij v the Netherlands, Application 13645/05, admissibility decision of 20 January 2009.
273. Case T-127/02, Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee, Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij, Order of 28 April 2004 (unpublished), para 7.
274. The rather unrealistic option of incorporating the Convention into EU law and having all EU Member States withdraw from the Convention, as well as the option of considering the EU bound by the Convention on the basis of the succession of states theory, will not be addressed.
275. S. Alber and U. Widmaier, 'Die EU-Charta der Grundrechte und ihre Auswirkungen auf die Rechtsprechung', (2000) 27(17-19) Europaeische Grundrechte Zeitschrift 506-507.
276. J.H. Jackson, 'Afterword: The Linkage Problem - Comments On Five Texts', (2002) 96 American Journal of International Law 122, available at http://www.asil.org/ajil/wto7.pdf.
277. K. Lenaerts and E. De Smijter, 'A Bill of Rights for the European Union', (2001) 38 Common Market Law Review 282.
278. ibid, 284 and S. McInerney, 'The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Case of Race Discrimination', (2002) 27 European Law Review 490.
279. Case C-432/05, Unibet [2007] ECR I-2271, para 37 and Case C-341/05, Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avd. 1, Byggettan, Svenska Elektrikerförbundet [2007] ECR I-11767, para 90. See also P. Eeckhout, 'The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the federal question', (2002) 39 Common Market Law Review 945-994.
280. For an analysis of the implications of this reference and of the Protocol on the application of the Charter to Poland and to the UK, which excludes Poland and the UK from the Charter's direct justiciability, see O. De Schutter, 'Les droits fondamentaux dans l'Union européenne', (2008) 148 Journal de Droit Européen 126-131, at 126-127.
281. E. Chwolik-Lanfermann, Grundrechtsschutz in der Europäischen Union: Bestand, Tendenzen und Entwicklungen (P. Lang, 1994), 295-296.
282. Toth, op cit n 22 supra, 501.
283. See section II A b).
284. Toth, op cit n 22 supra, 501.
285. Opinion 2/94 on Accession by the Community to the Convention [1996] ECR I-1759.
286. Opinion 1/91 on the Draft agreement between the Community, on the one hand, and the countries of the EFTA, on the other, relating to the creation of the EEA [1991] ECR I-6079.
287. Opinion 2/94 on Accession by the Community to the Convention [1996] ECR I-1759, paras 32 and 33.
288. ibid, para 33.
289. ibid, para 27.
290. ibid, para 36.
291. De Witte, op cit n 101 supra, 883, K. Lenaerts, 'Respect for Fundamental Rights as a Constitutional Principle of the European Union', (2000) 6 Columbia Journal of European Law 2 and Douglas-Scott, op cit n 42 supra, 251.
292. Opinion 1/91 on the Draft agreement between the Community, on the one hand, and the countries of the EFTA, on the other, relating to the creation of the EEA [1991] ECR I-6079, para 35.
293. ibid, paras 40 and 41.
294. Nevertheless, Art 3 of the Protocol relating to Art 6(2) of the TEU on the accession of the Union to the Convention, attached to the Lisbon Treaty, specifies that 'nothing in the [agreement relating to the EU's accession to the Convention] shall affect Article 292 of the [TFEU]'.
295. New Art 188 N (3), (6) and (8) of the new TFEU, which replaces Article 300 EC, further provides that '[t]he Council, on a proposal by the negotiator [nominated by it], shall [unanimously] adopt a decision concluding the agreement . . . after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament in the following cases: . . . Union accession to the [Convention]'.
296. In this respect, the ECJ held that where 'an international agreement provides for its own system of Courts, including a court with jurisdiction to settle disputes between the Contracting Parties to the agreement, and, as a result, to interpret its provisions, the decisions of that Court will be binding on the Community institutions, including the Court of Justice', Opinion 1/91 on the Draft agreement between the Community, on the one hand, and the countries of the EFTA, on the other, relating to the creation of the EEA [1991] ECR I-6079, para 39.
297. Costello, op cit n 78 supra, 129
298. Douglas-Scott, op cit n 42 supra, 252
299. Douglas-Scott, op cit n 42 supra, 251-252
300. J.Cl. Juncker, 'Council of Europe - European Union: "A sole ambition for the European continent"', Report to the attention of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the Council of Europe, 11 April 2006, 4, available at http://www.gouvernement.lu/sale_presse/actualite/2006/04/11conseil_europe/.
301. M. Waelbroeck, 'La Cour de Justice et la Convention Européenne des Droits de l'Homme', (1996) (5-6) Cahiers de Droit Européen 551.
302. Toth, op cit n 22 supra, 503-504.
303. J.H.H. Weiler, The Constitution of Europe. Do the New Clothes have an Emperor and other Essays on European Integration (Cambridge University Press, 1999), 126
304. A. Bultrini, 'L'interaction entre le système de la Convention européenne des Droits de l'Homme et le Système communautaire', (1998) 4 Zeitschrift fuer Europarechtliche Studien 498
305. Alber and Widmaier, op cit n 279 supra.
306. By contrast, Art 24(6) TEU, to which Art 39 TEU refers, provides that '[a]greements concluded under the conditions set out by this Article shall be binding on the institutions of the Union'.
307. In particular, Case 12/86, Meryem Demirel v Stadt Schwäbisch Gmünd [1987] ECR 3719, paras 7, 11 and 14; Case 104/81, Hauptzollamt Mainz v Kupferberg & Cie [1982] ECR 3641, paras 11-14 and 22-26; and Opinion 1/91 on the Draft agreement between the Community, on the one hand, and the countries of the EFTA, on the other, relating to the creation of the EEA [1991] ECR I-6079, paras 37-39.
308. Toth, op cit n 22 supra, 508
309. Toth, op cit n 22 supra, 508-509
310. In this respect, Art 2 of the Protocol relating to Art 6(2) of the TEU on the accession of the Union to the Convention, attached to the Lisbon Treaty, specifies that 'accession of the Union shall not affect the competences of the Union or the powers of its institutions. It shall ensure that nothing therein affects the situation of Member States in relation to the European Convention'.
311. J.G. Merrills and A.H. Robertson, Human rights in Europe: a study of the European Convention on Human Rights (4th edn, Manchester University Press, 2001), 274
312. This provision was necessary because Art 59(1) of the Convention states that 'this Convention shall be open to the signature of the members of the Council of Europe', while Art 4 of the Statute of the Council of Europe reads that 'any European State . . . may be invited to become a member of the Council of Europe'.
313. Concerning these issues, see A. Verstichel, 'European Union Accession to the European Convention of Human Rights' in P. Lemmens and W. Vandenhole (eds), Protocol No 14 and the Reform of the European Court of Human Rights (Intersentia, 2005), 137-140.
314. The Court of Human Rights refused to rule on a similar issue concerning the compatibility with the Convention of the role of the Human Rights Commission of the CIS in the framework of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the CIS. See J.-F. Renucci, 'Observations sous l'arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme (gde ch) du 2 juin 2004', (2004) 35 Recueil Dalloz 2532-2533 and Anon, 'Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, décision du 02.06.04', (2004) 2 Reflets 1-3, available at http://europa.eu.int/cj/fr/coopju/apercu_reflets/common/recdoc/reflets/frame1.htm.
315. M & Co v Germany, Application 13258/87, admissibility decision of 9 February 1990, and Matthews v UK, Application 248333/94, judgment of 18 February 1999, para 33.
316. Bultrini, op cit n 14 supra, 15-17; O. De Schutter and O. L'Hoest, 'La Cour européenne des Droits de l'Homme juge du droit communautaire: Gibraltar, L'Union européenne et la Convention Européenne des Droits de l'Homme', (2000) (1-2) Cahiers de Droit Eur 201-203.
317. See, for instance, the Guérin decision, in which the Court of Human Rights noted that: 'Cette observation suffit à faire regarder la requête comme étant, en tout état de cause, irrecevable. Elle dispense la Cour de la nécessité d'examiner la question de sa compatibilité ratione personae avec la Convention, question qui ne manquerait pas, autrement, de se poser puisque la requête est dirigée, non contre l'Union européenne (laquelle n'est pas partie à la Convention), mais contre les 15 Etats contractants, qui sont en même temps membres de l'Union européenne.', Guérin Automobiles v 15 EU Member States, Application 51717/99, admissibility decision of 4 July 2000).
318. Confédération Française Démocratique du Travail v the European Communities, alternatively their Member States (I) a) jointly and b) severally, Application 8030/77, admissibility decision of 10 July 1978.
319. Dufay v the European Communities, alternatively their Member States (I) a) jointly and b) severally, Application 13539/88, admissibility decision of 19 January 1989.
320. Manfred, Erika and Volker Lenz v Germany and the other Member States of the European Communities, Application 38837/97, admissibility decision of 6 July 2004.
321. Garzilli v EU Member States, Application 32384/96, admissibility decision of 22 October 1998.
322. Guérin Automobiles v 15 EU Member States, Application 51717/99, admissibility decision of 4 July 2000.
323. Segi and Gestoras Pro-Amnistía and Others v 15 EU Member States, Applications 6422/02 and 9916/02, admissibility decision of 23 May 2002 and Senator Lines GmbH v 15 EU Member States, Application 56672/00, admissibility decision of 10 March 2004.
324. Biret International SA v 15 EU Member States, Application 13762/04, admissibility decision of 9 December 2008 and Connolly v 15 EU Member States, Application 73274/01, admissibility decision of 9 December 2008. See also MacDonald v The United Kingdom and others, Application 338/03, admissibility decision of 16 April 2009, in which the Court of Human Rights declared inadmissible ratione personae an application against all EU Member States in relation to the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools.
325. Douglas-Scott, op cit n 42 supra, 250.
326. Drzemczewski, op cit n 77 supra, 29
327. I. Canor, 'Primus inter pares. Who is the ultimate guardian of fundamental rights in Europe', (2000) 25(1) European Law Review 21.
328. De Schutter and L'Hoest, op cit n 320 supra, 207.
329. S. Coisne, 'Handelingen van de Europese Unie voor het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens', [2002-2003] Seminarie Europees Recht 34, available at http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/int/europees/English/Publications/Papers%20and%20Seminar%20Papers/Seminar%20Papers/seminar_papers.htm.
330. H.G. Schermers, 'The relationship with European Organisations other than the Council of Europe', in M. de Salvia and M.E. Villigers (eds), The birth of European Human Rights Law (Nomos Verlagsgesellshaft, 1998), 315 and 320. See also Canor, op cit n 331 supra, 12.
331. Drzemczewski, op cit n 77 supra, 28, footnote 156.
332. Toth, op cit n 22 supra, 492.
333. Bultrini, op cit n 14 supra, 25
334. Toth, op cit n 22 supra, 494-495
335. Toth, op cit n 22 supra, 496
336. Case 44/84, Hurd v Jones [1986] ECR 29, para 20
337. The Lisbon Treaty, in itself, does not provide any clarity on this issue, as it repeals Art 46 TEU.
338. In this respect, see n 95 supra.
339. In this respect, see nn 108 and 212 supra.
340. De Witte, op cit n 101 supra, 889. See also Ph. Alston and J.H.H. Weiler, 'An "Ever Closer Union" in Need of a Human Rights Policy', (1998) 9(4) European Journal of Interntional Law 658-723.
341. De Witte, op cit n 101 supra, 893-896.
342. Alber and Widmaier, op cit n 279 supra, 508.
343. Alber and Widmaier, op cit n 279 supra, 507. See also G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, 'The Protection of Fundamental Rights in the Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities', (1995) 1 Columbia Journal of European Law 174-175 and P. Pescatore, 'La Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes et la convention européenne des droits de l'homme', in F. Matscher and H. Petzold (eds), Mélanges en l'Honneur de Gérard J Wiarda (Carl Heymanns, 1988), 441 et seq.
344. In this respect, see n 95 supra, 108 and 212.
345. Albors-Llorens, op cit n 230 supra, 1287.
346. Albors-Llorens, op cit n 230 supra, 1285-1286. The lack of practical implications of the ECJ's jurisdiction over the 'human rights clause' is corroborated by the fact that, if and when the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, Art 46 TEU, which grants this jurisdiction, is repealed upon entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.
347. Juncker, op cit n 304 supra, 5
348. Douglas-Scott, op cit n 42 supra, 252
349. In this respect, see n 95 supra, 108 and 212