EU accession to the ECHR: Implications for judicial review in strasbourg

European Law Review

Volumn 35, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 777-798

  Lock, Tobias ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79551696062     PISSN: 03075400     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (158)

1. Cf. e.g. H. Golsong, Grundrechtsschutz im Rahmen der Europdischen Gemeinschaften, EuropSische Grundrechtezeitschrift 1978,346
2. European Commission, Memorandum on the accession of the European Communities to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Bulletin of the European Communities, Supplement 2/79.
3. Accession of the Community to the European Human Rights Convention, Re (Opinion 2/94) E.C.R. [ 1996] I-1759; [1996] 2 C.M.L.R. 265
4. for an excellent discussion of this Opinion cf. P. Koutrakos, EU International Relations Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2006), pp. 128-130.
5. Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2010] OJ C83/1 (consolidated version).
6. That Protocol introduced a new art.59(2) ECHR, which reads: "The European Union may accede to this Convention."
7. Article 6(2) reads: "The Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Such accession shall not affect the Union's competences as defined in the Treaties."
8. For an extensive discussion cf. H.C. Krtlger/J. Polakiewicz, "Proposals for a Coherent Human Rights Protection System in Europe" (2001) 22 Human Rights Law Journal 1, 3.
9. So-called Copenhagen criteria, cf. Conclusions of the Presidency, European Council June 21-22,1993 SN 180/1/93 REV1.
10. Technical and legal issues of a possible EC/EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, CDDH(2002)010 Addendum 2.
11. Hearing before the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs, March 18,2010, at http://www .eumparl.europa.eu/activities/committees/ hearingsCom.do?language=EN&body=AFCO [Accessed October 27', 2010].
12. Council of the European Union, The Stockholm Programme-An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens, December 2,2009, doc. 17024/09.
13. Council of Europe, press release 545(2010), 7 July 2010; the Council gave the Commission a mandate for negotiation on June 4,2010 with negotiation directives (Document 9689/10), which remain classified.
14. Technical and legal issues of a possible EC/EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights CDDH(2010)010,para25.
15. Article 218(11) TFEU.
16. Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Txcaret Anonim Sirketi vIreland(2006) 42 E.H.R.R. 1 at [155] and [156].
17. Confederation Francaise Democratique du Travail (CFDT) v European Communities [1979] 2 C.M.L.R. 229.
18. Matthews v United Kingdom (1999) 28 E.H.R.R. 361 at [32].
19. Bosphorus (2006) 42 E.H.R.R. 1 at [153].
20. Regulation 990/93 Concerning Trade Between the European Economic Community and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) [1993] OJ L102/14.
21. UNSC Res 820 (1993).
22. Bosphorus (2006) 42 E.H.R.R. 1 at [155] and [156].
23. Bosphorus (2006) 42 E.H.R.R. 1 at [156].
24. Connolly v 15 Member States of the European Union (App. No.73274/01) (Section V),December 9,2008,confirmed in: Beygo v 46 Member States of the Council of Europe (App. No.36099/06) (Section V), June 16, 2009,and Rambus Inc. v Germany (App. No.40382/04) (Section V), June 16, 2009.
25. On the ECtHR's post-Bosphorus case law cf. T. 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) 10 Human Rights Law Review 529.
26. Protocol relating to art.6(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the accession of the Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [2010] OJ C83/273.
27. J. A. Frowein/W. Peukert, Europaische Menschenrechtskonvention, 3rd edn (Kehlheim: N.P. Engel Verlag, 2009), art.34, para.66.
28. Article 1 of the Protocol (No.8) relating to art.6(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the accession of the Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [2010] OJ C83/273
29. repeated in Declaration on Article 6 (2) of the Treaty on European Union [2010] OJ C83/337.
30. Costa v Ente Nazionale per I 'Energia Elettrica (ENEL) (6/64) [ 1964] E.C.R. 585
31. [1964] C.M.L.R. 425
32. Draft Treaty on a European Economic Area (No.l), Re (Opinion 1/91) [1991] E.C.R. 1-6079
33. [1992] 1 C.M.L.R. 245 at [34]
34. Draft Treaty on a European Economic Area (No.2), Re (Opinion 1/92) [1992] E.C.R. 1-2821
35. [1992] 2 C.M.L.R. 217
36. Draft Agreement on a European Common Aviation Area, Re (Opinion 1/00) [2002] E.C.R. 1-3493, [2002] 2 C.M.L.R. 35 at [11]
37. Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (C-459/03) [2006] E.C.R. 1-4635
38. [2006] C.M.L.R. 59 at [123]
39. Kadi v Council of the European Union (402/05 P & 415/05 P)[2008] E.C.R. 1-6351
40. [2008] C.M.L.R. 41 at [282].
41. In light of the changes brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon, this article refers to the "EU" even where the original decision concerned the EEC or the EC.
42. Costa v ENEL [1964] E.C.R. 585. The original French version speaks of "une source autonome"
43. confirmed in Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und VorratsstellefUr Getreide und Futtermittel (11/70) [1970] E.C.R. 1125.
44. Confirmed in Commission v Ireland (C-459/03) [2006] E.C.R. 1-4635 (Mox Plant Case).
45. Opinion 1/91 [1991] E.C.R. 1-6079 at [34]-[35].
46. Opinion 1/91 [1991] E.C.R. 1-6079 at [41].
47. Opinion 1/91 [1991] E.C.R. 1-6079 at [39].
48. Opinion 1/92 [1992] E.C.R. 1-2825 at [24].
49. Opinion 1/91 [1991] E.C.R. 1-6079 at [58].
50. Opinion 1/91 [1991] E.C.R. 1-6079 at [61].
51. The non-Member States could choose to make them obligatory and binding, but were not obliged to do so: Opinion 1/91 [1991] E.C.R. 1-6079 at [58].
52. Opinion 1/92 [1992] E.C.R. 1-2825 at [32].
53. Opinion 1/00 [2002] E.C.R. 1-3493 at [22].
54. Kadi (402/05 P & 415/05 P) [2008] E.C.R. 1-6351 at [282]-[285].
55. Cf. Germany v Council of the European Union (C-122/95) [1998] E.C.R. 1-973
56. B. de Witte, "European Union Law: How Autonomous is its Legal Order?" (2010) 65 Zeitschriftfiir Offentliches Recht, 141, 153.
57. A discussion on further implications of these statements for the relationship between EU law and public international law would go beyond the remit of this article ; for an excellent discussion cf. de Witte (see fh.41).
58. On the "relentless" use of art.352 TFEU cf. D. Chalmers/A. Tomkins, European Union Public Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp.212-219.
59. Apparently, this is the French government's aim, cf. French Senate, Communication de M. Robert Badinter sur le mandat de negotiation (E 5248) May 25,2010, at: http://www.senat.fr/europe/r25052010.html#tocl [Accessed October 2, 2010]
60. ECtHR Tulkens J. warned of an exclusion of primary law at a hearing before the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs, March 18, 2010 at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities /committees/hearingsCom.do? language=EN&body=AFCO [Accessed October 2,2010].
61. The ECJ describes the treaties as the "basic constitutional charter", Parti Ecologiste Les Verts v European Parliament (294/83) [1986] E.C.R. 1339
62. [1987] 2 C.M.L.R. 343 at [23]
63. on the discussion as to whether the whole of primary law constitutes the European Union's constitution or only parts of it cf. A. von Bogdandy, "Constitutional Principles", in: A. von Bogdandy and J. Bast (eds), Principles of European Constitutional Law, (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2005), pp.3-5.
64. e.g. art.79 (2) of the German Basic Law, which requires a 2/3 majority in both the Federal Diet and the Federal Council; in Opinion 2/94 the ECJ emphasised that an accession to the ECHR would be of "constitutional significance" and would thus necessitate an amendment to the treaties, cf. Opinion 2/94 [1996] E.C.R. 1-1759 at [35]
65. Germany v European Parliament (C-376/98) [2000] E.C.R. 1-8419
66. [2000] 3 C.M.L.R. 1175.
67. Kadi (402/05 P & 415/05 P) [2008] E.C.R. 1-6351 at [282]-[286].
68. This, however, is argued by M. Kongeter, "Völkerrecntliche und innerstaatliche Probleme eines Beitritts der EuropSischen Union zur EMRK" in J. Bast (ed), Die Europaische Verfassung, Verfassungen in Europa (Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verlag, 2005), pp.230, 245.
69. Cf. the discussion of individual access infra.
70. Draft Report on the institutional aspects of accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, February 2, 2010 (2009/2241 (INI)), at para.7
71. this report was adopted by the European Parliament on May 19, 2010, P7-TA-PROV(2010)0184.
72. CDDH, fii.8, para.57 et seq
73. the CDDH refers to the "co-defendant"; this author prefers the designation "co-respondent".
74. Badinter, see fh.44.
75. Badinter, see fh.44.
76. e.g. in Bosphorus (2006) 42 E.H.R.R. 1 at [9].
77. CDDH,fh.8,para.59.
78. This duty can be traced back to the older case law of the EC J, e.g. Firma Fromme v Bundesamtalt fiir Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung (54/81) [1982] E.C.R. 1449 at [5]
79. Deutsche Milchkontor GmbH v Germany (205-215/82) [1983] E.C.R. 2633
80. [1984] 3 C.M.L.R. 586 at [42].
81. D. Chalmers, G. Davies and G. Monti, European Union Law, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010),p.225.
82. D. Harris, M. O'Boyle, E. Bates and C. Buckley (eds), Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), p.855.
83. This has also been proposed by S. Winkler, Der Beitritt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften zur Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag, 2000), p.56.
84. CDDH, Technical and legal issues of a possible EC/EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, CDDH(2002)010 Addendum 2, paras 48-49.
85. NTN Toyo Bearing Co Lid v Council of Ministers of the European Communities (113/77) [1979] E.C.R. 1185; [1979]2C.M.L.R.257at[2].
86. Piraiki-Patraiki Cotton Industry AE v Commission of the European Communities (11/82) [1985] E.C.R. 207
87. [1985] 2 C.M.L.R. 461 at [6]-[10].
88. Plaumann & Cov Commission of the European Economic Community{25162) [1963] E.C.R. 95
89. [1964] C.M.L.R. 29
90. Codorniu SA v Council of Ministers of the European Communities (Codorniu) (C309/89) [1994] ECR 1-1853
91. [1995] 2 C.M.L.R. 561 at [20].
92. Union de Pequenos Agricultores v Council of the European Union (C-50/00 P) [2002] E.C.R. 1-6677
93. [2002] 3 C.M.L.R. 1 at [44].
94. Cases ofde Wilde Ooms and Versyp v Belgium (App. Nos.2832/66, 2835/66 & 2899/66) November 18, 1970 at [62].
95. CONV 734/03, p.20.
96. Article 1-33 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe [2004] OJ C310/1
97. P. Craig and G. de Biirca, EU Law, 4th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p.527 argue that a regulatory act is a regulation within the meaning of art.I-33.
98. For a recent and more detailed discussion of this issue, see S. Balthasar, "Locus Standi Rules for Challenges to Regulatory Acts by Private Applicants: The New Article 263(4) TFEU" (2010) 35 E.L. Rev. 542, who argues that regulations constitute "regulatory acts"
99. a different stance is taken by D. Chalmers, G. Davies and G. Monti, European Union Law, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp.414-415.
100. Article 228(1) TFEU.
101. Lehtinen v Finland(App. No. 39076/97) October 14,1999, which refers to ECommHR (App. No.9248) October 10, 1983 {Leander v Sweden).
102. An example would be the German Federal Constitutional Court, cf. its decision on the Lisbon Treaty, Bundesverfassungsgericht (Second Senate), Cases 2 BvE 2/08; 2 BvE 5/08; 2 BvR 1010/08
103. 2 BvR 1022/08; 2 BvR 1259/08; 2 BvR 182/09, Decision of 30 June 2009; English version available at: http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht .de/entscheidungen/es20090630-2bve000208en.html [Accessed October 2,2010].
104. Demopoulosv Turkey (App.Nos 46113/99,3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 & 21819/04) (2010) 50 E.H.R.R. SE14.
105. Demopoulosv Turkey (App.Hos 46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 & 21819/04) (2010) 50 E.H.R.R. SE14 at [64].
106. Demopoulos v Turkey (App.llos46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03,10200/04,14163/04,19993/04& 21819/04) (2010) 50 E.H.R.R. SE14 at [69].
107. Firma Foto Frost v Hauptzollamt Lubeck-Ost (314/85) [1987] E.C.R. 4199
108. [1988] 3 C.M.L.R. 57 at [20].
109. Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret AS v Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications (Ireland) (C84/95) [1996] E.C.R. 1-3953
110. [1996] 3 C.M.L.R. 257.
111. Discussion document of the Court of Justice of the European Union on certain aspects of the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, May 5, 2010, para.9, available at:http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/uploaa7docs/application/ pdf/2010-05/convention-en-2010-05-21-12-10-16-272.pdf'[Accessed November 5,2010].
112. Cf. the intervention by ECJ Timmermans J., L 'adhesion de I 'Union Européenne à la Convention europeenne des Droits de I 'homme, at a hearing before the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs, March 18, 2010 at www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/hearingsCom.do? language=EN&body=AFCO [Accessed October 10,2010].
113. Cf. e.g. Sri CILFITand Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health (283/81) [1982] E.C.R. 3415 at [9]
114. R. (on the application of nternational Air Transport Association (IATA)) v Department of Transport (C-344/04) [2006] E.C.R. 1-403; [2006] 2 C.M.L.R. 20 at [28].
115. CILFIT (C-283/81) [1982] E.C.R. 3415 at [21].
116. Azinas v Cyprus (App. No.56679/00) April 28, 2004 at [40].
117. Eurico Italia Sri, Viazzo Sri and F & P SpA v Ente Nazionale Risi (C-332/92, C-333/92 & C-335/92) [ 1994] E.C.R. 1-711 at [17]
118. Criminal Proceedings against Franzen (C-189/95) [1997] E.C.R. 1-5909 at [79]
119. World Wildlife Fund(WWF) v Autonome Provinz Bozen (C-435/97) [1999] E.C.R. 1-5613 at [28]-[29].
120. Article 134 of the Italian Constitution and legge costituzionale 9 febbraio 1948, fh. 1
121. cf. O. de Schutter, L 'adhésion de I 'Union européenne à la Convention européenne des droits de I 'homme: feuille de route de la neacute;gociation, presented at a hearing before the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs, March 18, 2010 at http://www.eumparl.eumpa.eu/activities/committees/hearingsCom.do?Ianguage= EN&boay=AFCO[AccessedOctober 2,20l0].
122. Brozicekv Italy (1990) 12 E.H.R.R. 371
123. Immobiliare Saffiv Italy (2000) 30 E.H.R.R. 756
124. DeJorio v Italy (2005) 40 E.H.R.R. 42. 86 See Timmermans, fh.79.
125. Discussion document, fh.78, para. 12.
126. This proposal was made, inter alia, by Badinter, see fn.44. Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA [2002] OJ LI90/1. Timmermans, fh.79, para.9.
127. Discussed by the CDDH, fh.8, paras 75-77.
128. R&VHaegemanSprlvBelgium (181/73) [1974] E.C.R. 449
129. [1975] 1 C.M.L.R. 515 at [5]
130. Commission vIreland (C-459/03) [2006] E.C.R. 1-4635 (Mox Plant).
131. CDDH, fh.8, para.77.
132. On average about seventeen months, cf. ECJ, Annual Report 2009, p.94.
133. Winkler,fh.60,pp.ll2-113.
134. Article 10 ECHR and art. 11 Charter of Fundamental Rights respectively. "instructive on the relationship between the Charter and the internal market: S. Weatherill, "The Internal Market", in: S. Peers and A. Ward (eds), The Charter of Fundamental Rights (Oxford: Hart, 2004), p. 183
135. on the scope ratione materiae of the Charter compared with the ECHR and fundamental rights recognised as general principles of EU law, cf.
136. K. Lenaerts and E. de Smijter, "A 'Bill of Rights' for the European Union" (2001) 38 C.M.L. Rev. 273, 278
137. P. Lemmens, "The Relation between the Charter and the ECHR" (2001) 8 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 49, where he compares each of the corresponding rights.
138. Eugen Schmidberger Internationale Transpose Planzuge v Austria (C-112/00) [2003] E.C.R. 1-5659
139. [2003] 2 C.M.L.R. 34 at [77].
140. Handyside v UK (App. No.5493/72) (1976) 1 E.H.R.R. 737 at [48].
141. Cf. supra.
142. Protocol (No.8) relating to art.6 (2) of the Treaty on European Union on the accession of the Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [2010] OJ C83/273.
143. Haegeman (181/73) [1974] E.C.R. 449 at [5]
144. Commission v Ireland (C-459/03) [2006] E.C.R. 1-4635 (Mox Plant).
145. Opinion 1/91 [1991] E.C.R. 1-6079 at [35].
146. For more details on this provision cf. T. Lock, "The ECJ and the ECtHR: The Future Relationship between the Two European Courts" (2009) 8 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 375, 391-395.
147. On the ECJ's jurisdiction to interpret mixed agreements cf. P. utrakos, "Interpretation of Mixed Agreements" in: C. Hillion and P. Koutrakos (eds), Mixed Agreements Revisited (Oxford: Hart, 2010), p.
148. I. Govaere, "Beware of the Trojan Horse: Dispute Settlement in (Mixed) Agreements and the Autonomy of the EU Legal Order" in C. Hillion and P. Koutrakos (eds), Mixed Agreements Revisited (Oxford: Hart, 2010), p.187.
149. A parallel can be drawn to the applicability of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, cf. its art.51.
150. Proposal made at a hearing before the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs, March 18, 2010 a.lhttp://www.europarleuropa.eu/ activities/committees/hearingsCom.do?language=EN&body=AFCO[Accessed October 2,2010].
151. According to Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick, fn.59, p.822, only 21 such complaints have been made so far.
152. This claim was made by J. Christoffersen at a hearing before the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs, March 18, 2010 at http://www.europarl.europa.en/activities/committees/hearingsCom .do?language=EN&body=AFCO [Accessed October 2,2010].
153. Bosphorus (2006) 42 E.H.R.R. 1 at [155] and [156].
154. A comparison of the protection offered by the Charter and by the ECHR can be found in P. Lemmens,"The Relation between the Charter and the ECHR" (2001) 8 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 49.
155. L. Besselink, "The European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights: From Sovereign Immunity in Bosphorus to Full Scrutiny Under the Reform Treaty?" in I. Boerefijn and J. Goldschmidt (eds), Changing Perceptions of Sovereignty and Human Rights, Essays in Honour ofCees Flinterman (Antwerp:Intersentia, 2008),pp.295, 305.
156. S. Douglas-Scott, "Bosphorus v Ireland" (2006) 43 C.M.L. Rev. 243.
157. Besselink, 303.
158. An example would be the German Federal Constitutional Court.s