Walking on a tightrope: The draft echr accession agreement and the autonomy of the EU legal order

Common Market Law Review

Volumn 48, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 1025-1054

  Lock, Tobias ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80051583723     PISSN: 01650750     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. First draft agreement on the accession of the EU to the Convention, CDDH-UE(2011)04; (first) revised draft agreement, CDDH-UE(2011)06; (second) revised draft agreement, CDDHUE(2011)10.
2. Golsong, "Grundrechtsschutz im Rahmen der Europäischen Gemeinschaften", (1978) Europäische Grundrechtezeitschrift, 346
3. 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.
4. Cf. the article by Jacqué, "The accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms", in this Review.
5. Art. 59(2) ECHR as amended by Protocol 14 to the Convention, which entered into force on 1 June 2010.
6. Council of Europe, press release 545(2010), 7 July 2010; the Council of the EU gave the Commission a mandate for negotiation on 4 June 2010 with negotiation directives (Doc. 9689/10), which remain classified.
7. On the EU's human rights policy in general cf. Eeckhout, External Relations of the European Union (OUP, 2004), p. 465.
8. So-called Copenhagen criteria, cf. Conclusions of the Presidency, European Council 21-22 June 1993 SN 180/1/93 REV 1. The criteria are now contained in Art. 49 TEU.
9. Matthews v. United Kingdom [GC], Appl. no. 24833/94, ECHR 1999-I; Bosphorus v. Ireland [GC], Appl. no. 45036/98, ECHR 2005-VI.
10. Connolly v. 15 Member States of the European Union, Appl. no. 73274/01, 9 Dec. 2008; confirmed in: Beygo v. 46 Member States of the Council of Europe Appl. no. 36099/06, 16 June 2009; Rambus Inc. v. Germany, Appl. no. 40382/04, 16 June 2009.
11. In the words of former A.G. Jacobs: "The ECJ. has followed scrupulously the case law of the European Court of Human Rights", Jacobs, The Sovereignty of Law (CUP, 2007), pp. 54-55.
12. On past and current developments cf. Callewaert, "The European Convention on Human Rights and European Union law: A long way to harmony", (2009) European Human Rights Law Review, 768.
13. Opinion 1/09, 8 March 2011, nyr, paras. 74 et seq.
14. Case 6/64, Costa v. ENEL, [1964] ECR 585.
15. Pernice, "Costa v ENEL and Simmenthal: Primacy of European Law", in Maduro and Azoulai (Eds.), The Past and Future of EU Law (OUP, 2010), p. 48.
16. On the development of the Court's case law regarding the internal dimension of autonomy: Barents, The Autonomy of Community Law (Kluwer, 2004), pp. 239 et seq.
17. Opinion 1/91, [1991] ECR I-6079, para 35.
18. In the eyes of the Court, the problem was even aggravated by the agreement providing for ECJ judges to sit on the EEA Court.
19. Opinion 1/00 [2002] I-3493.
20. This was re-affirmed in the Mox Plant decision, Case C-459/03, Commission v. Ireland, [2006] ECR I-4635, paras. 123 and 124.
21. Case C-402/05 P, Kadi v. Council and Commission, [2008] ECR I-6351, para 285.
22. Art. 15 of the draft agreement.
23. Starting with Case 26/62, Van Gend & Loos, [1963] ECR 1.
24. Brandtner likened the situation of the EFTA States in the negotiations of the EEA agreements to that of a "powerless audience" being frustrated by an important actor, Brandtner, "The 'Drama' of the EEA", 3 EJIL (1992), 328.
25. CDDH-UE(2011)04; CDDH-UE(2011)06.
26. Huvig v. France, appl. no. 11105/84, Series A no. 176-B, para 28.
27. De Schutter, "L'adhésion de l'Union européenne à la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme: Feuille de route de la négotiation", 83 Revue Trimestrielle des droits de l'homme (2010), 551-552.
28. Cf. Art. 8(2), 9(2), 10(2), 11(2) ECHR.
29. Art. 5 ECHR.
30. Kokkelvisserij v. Netherlands, Appl. no. 13645/05, 20 Jan. 2009.
31. Case C-127/02, Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging, [2004] ECR I-7405; the ECJ's order has not been published, but an excerpt appears in the ECtHR's decision.
32. Opinion of A.G. Sharpston in Case C-212/06, Gouvernement de la Communauté française and Gouvernement Wallon, [2008] ECR I-1683, para 157.
33. Kemmache v. France, Appl. no. 17621/91, Series A no. 296-C.
34. Case 314/85, Firma Foto-Frost v. Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost, [1987] ECR 4199, para 15.
35. W v. Netherlands, Appl. no. 20689/08, 20 Jan. 2009. The Court stated: "[I]t is not for the Court to rule on the validity of national laws in the hierarchy of domestic legislation".
36. This seemed to be the opinion of the French Government, cf. French Senate, "Communication de M. Robert Badinter sur le mandat de négociation (E 5248)", 25 May 2010, available at: (last visited 24 May 2011).
37. Köngeter, "Völkerrechtliche und innerstaatliche Probleme eines Beitritts der Europäischen Union zur EMRK", in Bast (Ed.), Die Europäische Verfassung, Verfassungen in Europa (2005), pp. 230, 245.
38. This mechanism was first introduced by the Council of Europe's Steering committee for human rights in its 2002 study on the technical and legal issues of a possible EC/EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, CDDH(2002)010 Addendum 2.
39. CDDH-UE(2010)14, Informal working group on the accession of the EU to the ECHR, Meeting report of the 3rd working meeting, 22 Oct. 2010, para 9.
40. CDDH-UE(2011), para 37.
41. Art. 4 of CDDH-UE(2011)06.
42. CDDH-UE(2010)16, Informal working group on the accession of the EU to the ECHR, Draft revised elements prepared by the Secretariat on the introduction of a co-respondent mechanism.
43. Draft revised explanatory report, CDDH-UE(2011)08, para 34
44. Cf. Lock, "EU accession to the ECHR: Implications for judicial review in Strasbourg", (2010) EL Rev., 777.
45. These might be the cases for which the explanatory report on the first draft agreement provides that "the ECtHR is free to develop its own practice as regards the allocation of responsibility between respondents" but at the same time predicts that the ECtHR would not do so where there would be a risk of assessing the distribution of competences between the EU and its Member States, CDDH-UE(2011)05, para 56.
46. CDDH-UE(2011)05, para 26.
47. CDDH-UE(2010)17, Informal working group on the accession of the EU to the ECHR, Meeting report of the 4th working meeting, 8 Dec. 2010, para 14.
48. Views of the European group of national human rights institutions to the CDDH-UE working group, available at (last visited 24 May 2011).
49. Art. 267(3) TFEU.
50. Case 283/81, CILFIT, [1982] ECR 3415, para 21.
51. Joint communication from Presidents Costa and Skouris, available at: (last visited 24 May 2011).
52. A similar argument had previously been made by the ECJ: 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, available at: (last visited 24 May 2011).
53. The (classified) negotiation directives issued by the Council of the EU also contain a reference to it, which can be found in a working document from the EU Commission, doc. DS 1930/10.
54. Badinter, "Adhésion de l'Union européenne à la convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l'Homme", French Senate, available at: (last visited 24 May 2011).
55. Informal working group on accession, Draft additional elements prepared by the Secretariat on procedural means guaranteeing the prior involvement of the Court of Justice of the EU in cases in which it has not been able to pronounce on compatibility of an EU act with fundamental rights, CDDH-UE(2011)02.
56. ECJ Judge Timmermans made that proposal at a hearing before the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs on 18 March 2010, available at: (last visited 24 May 2011).
57. Steering committee for human rights, technical and legal issues of a possible EC/EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, CDDH(2002)010 Addendum 2 paras. 75-77.
58. th working meeting of the informal working group, CDDH-UE(2011)03.
59. EC working document DS 1930/10, para 5.
60. Case 247/87, Star Fruit v. Commission, [1989] ECR 291.
61. Joined Cases T-121 & 151/96, Mutual Aid Administration Services, [1997] ECR II-1355; Case T-276/97, Guérin automobiles, [1998] ECR II-261; Case 24/69, Nebe, [1970] ECR 145; Case 227/83, Moussis, [1984] ECR 3133; Case C-246/95, Coen, [1997] ECR I-403.
62. Case C-188/92, Textilwerke Deggendorf, [1994] ECR I-833.
63. th ed., Art. 267 AEUV, para 15.
64. Case C-239/99, Nachi Europe, [2001] ECR I-1197
65. nd ed. (OUP, 2006), p. 129.
66. E.g. Case C-241/95, Accrington Beef, [1996] ECR I-6699; Joined Cases C-346 & 529/03, Atzeni and others, [2006] ECR I-1875.
67. In great detail Broberg and Fenger, Preliminary References to the European Court of Justice (OUP, 2010), pp. 213-222.
68. Cf. Art. 281 TFEU and Statute of the Court, O.J. 2010, C 83/210.
69. EC Working Document DS 1930/10, para 9.
70. E.g. Cases C-280/91, Viessmann, [1993] ECR I-973, para 17; C-234/01, Gerritse, [2003] ECR I-5933, paras. 23-24.
71. On this case law in general: Broberg and Fenger, Preliminary References to the European Court of Justice (OUP, 2010), pp. 403 et seq.