Fundamental Rights in the EU, with Special Emphasis on the Case-law of the European Court of Justice (Luxembourg)

Raoul Wallenberg Institute Human Rights Library

Volumn 35, Issue , 2009, Pages 579-590

  Rosas, Allan ^a  

^a Chambers of Advocate General Juliane Kokott   (Luxembourg)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84455191093     PISSN: 13883208     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1163/ej.9789004162365.i-728.308     Document Type: Chapter

References (57)

1. C.f., however, the Preamble to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community of 1957, which refers to the need to preserve and strengthen “peace and liberty”, or the substantive provisions of the Treaty relating, inter alia, to the economic liberties and the principles of non-discrimination on the basis of nationality or of gender and the provisions on judicial control. See P. Pescatore, ‘The Context and Significance of Fundamental Rights in the Law of the European Communities’, 2 Human Rights Law Journal (1981) pp. 295–308, here at pp. 296–298.
2. Case 1/58 Stork v. High Authority, Recueil 1959, 43; Joined Cases 36-38/59 and 40/59 Geitling v. High Authority, Recueil 1960, 859. See e.g. G. Tesauro, ‘The Role of the Court of Justice in the Protection of Fundamental Rights’, in N. Colneric et al. (eds.), Une communauté de droit. Festschrift für Gil Carlos Rodríguez Iglesias (Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin, 2003) pp. 103–110, here at p. 104.
3. P. Pescatore, ‘Les droits de l’homme et l’intégration européenne’, 4 Cahiers de droit européen (1968) pp. 629–673, here at p. 637.
4. Opinion of Advocate General Lagrange of 24 May 1960 in the case of Geitling.
5. A. Rosas, ‘The Legal Sources of EU Fundamental Rights’, in Colneric, pp. 87–102, here at p. 87.
6. This hypothesis is suggested by H. Rasmussen, On Law and Policy in the European Court of Justice (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1986) pp. 395, 403–440, who also mentions the alternative (according to him, less likely) explanation that the Luxembourg judges felt that in the absence of a Community Bill of Rights, it was up to national judges to ensure the necessary protection.
7. Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 1 (which established that not only regulations, but also primary law may have direct effects and thus may be invoked directly by individuals before courts and authorities); Case 6/64, Costa v. ENEL [1964] ECR 585.
8. Pescatore, supra note 3, pp. 634–636. See also the Order of 18 October 1967 of the German Constitutional Court, VVerfGE 22, pp. 293, 298, 299.
9. Case 29/69 Erich Stauder v. City of Ulm [1969] ECR 419, Recueil 1969, 419. Opinion of Advocate General Roemer of 29 October 1969, p. 428.
10. Case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft [1970] ECR 1125, paras. 3, 4. See also the Opinion of Advocate General Dutheillet de Lamothe of 2 December 1970, Recueil 1970, pp. 1148, 1149.
11. Case 4/73 Nold [1974] ECR 491, para. 13.
12. Order of 29 May 1974, BVerfGE 37, 271.
13. OJ C 103, 27.4.1977, 1. See also Pescatore, supra note 1, pp. 301–303.
14. Case 36/75 Rutili [1975] ECR 1219.
15. See e.g. N. Neuwahl and A. Rosas (eds.), The European Union and Human Rights (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1995); E. Gould and G. Lesieur, The European Court of Justice on the European Convention on Human Rights: Who Said What, When? (Kluwer Law International, London, 1998); P. Alston (ed.), The EU and Human Rights (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999).
16. As will be explained below, Article L (later to become Article 46) was amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam to include a reference to Article F (later to become Article 6), para. 2, as well.
17. A. Rosas, ‘The European Union and International Human Rights Instruments’, in V. Kroenenberger (ed.), The European Union and the International Legal Order: Discord or Harmony? (T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, 2001) pp. 53–67, here at pp. 57, 58. For a recent example see Case C-540/03m, Parliament v. Council, judgment of 27 June 2006, para. 37, where reference is made, in addition to the ECHR and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights of 2000 (infra note 18), to the Civil and Political Covenant of 1966 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989.
18. OJ C 364, 18 December 2000, p. 1.
19. As to the opinions of the Court’s Advocate Generals, the first discussion on the legal relevance of the Charter is to be found in the Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano of 8 February 2001 in Case C-173/99 BECTU, where it is held that in proceedings concerned with the nature and scope of a fundamental right, “the relevant statements of the Charter cannot be ignored” and that, where its provisions so allow, it should “serve as a substantive point of reference for all those involved”, para. 28. As to the Court of First Instance, see e.g., Cases T-112/98 Mannesmannröhren-Werke [2001] II-729, para. 76; T-54/99 Max.mobil [2002] ECR II-313, para. 48; T-177/01 Jégo-Quéré [2002] ECR II-2365, para. 42; Joined Cases T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 and T-78/00 JFE Engineering Corp., judgment of 8 July 2004.
20. Case of Goodwin v. United Kingdom, judgment of 11 July 2002, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2002-VI, at paras. 58 and 100.
21. At the time of writing (December 2006), the fate of the Treaty is uncertain, with 16 out of 25 Member States having ratified it, but with two negative referendums in France and the Netherlands, respectively. For the text of the Treaty see OJ C 310, 16.12.2004, p. 1.
22. Order of 22 October 1986, BVerfGE 73.
23. Judgment of 12 October 1993, BVerfGE 89, p. 155. See also Article 23 of the German Basic Law, added in 1992 and inspired partially by the Solange II decision, according to which Germany participates in the development of the EU which, inter alia, provides a protection of fundamental rights “essentially equivalent” (“die … einen diesem Grundgesetz im wesentlichen vergleichbaren Grundrechtsschutz gewährleistet”).
24. Order of 7 June 2000, BVerfGE 102, p. 147. See also U. Elbers and N. Urban, ‘The Order of the German Federal Constitutional Court of 7 June 2000 and the Kompetenz-Kompetenz in the European Judicial System’, 7 European Public Law (2001) pp. 21–32; F. Hoffmeister, Case Note on Decisions of 17 February and 7 June 2000 of the German Constitutional Court, 38 Common Market Law Review (2001) pp. 791–804.
25. Case 36/75 Rutili, supra note 14; Case 222/4 Johnston [1986] ECR 1651.
26. Case 63/83 Kent Kirk [1984] ECR 2689; Case 249/86 Commission v. Germany [1989] ECR 1263.
27. Case 5/88 Wachauf [1989] ECR 2607, para. 19.
28. Case C-260/89 Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorassi [1991] ECR I-2925.
29. Case C-159/90 Grogan [1991] ECR I-4605, para. 31. See also e.g. Case C-299/95 Kremzow [1997] ECR I-2405, para. 15; Case C-71/02 Karner [2004] ECR I-3025, para. 49.
30. Case C-299/95 Kremzow; Case C-306/96 Annibaldi [1997] ECR I-7493.
31. Case C-60/00 Carpenter [2002] ECR I-6279, paras. 36–39.
32. Case C-117/01 K.B. [2004] ECR I-541, para. 30.
33. On the relationship between this formula and the case-law of the Court on Member States’ obligations see e.g. G. de Búrca, ‘The Drafting of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights’, 26 European Law Review (2001) pp. 126–138, here at pp. 136–137; C. Ladenburger, ‘L’application pratique de la Charte des droits fondamentaux par la Commission européenne’, 14 Revue européenne de droit public (2002) pp. 817–837, here at pp. 827–828.
34. Case C-105/03 Pupino, judgment of 16 June 2005.
35. See e.g. Neuwahl and Rosas, supra note 15; Gould and Lesieur, supra note 15; Alston, supra note 15.
36. See e.g. Case C-13/94 P v. S [1996] ECR I-2143; Joined Cases C-270/97 and C-271/97 Deutsche Post [2000] ECR I-929, para. 57.
37. This refers to the 1989 Community Charter of the Fundamental Rights of Workers, originally adopted in September 1989 by 11 out of 12 Member States, and subsequently mentioned in Article 136 EC.
38. A. Rosas, ‘Fundamental Rights in the Luxembourg and Strasbourg Courts’, in C. Baudenbacher et al. (eds), The EFTA Court: Ten Years On (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2005) pp. 163–175.
39. Case 4/73 Nold [1974] ECR 491, para. 12. This reference, it is true, figures in a paragraph citing the assertions of one of the parties. For a reference to be found in the reasoning of the Court itself see Case 36/75 Rutili [1975] ECR 1219, para. 32. In the latter case, the Court noted that the ECHR had been “ratified by all the Member States”.
40. The first such statement seems to have been in Joined Cases 46/87 and 222/88 Hoechst [1989] ECR 2859, para. 13. See also Case C-260/89 ERT [1991] ECR I-2925, para. 41.
41. Already in Case 374/87 Orkem [1989] ECR 3283, para. 30, and some other cases decided the same year, the Court noted the absence of relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. And in Case C-13/94 P v. S [1996] ECR I-2143, para. 16, the Court referred expressly to a given judgment of the Court of Human Rights. See also K. Lenaerts and P. Van Nuffel, Constitutional Law of the European Union (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1999) p. 541 (footnote 89). For more recent citations of Strasbourg case-law, see e.g. Case C-60/00 Carpenter [2002] ECR I-6279, para. 42; the Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij cases mentioned in infra note 44; the Roquette Frères case mentioned in infra note 46, paras. 29 and 52 of the judgment; Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01 Rechnungshof v. Österreichischer Rundfunk [2003] ECR I-4948, at paras. 77 and 83; Case C-117/01 K.B., judgment of 7 January 2004, para. 33; Case C-71/02 Karner, judgment of 25 March 2004, para. 51; C-540/03 Parliament v. Council, supra note 17.
42. Case 374/87 Orkem [1989] ECR 3283.
43. Joined Cases C-238/99 P Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij [2002] ECR I-8375, para. 274.
44. Case C-94/00 Roquette Frères [2002] ECR I-9011, para. 29. Cf. Cases 46/87 and 222/98 Hoechst [1989] ECR 2859, para. 18.
45. See e.g. C. Turner, ‘Human Rights Protection in the European Community: Resolving Conflict and Overlap Between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights’, 5 European Public Law (1999) pp. 453–470, here at pp. 457–463, with references.
46. In Opinion 2/94 European Convention on Human Rights [1996] ECR I-1759, the ECJ held that as Community law stood in 1996, the European Community lacked competence to adhere to the ECHR. See also infra, and the following chapter of this volume.
47. Case of Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm v. Ireland, judgment of 30 June 2005 (Application no. 45036/98). See also Case of Matthews v. United Kingdom, judgment of 18 February 1999, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-I.
48. Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending the control system of the Convention, Strasbourg 13 May 2004 (not yet in force).
49. December 2006. See also supra note 22, and the following chapter of this volume.
50. The number of cases terminated per year is for both the ECJ and the Court of First Instance in the area of 500. In addition, the Civil Service Tribunal deals with more than 100 cases per year. The overall number of cases per year dealt with by the EU Courts is thus more than 1000.
51. See Articles 68 and 234 of the EC Treaty and Article 35 of the EU Treaty.
52. See Article 195 of the EC Treaty and I. Harden, ‘When Europeans Complain: The Work of the European Ombudsman’, 3 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies (2000) pp. 199–237. In Case C-234/02 P European Ombudsman v. Frank Lamberts [2004] ECR I-2803 it was held that the Ombudsman may incur non-contractual liability for damage caused by his activities.
53. .
54. Proposal for a Council Regulation establishing a European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and Proposal for a Council Decision empowering the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights to pursue its activities in areas referred to in Title VI of the Treaty on European Union, COM(2005) 280 final of 30 June 2005. See also P. Alston and O. de Schutter (eds.), Monitoring Fundamental Rights in the EU: The Contribution of the Fundamental Rights Agency (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2005).
55. Council Regulation (EC) establishing a European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. At the time of writing (8 December 2006), the exact number reference and date of publication of the new Regulation were not yet known.
56. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1034/97 of 2 June 1997, OJ L 151, 10 June 1997, p. 1.
57. But the new Agency will have not only a Management Board and an Executive Board but also a Scientific Committee and it shall establish a cooperation network called the Human Rights Platform. It shall cooperate with Member States’ institutions and with the Council of Europe and other international organisations.