The courtand the charter: The impact of the entry into force of the lisbon treaty on the ECJ's approach to fundamental rights

Common Market Law Review

Volumn 49, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 1565-1611

  Sánchez, Sara Iglesias ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CÁDIZ   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84869004888     PISSN: 01650750     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (257)

1. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) was solemnly proclaimed by the Parliament, the Council and the Commission in Nice, on 7 Dec. 2000, and in Strasbourg on 12 Dec. 2007.
2. Itswording has been adapted and published in O.J. 2010, C 83/389.
3. Art. 6 (ex Art. 6, as amended) of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU).
4. Communication from the Commission on the legal nature of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, COM(2000)644 final. The legal effects of the Charter have been broadly discussed.
5. Explicitly on this issue, see e.g. Babayev, "EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: What is the legal impact of being chartered?", 6 Romanian Journal of European Affairs (2006), 63.
6. Bercusson, Clauwaert and Schömann, "Legal prospects and legal effects of the EU Charter", in Bercusson (Ed.), European Labour Law and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Nomos, 2006), p. 41.
7. De Witte, "The legal status of the Charter: Vital question or non-issue?", 8 MJ (2001), 81.
8. Rodríguez Iglesias, Discurso de Investidura como Doctor Honoris Causa por la Universidad de Cádiz, 20 Oct. 2010. Translation by the author.
9. In this sense, Rosas and Kaila, "L'application de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne par la Cour de justice: Un premier bilan", 16 Il Diritto dell'Unione Europea (2011), 11.
10. As examples of this impact, see, e.g. the Stockholm Programme, O.J. 2010, C 115.
11. Resolution of the European Parliament of 15 Dec. 2010, Fundamental rights in the European Union (2009) - Effective implementation after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, P7_TA-PROV(2010) 0483.
12. Commission Communication, Strategy for the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the European Union, COM(2010)573 final of 19 Oct. 2010.
13. Draft Council Conclusions on the role of the Council of the European Union in ensuring the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Council Document 6387/11 of 11 Feb 2011.
14. On the attitude of EU institutions towards the Charter: Ladenburger, "L'application pratique de la Charte des droits fondamentaux par la Commission européenne", 14 Revue Européenne de droit public (2002), 817-839.
15. Kornobis-Romanowska, "Charter of Fundamental Rights in the legal and political practice of EU institutions", 26 Polish Yearbook of international law (2002-2003), 157.
16. Camporesi, "The European Parliament and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights" in Di Federico, The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. From Declaration to Binding Instrument (Springer, 2011), p. 77.
17. Von Bogdandy and Von Bernstorff, "Die Europäische Agentur für Grundrechte in der europäischen Menschenrechtsarchitektur und ihre Fortentwicklung durch den Vertrag von Lissabon", 2 EuR (2010), 141.
18. Even though the ECJ is not formally bound by precedent, it tends to be consistent with its previous decisions. On this discussion, e.g. Arnull, "Owning up to fallibility: Precedent and the Court of Justice", 30CMLRev. (1993), 274.
19. Barceló, "Precedent in European Community law" in MacCormick and Summers, Interpreting Precedents. A Comparative Perspective (Ashgate, 1997), p. 407.
20. With regard to this tension in the Constitutional Treaty, see: Escobar Hernández, "Los derechos humanos en el Tratado por el que se establece una Constitución para Europa" in Aldecoa Luzárraga et al. (Eds.) Los Tratados de Roma en su cincuenta aniversario (Marcial Pons, 2008), p. 247.
21. Morano-Foadi and Andreadakis, "Reflections on the architecture of the EU after the Treaty of Lisbon: The European judicial approach to fundamental rights", 17 ELJ (2011), 599.
22. In this sense, Gianfrancesco, "Some considerations on the juridical value of the Charter of Fundamental Rights before and after the LisbonTreaty", Forum di Quaderni Constituzionali, at 26 Nov. 2009.
23. E.g. Opinion of A.G. Alber in Case C-340/99, TNTTraco, [2001] ECR I-4109.
24. Opinion of A.G. Tizzano in Case C-173/99, BECTU, [2001] ECR I-4881.
25. Opinion of A.G. Mischo in Case C-122 & 125/99 P, D and Sweden v. Council, [2001] ECR I-4319.
26. Opinion of A.G. Jacobs in Case C-270/99 P, Z v. Parliament, [2001] ECR I-9197.
27. Opinion of A.G. Stix-Hackl in Case C-49/00, Commission v. Italy, [2001] ECR I-8575.
28. Opinion of A.G. Jacobs in Case C-377/98, The Netherlands v. Council, [2001] ECR I-7079.
29. Opinion of A.G. Léger in Case C-353/99 P, Council v. Hautala, [2001] ECR I-9565.
30. Opinion ofA.G. Mischo in Case C-20&64/00, Booker Aquaculture Ltd v. Scottish Ministers, [2003] ECR I-7411.
31. Opinion ofA.G. Ruiz-Jarabo in Case C-208/00, Überseering, [2002] ECR I-9919.
32. Opinion of A.G. Ruiz-Jarabo in Case C-466/00, Arben Kaba v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2003] ECR I-2219.
33. Opinion of A.G.Alber in Case C-63/01 in Evans, [2003] ECR I-14447.
34. Opinion ofA.G. Stix-Hackl in Case C-36/02, Omega, [2004] ECR I-9609.
35. Opinion of A.G. Poiares Maduro in Case C-181/03 P, Nardone, [2005] ECR I-199.
36. Opinion of A.G.Kokott in Case C-387/02, Berlusconi and Others, [2005] ECR I-3565.
37. Opinion of A.G. Jacobs in Case C-347/03, Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia and ERSA, [2005] ECR I-3785.
38. Opinion of A.G. Poiares Maduro in Case C-305/05, Ordre des barreaux, [2007] ECR I-5305.
39. E.g. CasesT-54/99, Max.mobil, [2002] ECR II-313;T-177/01, Jégo-Quéré, [2002] ECR II-2365.
40. C-377/00, Philip Morris, [2003] ECR II-1.
41. T-256/01, Pyres, [2005] ECR II-99.
42. See, Burgorgue-Larsen, "La force de l'évocation ou la fabuleux destin de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne" in Avril, Chemillier-Gendreau and Colliard et al. (Eds.) , L'Esprit des institutions, l'équilibre des pouvoirs: mélanges en l'honneur de Pierre Pactet (Dalloz, 2003), pp. 77-104
43. Case F-1/05, Pia Landgren v. European Training Foundation (ETF), [2006] ECR-SC I-A-1-123, II-A-1-459.
44. See also Case F-51/07, Philippe BuiVan v. Commission, judgment of 23 Sept. 2010, nyr.
45. We could also add the judgement in Case C-144/04, Mangold, [2005] ECR I-9981.
46. Judgement of 11 July 2002, Goodwin v. United Kingdom, Appl. nr. 28957/95, ECHR 2002-VI.
47. Case C-117/01, K.B., [2004] ECR I-541. See Canor, case note on K.B., 41 CML Rev. (2004), 1113.
48. Pointing at the relationship of this event with the mention of the Charter: Thym, "Europäischer Grundrechtsschutz und Familienzusammenführung", 45 NJW (2006), 3249.
49. Until 2006 recurrent mentions to the Charter were made by the concerned parties in their pleas.
50. See e.g. Case C-491/01, British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco, [2002] ECR I-11453.
51. Case C-465/00, 138 &139/01, Österreichischer Rundfunk and others, [2003] ECR I-4989.
52. Case C-101/01, Lindqvist, [2003] ECR I-12971.
53. Joined Cases C-204, 205, 211, 213, 217 & 219/00 P, Aalborg Portland and others v. Commission, [2004] ECR I-123.
54. Case C-136/02 P, Mag Instrument v. OHIM, [2004] ECR I-9165.
55. Case C-141/02 P, Commission v. Max-Mobil, [2005] ECR I-1283.
56. Case C-547/03 P, AIT v. Commission, [2006] ECR I-845.
57. Case C-145/04, Spain v. United Kingdom, [2006] ECR I-7917.
58. Case C-76/06 P, Britannia Alloys & Chemicals v. Commission, [2007] ECR I-4405.
59. Case C-260/05 P, Sniace v. Commission, [2007] ECR I-10005.
60. C-308/07 P, Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v. Parliament, [2009] ECR I-1059.
61. Case C-388/07, Age Concern England, [2009] ECR I-1569.
62. Joined Cases C-322, 327 & 338/07 P, Papierfabrik August Koehler and others v. Commission, [2009] ECR I-7191.
63. Thiswas also the case with regard to the explicit mentions made by national courts in their requests for preliminary rulings. E.g. Case C-245/01, RTL Television, [2003] ECR I-12489.
64. Case C-347/03, Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia and ERSA, [2005] ECR I-3785.
65. Joined Cases C-453/03, 11, 12&194/04, ABNA and others, [2005] ECR I-10423.
66. C-131/03 P, Reynolds Tobacco and others v. Commission, [2006] ECR I-7795.
67. The ECJ first mentioned the Charter in Case C-540/03, Parliament v. Council [2006] ECR I-5769, where the Parliament challenged the compatibility of the Family Reunification Directive with fundamental rights standards, see para 38.
68. On this discussion, Dougan, "In defence of Mangold?" in Arnull, Barnard, Dougan and Spaventa (Eds.), A constitutional Order of States. Essays in EU Law in Honour of Alan Dashwood (Hart, 2011), p. 219.
69. Case C-275/06, Promusicae, [2008] ECR I-271.
70. Case C-432/05, Unibet, [2007] ECR I-2271.
71. C-402 & 415/05 P, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council and Commission, [2008] ECR I-6351.
72. C-47/07 P, Masdar (UK) v. Commission, [2008] ECR I-9761.
73. C-385/07 P, Der Grüne Punkt - Duales System Deutschland v. Commission, ECR 2009 I-6155.
74. C-12/08, Mono Car Styling, [2009] ECR I-6653.
75. Case C-303/05, Advocaten voor deWereld, [2007] ECR I-3633.
76. Case C-438/05, The International Transport Workers' Federation and The Finnish Seamen's Union (Viking), [2007] ECR I-10779.
77. C-341/05, Laval un Partneri, [2007] ECR I-11767.
78. Cases C-244/06, Dynamic Medien, [2008] ECR I-505.
79. C-540/03, Parliament v. Council, [2006] ECR I-5769.
80. For this discussion with regard to the Family Reunification case see Bulterman, case note on Case C-540/03, Parliament v. Council, 45 CML Rev. (2008), 256.
81. Lawson, "Case note: Family reunification and the Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights", 3 EuConst (2007), 331.
82. Case C-555/07, Kücükdeveci, [2010] ECR I-365.
83. Joined Cases C-297 & 298/10, Hennings, judgment of 8 Sept. 2011, nyr.
84. Case C-447/09, Prigge, judgment of 13 Sept. 2011, nyr.
85. Case C-261/09, Danosa, judgment of 16 Nov. 2010, nyr.
86. Case C-578/08, Chakroun, [2010] ECR I-1839.
87. Case C-317-320/08, Alassini and others, [2010] ECR I-2213.
88. Case C-407/08 P, Knauf, [2010] ECR I-6375.
89. Case C-243/09, Günter Fuß, judgment of 14 Oct. 2010, nyr.
90. Case C-279/09, DEB, judgment of 22 Dec. 2010, nyr.
91. In this sense see, Guild, Carrera, Den Hertog and Parkin, "Implementation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and its impact on EU Home Affairs Agencies, study commissioned by the European Parliament", PE 453.196, p. 38.
92. E.g. Case T-181/08, Tay Za, [2010] ECR II-1965.
93. Case T-49/07, Fahas, judgment of 7 Dec. 2010, nyr.
94. Case T-348/08, Aragonesas Industrias y Energía, S.A.U., judgment of 25 Oct. 2011, nyr.
95. Case T-224/10, Association belge des consommateurs test-achats ASBL, judgment of 12 Oct. 2011, nyr.
96. Case T-461/08, Evropaïki Dynamiki et. Al. v. EIB, judgment of 20 Sept. 2011.
97. Case T-132/07, Fuji, judgment of 12 July 2011, nyr.
98. Stating that the lack of binding character did not imply the lack of legal effects: Alonso García, "La Carta de los Derechos fundamentals de la Unión Europea", 209 Gaceta Jurídica de la Unión Europea y de la Competencia (2000), 10.
99. Carrillo Salcedo, "Notas sobre el significado político y jurídico de la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea", 9 Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo (2001), 7.
100. Case C-411/04 P, Salzgitter Mannesmann GmbH c. Commission, [2007] ECR I-959, paras. 33-50.
101. The Court found it not necessary to adjudicate on the possibility to rely on the Charter, but it noted that it was "proclaimed after the adoption of the contested decision".
102. As was noted by Burgorgue-Larsen, "Chronique de jurisprudence européenne comparée (2010)", 4 RDP (2011), 1022, note 2.
103. E.g. Case C-555/07, Kükükdeveci, [2010] ECR I-365 (general principle of non-discrimination on ground of age).
104. Joined Cases C-92 & 93/09, Volker, judgment of 9 Nov. 2010, nyr (case law of the ECHR regarding data protection under the right to privacy of Art. 8 of the Convention).
105. Although the Charter is the main instrument relied upon by the Court, in Case C-271/08, Commission v. Germany, [2010] ECR I-7091, reference is also made to the European Social Charter and to the Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights of Workers with respect to the right to collective bargaining.
106. Opinion of A.G. Kokott in Case C-113/04 P, Technische Unie v. Commission, [2006] ECR I-8831.
107. In note 59, the A.G. states that "[t]he Charter of Fundamental Rights does not apply to the present case for temporal reasons because it was not proclaimed until after the contested decision was adopted. However, for future reference it should be noted in cartel proceedings that the Commission has made a solemn undertaking to comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and therefore entered into a voluntary commitment (see statement of the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, at the Nice European Council on 7 Dec. 2000)".
108. Opinion of A.G. Kokott in Case C-17/10, Toshiba, judgment of 8 Sept. 2011, nyr, para 108.
109. Opinion of A.G. Trstenjak in Case C-282/10, Dominguez, judgment of 24 Jan. 2012, nyr, paras. 73 and 74.
110. Oliver, case note on DEB, 48 CML Rev. 2011, 2039.
111. E.g. with regard to the right of the child, enshrined in Art. 24, to maintain contact with both parents, Case C-403/09 PPU, Detic? ek, [2009] ECR I-12193.
112. Case C-211/10 PPU, Doris Povse, [2010] ECR I-6673.
113. One may recall here the situations where a new constitutional framework enters into force. In this regard, the Spanish Constitutional Court considered that, even if the Constitution does not contain any provision as to the retroactive application of fundamental rights, the Constitution has the primary significance of establishing a new social order of coexistence, and therefore it must be recognized that its provisions can affect acts that derive from situations previously created. This possibility has, nonetheless, been narrowly applied.
114. E.g. Judgements of the Spanish Constitutional Court No 9/1981, 31 March 1981.
115. No 43/1982, 6 July 1982.
116. No 37/1987, 18 March 1987.
117. E.g. According to Callies, that situation was unacceptable in a confederation based in the rule of law, and the proportionality test applied by the Court lead to a decreased level of protection when compared with German standards.
118. Callies, "The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union" in Ehlers (Ed.), European Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (De Gruyter Recht, 2007), p. 519.
119. Zoethout, "The Court and the Charter of Fundamental Rights" in Kinneging (Ed.), Rethinking Europe's Constitution (Wolf, 2007), p. 214.
120. E.g. Dutheil de la Rochère, "Challenges for the protection of fundamental rights in the EU at the time of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty", 33 Fordham International Law Journal (2010), 1776.
121. See, in this regard, the Joint communication from Presidents Costa and Skouris of 24 Jan. 2011.
122. Case C-400/10 PPU, McB, judgment of 5 Oct. 2010, nyr; Case C-145/09, Tsakokuridis, judgment of 23 Nov. 2010, nyr.
123. Joined Cases C-175, 176, 178 & 179/08, Salahadin Abdulla and others, [2010] ECR I-1493.
124. Case C-31/09, Bolbol, [2010] ECR I-5539.
125. Joined Cases C-57 & 101/09, B, judgment of 9 Nov. 2010, nyr.
126. Case C-69/10, Samba Diouf, judgment of 28 July 2011, nyr.
127. Joined Cases C-411 & 493/10, N.S. and others, judgment of 21 Dec. 2011, nyr.
128. Case C-149/10, Chatzi, [2010] ECR I-8489.
129. Case C-491/10 PPU, Aguirre Zárraga, judgment of 22 Dec. 2010, nyr.
130. Case C-303/08, Bozkurt, judgment of 22 Dec. 2010, nyr.
131. This case concerned the expulsion of aTurkish worker who derived independent rights of residence under Decision 1/80 which had been originally acquired through his status as family member of another Turkish worker againstwhom he committed a serious legal offence.Without mentioning the Charter, the Court left to the national authorities the assessment of the conduct and whether it constituted a present, genuine and sufficiently serious threat to public policy and security, and to "observe both the principle of proportionality and the fundamental rights of the person concerned".
132. See also Cases C-434/10, Aladzhov and C-430/10, Gaydarov, judgment of 17 Nov. 2011, nyr, regarding restrictions to leave national territory on tax-liability and criminal grounds.
133. Case C-135/08, Rottmann, [2010], ECR I-1449, and Case C-34/09, Ruiz Zambrano, judgment of 8 March 2011, nyr.
134. Case C-34/10, Brüstle v. Greenpeace, judgment of 18 Oct. 2011, nyr.
135. In this regard, Fontanelli, "The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union two years later", 3 Perspectives on Federalism (2011). Available at SSRN: .
136. As examples, we can refer to the right to paid annual leave (Case C-155/10, Williams, judgment of 15 Sept. 2011, nyr.
137. Joined Cases C-160 &159/10, Fuchs, judgment of 21 July 2011, nyr.
138. Opinion of A.G. Cruz Villalón in C-306/09, I.B., [2010] ECR I-10341, para 44.
139. Case C-208/09, Sayn-Wittgenstein, judgment of 22 Dec. 2010, nyr.
140. Case C-391/09, Runevic?-Vardyn, judgment of 12 May 2011, nyr.
141. Cases C-148/02, Garcia Avello, [2003] ECR I-11613 and C-353/06, Grunkin and Paul, [2008] ECR I-7639.
142. In this sense, Pescatorious, "Fundamental shifts in fundamental rights? Some reflections on DEB", Adjudicating Europe, available at .
143. Rodríguez Iglesias, "Zu den Grenzen der verfahrensrechtlichen Autonomie der Mitgliedstaaten bei der Anwendung des Gemeinschaftsrechts", 14-16 EuGRZ (1997), 295.
144. As has been noted by Sarmiento, functional arguments that complement fundamental rights considerations have been present in case law regarding effective judicial protection. Sarmiento, "Los derechos fundamentales de la Unión en el Tratado de Lisboa", in Fernández Liesa and Díaz Barrado, (Eds.), El Tratado de Lisboa: análisis y perspectivas (Dykinson, 2008), p. 135.
145. Case C-429/09, Fuß II, judgment of 25 Nov. 2010, nyr.
146. Case C-360/09, Pfleiderer, judgment of 14 June 2011, nyr.
147. Case C-312/93, Peterbroeck, [1995] ECR I-4599, para 14.
148. In DEB, A.G. Mengozzi examined the issue from the viewpoint of the principle of effectiveness, and found that the German legislation could be justified on the basis of the need to ensure the proper conduct of procedure.
149. On this discussion, Iglesias Sánchez, "Centralidad de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la UE en la Jurisprudencia delTJUE tras Lisboa? (Sentencia de 22 de diciembre de 2010As. DEB, C-279/09)", Proceedings of the I CIDUE Congress (La Ley - Wolters Kluwer, forthcoming 2012).
150. In this sense, Ladenburger, "Institutional report - Protection of fundamental rights post-Lisbon - The interaction between the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Convention of Human Rights and national Constitutions", FIDE Congress 2012 (available at ), note 17.
151. Joined Cases C-272/09 P & 389/10 P, KME, judgment of 8 Dec. 2011, nyr.
152. Case C-386/10 P, Chalkor, judgment of 8 Dec. 2011, nyr, as further examples.
153. Opinion 1/91, [1991] ECR I-6079, para 21.
154. See also Case C-294/83, Les Verts v. Parliament, [1986] ECR 1339, para 23.
155. Cases C-188 &189/10, Melki, judgment of 22 June 2010, nyr, para 56.
156. Case C-457/09, Chartry, Order of 1 March 2011, para 20.
157. Case C-221/09, AJD Tuna, judgment of 17 March 2011, nyr.
158. The referring court questioned the validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, having due regard to Art. 47 of the Charter, inasmuch as the interested parties were not given the opportunity to submit their comments before the adoption of the norm. Since the referring court was indeed seeking a ruling with regard to the opportunity of parties to submit comments and not on the violation of Art. 47 of the Charter, the Court declared this provision not applicable to the case.
159. With regard to the investigative powers of the Commission in the framework of competition proceedings, the Court has examined the behaviour of the Commission against the framework of the principles of equal treatment (Arts. 20 and 21 of the Charter), and the right of defence, Case C-550/07 P, Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd., judgment of 14 Sept. 2010, nyr.
160. Editorial Comments, "Towards a more judicial approach? EU antitrust fines under the scrutiny of fundamental rights", 48 CML Rev. (2011), 1405.
161. On the application of this provision, see also Opinion of A.G. Cruz Villalón in C-70/10, Scarlet Extended SA, judgment of 14 Apr. 2010, nyr.
162. Council Directive 2004/113/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, O.J. 2004, L 373/37.
163. Pointing at this possibility, Mangas Martín, "Articulo 52: Alcance e interpretación de los derechos y principios" in Mangas Martín (Ed.), Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea Comentario artículo por artículo (BBVA, 2008), p. 847.
164. See the report by von Danwitz, Séminaire sur la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne, Association des Conseils d'Etat et jurisdictions administratives suprêmes de l'Union européenne, The Hague, 24 Nov. 2011, www.aca-europe.eu/fr/colloquiums/colloq_fr_23.html.
165. See e.g. de Búrca, "The drafting of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights", 26 EL Rev. (2001), 137.
166. On this discussion, see Eeckhout, "The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the federal question", 39 CML Rev. (2002), 945.
167. Protocol no 30 on the application of the Charter to Poland and to the U.K and Declaration by the Czech Republic on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Extensively on the legal effects of the Protocol, Lindner, "Zur grundsätzlichen Bedeutung des Protokolls über die Anwendung der Grundrechtecharta auf Polen und das Vereinigte Königreich - zugleich ein Beitrag zur Auslegung von Art. 51 EGC", 6 EuR (2008), 786.
168. E.g. Alonso García, "The general provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union", 8 ELJ (2002), 492.
169. Besselink, "The Member States, the national Constitutions and the scope of the Charter", 8 MJ (2001), 68.
170. Biglino Campos, "Derechos frente a la Unión, derechos frente a los Estados miembros: El art. 51 de la Carta" in Fernández Sola (Ed.), Unión Europea y Derechos Fundamentales en perspectiva constitucional (Dykinson, 2004), p. 235.
171. Carozza, "The Member States" in Peers and Ward (Eds.), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: Politics, Law and Policy (Hart, 2004), p. 35.
172. Curtin, "The sting is always in the tail. The personal scope of application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights", 8 MJ (2001), 102.
173. Hatje, "Title VII, Kapitel VII, Allgemeine Bestimungen über die Auslegung und Anwendung der Charter" in Schwarze, Becker, Hatje and Schoo (Eds.), EU Kommentar (Nomos, 2009).
174. Ladenburger, "Kapitel VII, Allgemeine Bestimungen über die Auslegung und Anwendung der Charter" in Tettinger and Stern (Eds.), Europäische Grundrechte-Charta (Beck, 2006).
175. Picod, "Article II-111-Champ d'Application" in Burgorgue-Larsen, Levade and Picod (Eds.), Traité établissant une Constitution pour l'Europe. Partie II. La Charte des Droits fondamentaux de l'Union (Bruylant, 2002), p. 643.
176. Case C-260/89, ERT, [1991] ECR I-2925.
177. Supporting this position: Opinion of A.G. Bot in Case C-108/10, Scattolon, judgment of 6 Sept. 2011, nyr, para 118 and Opinion of A.G. Cruz Villalón of 12 June 2012 in Case C-617/10, Fransson, pending, para 25.
178. Council Regulation No 2201/2003/EC of 27 Nov. 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) 1347/2000, O.J. 2003, L 338/1.
179. View of A.G. Jääskinen of 22 Sept. 2010, para 58.
180. Member States should interpret the Regulation and the Charter as obliging them not to transfer the asylum seeker to another Member State where there they cannot be unaware that there are systemic failures in the asylum system. If the situation is worsened by lengthy procedures to determine another responsible State, the State where the asylum seeker is present is compelled to examine the application itself.
181. Para 50.
182. The Court does not mention the Explanations to the Charter that in this regard state that "Article 47 applies to the institutions of the Union and of Member States when they are implementing Union law and does so for all rights guaranteed by Union law". The explanation in this sense could present a problematic point of departure for interpretation, since the conditions for the principle of effective judicial protection to apply are different from those of other fundamental rights: the determining element that triggers its application is the fact that a right granted by EU law has been affected. Indeed, with regard to the principle/right of effective legal protection, what has to fall within the "scope" of EU law is not the procedural legislation whose legality is being contested, but the EU right allegedly affected. Therefore, the explanations to the Charter present a problem in this sense, because for the application of this principle they not only require the EU rights to be affected, but also that the Member State has acted in implementation of EU law.
183. In his Opinion in Samba Diouf, A.G. Cruz Villalón reformulated the questions posed by the national court, which had asked first about the compatibility of the national regime with a directive and, as a subsidiary question, about the compatibility of the national rule with fundamental rights. A.G. Cruz considered that "clearly, however, once it has been established, ex hypothesi and in the manner described, that the secondary law and the national law are compatible, this means that the national law cannot be called into question from this point of view without simultaneously and necessarily calling into question the validity of secondary law" (para 30). It was thus necessary to examine first the validity of the directive, assessing its compatibility with the Charter. The directive was found compatible with fundamental rights because it required Member State to discharge their procedural autonomy under conditions that would ensure the protection of fundamental rights. Though arriving at the same result, the ECJ did not follow the same reasoning, but examined the compatibility of the national law with the Directive, emphasizing the margin of assessment of Member States in implementing the Directive, and subsequently, the observation of the principle of effective judicial protection by the national system.
184. Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 Dec. 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, O.J. 2005, L 326,13.
185. C-267/10 and C-268/10, Rossius, Order of 11 May 2011.
186. C-299/95, Kremzow, [1997] ECR I-2629.
187. C-309/96, Annibaldi [1997] ECR I-7493.
188. C-328/04, Vajnai [2005] ECR I-8577.
189. The preliminary question from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) was on the compliance with Art. 47 of the Charter of a national rule preventing spatial planning instruments from being subject to judicial review. Nonetheless, the order for reference did not contain any specific information showing that the contested decision constituted a measure implementing EU law.
190. To the Agreement on cooperation in proceedings for road traffic offences and the enforcement of financial penalties imposed in respect thereof, (28 Apr. 1999, Schengen Executive Committee, O.J. 2000, L 239/428).
191. Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 Feb 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties (O.J. 2005, L 76/16), the situation was purely internal and did not concern the application of the principle of mutual recognition: Case C-27/11, judgment of 7 June 2012, nyr.
192. Joined Cases C-267&268/10, Rossius, Order of 11 May 2011.
193. The case concerned the sale within Belgian territory of tax-free cigarettes, that had previously been provided to military units in view of their participation in a peace-keeping operation in a third country which was ultimately suspended. In the course of the national proceedings, on the subsequent administrative procedures for the payment of the relevant duties, the national court enquired on the compatibility with Art. 35 of the Charter of the fact that the Belgian State continues to allow manufacture and distribution, and taxes tobacco products, but did not refer to the acts of EU law that contemplated the need for taxation, nor contest their legality.
194. Case C-323/08, Ovidio Rodriguez Mayor and others, [2009] ECR I-11621, para 59.
195. The referring Court asked about the compliance with EU law of Spanish legislation on collective redundancies (which did not include within this concept the termination of contracts of employment as a result of the death of that employer, but established for them a different compensation). Having stated that Directive 98/59 did not cover a situation such as the one at issue, the Court considered that the national provisions did not fall within the scope of the Directive nor, consequently, within the scope of EU law.
196. Case C-20/10, Order of 11 Nov. 2010.The Court declared its lack of jurisdiction to rule on the compatibility of the national legislation with Arts. 20 and 21 of the Charter, since the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, does not address the discrimination between fixed-term workers, nor does it entail an harmonization of national rules relating to fixed-term work. Nonetheless, the referring Court was not satisfied with this reply, stating that it was it only referring to the applicability of the prohibition of discrimination contained in the framework agreement, but not to the general principle of non-discrimination, as enshrined in the Charter. The Court, nonetheless, confirmed its previous position in a second Order. C-161/11, Order of 22 June 2011, nyr.
197. Cases C-483/09 & C-1/10, Gueye, judgment of 15 Sept. 2011, nyr. The referring court asked about the compatibility with Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings of the Spanish system of general and mandatory injunctions to stay away and have no communication, as ancillary penalties in cases concerning domestic violence, even when the victims of those persons oppose the application of such a penalty. After stating that the Framework Decision does not preclude such system, the Court stated that falling the imposition of stay away injunctions outside the scope of the Framework Decision, it could not proceed to the assessment of these measures in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (para 69). The Court followed the Opinion of A.G. Kokott of 12 May 2011 (paras. 78 and 79) who stressed that it was for the national constitutional Court or the ECtHR to intervene in light of the lack of EU regulation on penalties for domestic crimes. This area is nonetheless subject to further developments in view of the future Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Protection Order, for whose adoption an agreement has already been reached. Council Document 14471/11 of 21 Sept. 2011.
198. C-309/96, Annibaldi [1997] ECR I-7493.
199. Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 Nov. 2006 on the common system of value added tax (O.J. 2006, L 347/1).
200. Opinion of A.G. Cruz Villalón, para 40.
201. To borrow the expression of Torres Pérez, Conflicts of Rights in the European Union (OUP, 2009), p. 24.
202. The Court took a restrictive stance in Case C-192/99, Manjit Kaur, [2001] ECR I-1237.
203. De Groot and Seling, "The consequences of the Rottmann judgment on Member State autonomy - The European Court of Justice's avant-gardism in nationality matters", 7 EuConst (2011), 150.
204. Mr. Rottmann, after having lost his Austrian nationality of origin by reason of having acquired the German one, found himself facing statelessness after the German authorities found out that he had been involved in criminal proceedings in Austria. Since he had not mentioned this information during the procedure leading to the acquisition of nationality, this was considered as fraud under German law, entailing the revocation of the previous grant of nationality. The situation concerned, therefore, a German national in Germany, but the cross-border factual background is undeniable.
205. On the problematic consideration of nationality as a human right see Hall, "The European Convention on nationality and the right to have rights", 24 EL Rev. (1999), 586.
206. Zambrano, para 42.
207. K. Hailbronner and Thym, case note on Ruiz Zambrano, 48 CML Rev. (2011), 1261.
208. We have developed this argument in M. Hailbronner and Iglesias Sánchez, "The European Court of Justice and citizenship of the European Union: New developments towards a truly fundamental status", 5 Vienna Journal of International Constitutional Law (2011), 497.
209. Case C-434/09, McCarthy, judgment of 5 May 2011, nyr.
210. Case C-256/11, Dereci and others, judgment of 15 Nov. 2011, nyr.
211. Iglesias Sánchez, "El Asunto Ruiz Zambrano: Una nueva aproximación del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea a la ciudadanía de la Unión", 24 Revista General de Derecho Europeo (2011), 17.
212. See Lenaerts, "Federalism and the rule of law: Perspectives from the European Court of Justice", 33 Fordham International Law Journal (2010), 1338.
213. E.g. Case C-9/74, Casagrande, [1974] ECR 773.
214. On this discussion, Lenaerts and Gutiérrez-Fons, "The constitutional allocation of powers and general principles of EU Law", 47 CML Rev. (2010), 1659.
215. Von Bogdandy, Kottmann, Antpöhler, Dickschen, Hentrei and Smrkold, "Reverse Solange - Protecting the essence of fundamental rights against EU Member States", 49 CML Rev. (2012), 489.
216. "Only serious and persistent violations which highlight a problem of systemic nature in the protection of fundamental rights in the Member State at issue, would, in my view, qualify as violations of the rules on free movement, by virtue of the direct threat they would pose to the transnational dimension of European citizenship and to the integrity of the EU legal order".
217. Opinion of A.G. Maduro, 12 Sept. 2007 in Case C-380/05, Centro Europa 7 Srl, [2008] ECR I-349.
218. See .
219. Rodríguez Iglesias, "The protection of fundamental rights in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities", 1 CJEL (1995), 180.
220. Besselink, "General report - The protection of fundamental rights post-Lisbon. The interaction between the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and national Constitutions", FIDE Congress 2012 (available at ), p. 13.
221. For a discussion, Opinion of A.G. Sharpston, Case C-427/06, Bartsch, [2008] ECR I-7245.
222. In this sense, Baquero Cruz, "What's left of the Charter? Reflections on law and political mythology", 15 MJ (2008), 72.
223. Kokott and Sobotta, "The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union after Lisbon", EUIWorking Papers, AEL 2010/6, p. 4.
224. Dougan, "The Treaty of Lisbon 2007:Winning minds, not hearts", 45 CML Rev., 668.
225. See also, in this regard, Joint communication from the Presidents of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, further to the meeting between the two courts in Jan. 2011.
226. Also, Commission Communication on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, COM (2000) 559, para 9.
227. With regard to the right to good administration, see the Opinion of A.G. Mengozzi in C-290/07 P, Scott, [2010] ECR I-7763, para 60.
228. Roldán Barbero, "La Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la UE: Su estatuto constitucional", 16 Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo (2003), 986.
229. In this sense also Silveira "Citizenship of rights: Zambrano case and the access to the EU standard of fundamental rights protection", presented at the II Jean Monnet Workshop "Reconceptualization of European Union Citizenship", ICADE, Madrid, 7-8 Oct. 2011.
230. Sarmiento, "Half a Case at a Time. Dealing with Judicial Minimalism at the European Court of Justice" in Claes, De Visser, Popelier, Van de Heyning (Eds.), Constitutional Conversations in Europe. Actors, Topics and Procedures (Intersentia, Brussels 2012 forthcoming).
231. See, extensively Lock, "Walking on a tightrope: the draft ECHRAccessionAgreement and the autonomy of the EU legal order", 48 CML Rev. (2011), 1025-1054.
232. Lock, "Accession to the ECHR: Implications for Judicial Review in Strasbourg", 35 EL Rev., 777-798.
233. This concern is also present in the 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 of 5 May 2010; available through .
234. See e.g. Rodríguez Iglesias and Del Valle Gálvez, "El Derecho Comunitario y las relaciones entre el Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas, el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y los Tribunales Constitucionales nacionales", 2 Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo (1997), 239-376.
235. Bustos Gisbert, "Tribunal de Justicia y Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos: Una relación de enriquecimiento mutuo en la contrucción de un sistema europeo para la protección de los derechos" in García Roca and Fernández Sánchez (Eds.), Integración europea a través de derechos fundamentales: De un sistema binario a otro integrado (Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, 2009), pp. 147-168.
236. Anderson and Murphy, "The Charter of Fundamental Rights: History and prospects in Post-Lisbon Europe", EUIWorking Paper LAW 2011/08.
237. See, in this regard, the Joint communication from Presidents Costa and Skouris of 24 Jan. 2011.
238. Court of Justice,when applying provisions of the Charter in its case-law, will be obliged to take over the interpretation given by the European court of Human Rights to corresponding rights guaranteed by the ECHR".
239. Lenaerts and De Smijter, "The Charter and the role of the European Courts", 8 MJ (2001), 99.
240. Jacqué, "The accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms", 48 CML Rev. (2011), 999.
241. Weiß, "Human rights in the EU: Rethinking the role of the European Convention on Human Rights after Lisbon", 7 EuConst (2011), 70.
242. C-571/10, Kamberaj, judgment of 24 Apr. 2012, nyr, paras. 62 and 63.
243. For very interesting analyses see: Martinico, "The national judicial treatment of European laws: Are national judges extending primacy and direct effect to the ECHR?", Sant'Anna Legal Studies (STALS) Research Paper No. 5/2011. Available at .
244. M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, judgment of the ECtHR of 21 Jan. 2011, Appl. No. 30696/09.
245. Case 155/79, AM & S, [1982] ECR 1575.
246. Di Federico, case note on Akzo Nobel, 48 CML Rev., 586.
247. This interpretation would consolidate a sphere of relatively higher autonomy, allowing the ECJ to adopt a standard differing from the ECtHR. It entails a problematic situation if the autonomous interpretation offers a lower degree of protection that the ECtHR. Member States parties to a Protocol not ratified by all Member States (e.g. Sweden in Fransson) would be expected to deviate from the Strasbourg standard if the matter falls within the scope of the Charter. Such a lowering in the level of protection may be in conformity with Art. 53 CFREU, since this only precludes interpretations negatively affecting human rights as recognized in international agreements to which the Union or all the Member States are parties. It will also escape the scrutiny of the ECtHR since Protocols to which not all the Member States are parties are not included in the present accession negotiations.
248. Besselink, "The relative autonomy of the EU Human Rights standard", 4 EuConst (2008), 204.
249. See, extensively, Besselink, "Entrapped by the maximum standard: On fundamental rights, pluralism and subsidiarity in the European Union", 35 CML Rev. (1998), 629-680.
250. Extensively on this discussion Liisberg, "Does the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights threaten the supremacy of Community law?", 38 CML Rev. (2001), 1171-1199.
251. In this sense, Opinion of A.G. CruzVillalón in C-120/10, European Air Transport SA, judgment of 17 Feb 2011, nyr.
252. Díaz Crego, Proteccion de los derechos fundamentales en la Union Europea e los Estados miembros (Reus, 2009), p. 75.
253. Order 86/2011 Spanish Constitutional Court, 9 June 2011. Case C-399/11, pending.
254. C-396/11, Radu, pending.
255. On this issue Parga, "On the legal effects of framework decisions and decisions: Directly applicable, directly effective, self-executing, supreme?", 5 ELJ (2008), 620-634.
256. On the attitude of Constitutional Courts on the primacy of Third Pillar norms see Iglesias Sánchez, "La jurisprudencia constitucional comparada sobre la orden europea de detención y entrega, y la naturaleza jurídica de los actos del tercer pilar", 35 Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo (2010), 169-192.
257. See Torres Pérez, "Spanish Constitutional Court- Constitutional dialogue on the European ArrestWarrant: The Spanish Constitutional Court knocking on Luxembourg's door; Spanish Constitutional Court, Order of 9 June 2011, ATC 86/201113, 8 EuConst 105.