Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The European Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Courts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 8))

Abstract

This Chapter aims to highlight how the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU has been used by the Community Courts and national judges. After its solemn proclamation in December 2000 the Charter was formally not a legally binding instrument. However, this document has increasingly become a point of reference for Advocates General, the Court of First Instance and of the European Court of Justice, and has even been invoked by the Strasbourg Court and by constitutional courts of the Member States. Still, it appears that the use made of the Charter varies considerably and deserves closer consideration. It is argued that by attributing full legal force to the Charter the Lisbon Treaty enhances the integration process and improves the degree of legitimacy of the EU.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    On the process which led to the adoption of the Charter, see in this volume the contribution by O. Zetterquist, ‘Chapter 1’.

  2. 2.

    See P. Mengozzi, ‘La tutela dei diritti umani nella giurisprudenza comunitaria’, in L. S. Rossi, Carta dei diritti fondamentali e Costituzione dell’Unione europea (Giuffré, 2002) 51. The solemn declaration of the Charter marked a turning point with regards to European integration, highlighting the shift from the “Europe of the Market” to the “Europe of the Rights”. See A. Manzella, ‘Dopo Nizza: la Carta dei diritti “proclamata”’, in L. S. Rossi, Carta dei diritti fondamentali e Costituzione dell’Unione europea’ (Giuffré, 2002) 245.

  3. 3.

    As far as the European Commission is concerned, cf. Communication of the President of the Commission, 12 March 2001, SEC (2001)380/3 and the Communication of the Commission, 27 April 2005, COM (2005) 172 final. As to the European Parliament, cf. new Art. 34 of the Internal Regulation of the European Parliament, 15 February 2005. Also see A., Iliopoulou,‘ Assurer le respect et la promotion des droits fondamentaux: un nouveau défi pour l’Union européenne’, (2007) Cahiers de droit européen, 433.

  4. 4.

    L.S. Rossi, ‘“Costituzionalizzazione” dell’UE e dei diritti fondamentali’, in L.S. Rossi (ed.) Carta dei diritti fondamentali e Costituzione dell’Unione europea (Giuffré, 2002) 267. In the European Parliament Resolution of 15 March 2007, P6-TA-PROV(2007)0078, on compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Commission’s legislative proposals: methodology for systematic and rigorous monitoring, the European Parliament called upon the Commission to verify the compliance of legislative proposals not only with all European and international instruments regarding fundamental rights, but also with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This resolution, that contains many pragmatic suggestions, emphasises the “self-obligation” of the European Institutions. See G. Bronzini, V. Piccone, ‘Parlamento europeo, Corte di Giustizia e Corte di Strasburgo rilanciano la Carta di Nizza: un messaggio alla futura Conferenza intergovernativa?’, accessible at http://www.europeanrights.eu. According to F. Ippolito (‘Ricominciamo dalla Carta dei diritti’, in G. Bisogni, G., Bronzini, V. Piccone (eds.), I giudici e la Carta dei diritti dell’Unione europea (Chimienti, 2006) 24) the Charter should set the legal standard to be observed by all European Institutions.

  5. 5.

    In this sense, cf. the Opinion of Advocate General Colomer in case C-207/04 in which it can be read: “the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, apart from the controversy regarding its legal nature, has had a significant influence on legislation planned and approved since it was proclaimed”. On the contribution Advocates General have brought to the use of the Charter, see Section 2.

  6. 6.

    Appl. No 45036/98, Bosphorus v. Ireland, (2005) 42 EHRR. Also see Section 5.

  7. 7.

    Case C-340/99 TNT Traco SpA v. Poste Italiane SpA [2001] ECR I-4109, AG Alber.

  8. 8.

    Suffice it to recall that in 2001, the Charter was mentioned in 17 Opinions.

  9. 9.

    Case C-340/99 TNT Traco SpA v. Poste Italiane SpA, n. 7 above, AG Alber; Case C-126/01 Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie v. GEMO [2003] ECR I-13769, AG Jacobs; Case C-112/00 E. Schmidberger and Others v. Austria [2003] ECR I-5659, AG Jacobs; Case C-491/01 Tobacco Investments and Imperial Tobacco [2002] ECR I-11453, AG Geelhoed; Case C-338/00P Volkswagen v. Commission [2003] ECR I-9189, AG Colomer; Case C-217/00 P Buzzi UNICEM S.p.a [2004] ECR I-123, AG Colomer; Case C-256/01 D. Allonby v. Accrington & Rossendale College and Others [2004] ECR I-873, AG Geelhoed; Case C-117/01 KB v. National Health Service Pensions Agency and Others [2004] ECR I-541, AG Colomer; Case C-353/01 P Mattila v. Council and Commission [2004] ECR I-1073, AG Léger; Case C-386/02 J. Baldinger v. Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter [2004] ECR I-8411, AG Colomer; Case C-456/02 M. Trojani v. CPAS [2004] ECR I-07573, AG Geelhoed; Case C-36/02 Omega Spielhallen v. Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn [2004] ECR I-9609, AG Stix-Hackl; C-384/02 Criminal proceedings against Knud Grøngaard and Allan Bang [2005] ECR I-9939, AG General Poiares Maduro; Case C-457/02 Criminal proceedings against Antonio Niselli [2004] ECR I-10853, AG Kokott; Case C-105/03 Criminal proceedings against M. Pupino [2005] ECR I-5285, AG Kokott; Case C-347/03 ERSA v. Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali [2005] ECR I-3785, AG Jacobs (insisting on the fact that the text of the Charter was included into the European Constitution); Case C-540/03 Parliament v. Council [2006] ECR I-5769, AG Kokott; Case C-3/05 G. Verdoliva v. J. M. Van der Hoeven BV and Others [2006] ECR I-1579, AG Kokott; Case C-94/04 Federico Cipolla [2006] ECR I-11421, AG Poiares Maduro; Case C-354/04 P Gestoras Pro Amnistía and Others v. Council [2007] ECR I-1579, AG Mengozzi; Case C-428/04 Commission v. Austria [2006] ECR I-3325, AG Colomer; Case C-444/05 Aikaterini Stamatelaki v. OAEE [2007] ECR I-3185, AG Colomer; Case C-64/05 P Sweden v. Commission and Others [2007] ECR I-11389, AG Poiares Maduro; Case C-450/06 Varec, accessible at http://curia.europa.eu/, AG Sharpston; Case C-267/06 Tadao Maruko accessible at http://curia.europa.eu/, AG Colomer; Case C-123/08 Wolzenburg, accessible at http://curia.europa.eu; Case 14/08 Roda Golf & Beach Resort SL, accessible at http://curia.europa.eu.

  10. 10.

    R. Bifulco, M. Cartabia, A. Celotto, (eds.), L’Europa dei diritti. Commento alla Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea (il Mulino, 2001). See also P. Eeckhout, ‘The EU Charter of fundamental rights and the federal question’, (2002) Common Market Law Review 945.

  11. 11.

    Case C-63/01 S.S. Evans v. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2003] ECR I-14447, AG Alber, para 84.

  12. 12.

    Case C-491/01, British American Tobacco [2003] ECR I-11453, AG Geelhoed, para 47.

  13. 13.

    The Charter appeared as a text reaffirming rights already contained in other instruments; see Case C-270/99P, Z v. European Parliament [2001] ECR I-9197, AG Jacobs; C-413/99, Baumbast and R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ECR I-7091, AG Geelhoed; Case C-313/99, G. Mulligan and Others v. Minister for Agriculture and Food [2002] ECR I-5719, AG Geelhoed; Case C-224/00, Commission v. Italy [2002] ECR I-2965, AG Stix-Hackl; C-50/00, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v. Council [2002] ECR I-6677, AG Jacobs; Case C-111/02 P, Parliament v. P. Reynolds [2004] ECR I-5475, AG Geelhoed; Case C-547/03P, AIT v. Commission [2006] ECR I-845, AG Stix-Hackl; Case C-76/06P, Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd v. Commission [2007] ECR I-4405, AG Bot; Case C-350/06, Gerard Schultz-Hoff v. Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund, accessible at http://curia.europa.eu/, AG Trstenjak; Case C-480/08, Maria Teixeira, accessible at http://curia.europa.eu, AG Kokot.

  14. 14.

    Case C-173/99, BECTU [2001] ECR I-4881, AG Tizzano.

  15. 15.

    Ibid., para 28.

  16. 16.

    Ibid.

  17. 17.

    See also case C-350/06 Schultz-Hoff, n. 13 above, AG Trstenjak on the right to be paid annual leaves. The Advocate General concluded that the inclusion of this right in the Charter appears to provide the most reliable and definitive confirmation that it constitutes a fundamental right. In this case, AG Trstenjak, although recognizing that the Charter has not been attributed a genuine legislative scope, opined that it would be wrong to deny the Charter any relevance in interpreting Community law. Irrespective of the question of the definitive legal status of the Charter within the legal system of the European Union, it already constitutes a concrete expression of shared fundamental European values and it also reflects constitutional traditions common to the Member States. This premise was followed by the conclusion that it is perfectly legitimate to refer to the Charter when interpreting Community law. It is interesting to note that the same AG Trstenjak in Martín Martín affirmed, with regard to the provisions of the Charter, that “it should be pointed out that they fall outside the scope of the Community legal order and thus the Court has no jurisdiction over their interpretation. In their Opinions, the advocates general none the less often have recourse to them in their reasoning, and the Court itself has already mentioned the Charter in the grounds of its judgments. In this case, the provisions of the Charter can therefore be used as an aid to interpreting the provisions of Directive 85/577, but it will not be possible to rely on them in answering the question referred”, Case 227/08, Martín Martín, at http://curia.eu.

  18. 18.

    Case C-353/99 P Hautala [2001] ECR I-9565, AG Léger, para 80.

  19. 19.

    Cf. Case C-105/04 Grothandel op Elektrochnisch Gebied [2006] ECR I-8725, AG Kokott, Case C-10/05 Mattern and Cikotic [2006] ECR I-3145, AG Kokott and Case C-555/07 Seda Kücükdeveci, at http://www.curia.eu, AG Bot.

  20. 20.

    Case C-555/07, Seda Kücükdeveci, n. 19 above, para 77 (only the French version is available).

  21. 21.

    L.S. Rossi, ‘“Costituzionalizzazione” dell’UE e dei diritti fondamentali’, n. 4 above 271. The Charter has limited the discretionary power of the ECJ and CFI in appraising fundamental rights. See A. Ruggieri, ‘Carta europea dei diritti e integrazione interordinamentale, dal punto di vista della giustizia e della giurisprudenza costituzionale (notazioni introduttive)’, in A. Pizzorusso, R. Romboli, A. Ruggeri, A. Saitta, G. Silvestri (eds.), Riflessi della Carta europea dei diritti sulla giustizia e la giurisprudenza costituzionale: Italia e Spagna a confronto (Giuffré, 2003) 12 and, in the same volume, the contribution by C. Pinelli, ‘La Carta europea dei diritti e il processo di “costituzionalizzazione” del diritto europeo’ 70. This led many commentators to consider the Charter as a precious instrument for the protection of fundamental rights. Cf. Case C-303/05, Adovcaten coor de Wereld [2007] ECR I-3633, AG Colomer; see also L. Diez-Picazo, ‘Notes sur la nouvelle Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne’, (2002) Revue Européenne de Droit Public 937; C. Di Turi, ‘La prassi giudiziaria relativa all’applicazione delle Carta di Nizza’, (2002) Il Diritto dell’Unione europea, 681. See also R. Romboli, ‘Carta europea dei diritti e garanzie giurisdizionali (notazioni introduttive)’, in A. Pizzorusso, R. Romboli, A. Ruggeri, A. Saitta, G. Silvestri (eds.), Riflessi della Carta europea dei diritti sulla giustizia e la giurisprudenza costituzionale: Italia e Spagna a confronto (Giuffré, 2003) 110.

  22. 22.

    M. Cartabia, ‘La Carta di Nizza, i suoi giudici e l’isolamento della Corte costituzionale italiana’, in A. Pizzorusso, R. Romboli, A. Ruggeri, A. Saitta, G. Silvestri (eds.), n. 21 above, 211.

  23. 23.

    See also Appl. No 63235/00, Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland (2007), accessible at http://www.echr.coe.int.

  24. 24.

    Joined Cases C-122/99 and C-125/99 D. v. Council [2001] ECR I-04319, AG Mischo, para 97.

  25. 25.

    Case C-49/00 Commission v. Italy [2001] ECR I-8575, AG Stix-Hackl; Case C-309/99 J. C. J. Wouters and Others v. Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten [2002] ECR I-1577, AG Léger; Case C-60/00 M. Carpenter v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ECR I-6279, AG Stix-Hackl; Case C-459/99 MRAX v. Belgium [2002] ECR I-6591, AG Stix-Hackl; Case C-417/02 Commission v. Grece [2004] ECR I-7973, AG Kokott; Case C-186/04 P Housieaux v. Délégués du conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale [2005] ECR I-3299, AG Kokott; Case C- 503/03 Commission v. Spain [2006] ECR I-1097, AG Kokott; Case C-408/03 Commission v. Belgium [2006] ECR I-2647, AG Colomer; Case C-205/03 FENIN v. Commission [2006] ECR I-6295, AG Poiares Maduro; Case C-283/05 ASML Netherlands BV v. SEMIS [2006] ECR I-12041, AG Léger; Case C-441/05 Roquette Frères v. Ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation, de la Pêche et de la Ruralité [2007] ECR I-1993, AG Kokott; Case C- 402/05P Kadi v. Council and Commission, accessible at http://curia.europa.eu, AG Poiares Maduro.

  26. 26.

    Case C-270/99 P Z. v. Parliament, n. 13 above, AG Jacobs; C-413/99 Baumbast and R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, n. 13 above, AG Geelhoed; Case C-313/99 G. Mulligan and Others, n. 13 above, AG Geelhoed; Case C-224/00 Commission v. Italy, n. 13 above, AG Stix-Hackl; C-50/00 Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v. Council, n. 13 above, AG Jacobs; Case C-111/02 P Parliament v. P. Reynolds, n. 13 above, AG Geelhoed; Case C-547/03P AIT v. Commission, n. 13 above, AG Stix-Hackl; Case C-76/06P Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd, n. 13 above, AG Bot; Case C-317 to 320/08, Rosalba Alassini and Others, AG Kokot.

  27. 27.

    Case C-297/07 Bourquain [2008], accessible at http://curia.europa.eu.

  28. 28.

    The added value of the Charter can be appreciated taking into consideration the fact that many of the rights contained therein are “hidden” within the meanders of the case law.

  29. 29.

    L.S. Rossi, ‘“Costituzionalizzazione” dell’UE e dei diritti fondamentali’, n. 4 above, 279 ff. See also A. Anzon, ‘La Costituzione europea come problema’, (2000) Rivista di Diritto Costituzionale 656; S. Rodotà, ‘Ma l’Europa già applica la nuova Carta dei diritti?’, newspaper article which appeared in La Repubblica, 3 January 2001.

  30. 30.

    Case C-341/05 Laval [2007] ECR I-11767, AG Mengozzi. On the added value of the Charter, see A. Celotto, ‘Giudici nazionali e Carta di Nizza: disapplicazione o interpretazione conforme?’, in G. Bronzini, V. Piccone (eds.), La Carta e le Corti.. I diritti fondamentali nella giurisprudenza europea multilivello (Chimienti, 2007) 30. It should also be mentioned that in Case C-305/05 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others [2007] ECR I-5305, AG Poiares Maduro claimed that the Charter indicates the existence of a right (activating a sort of presumption iuris tantum) and offers useful indications as to its content and scope.

  31. 31.

    Case C-303/05 Advocaten voor Wereld, n. 21 above, AG Colomer, para 77.

  32. 32.

    Case C-208/00 Überseering [2002] ECR I-9919, AG Colomer, para 59.

  33. 33.

    Case C-20/00 Booker Aquaculture, [2003] ECR I-7411, AG Mischo, para 126; Case C-181/03 P Albert Nardone v. Commission [2005] ECR I-199, AG Poiares Maduro; see also, Joined Cases C-387/02, C-391/02 and C-403/02 Criminal proceedings against S. Berlusconi and Others [2005] ECR I-3565, AG Kokott.

  34. 34.

    The provisions of the Charter have been transposed, with some necessary adaptations, in Arts. II-61 to II-114 of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, [2004] OJ C 310/1.

  35. 35.

    Case C-209/03 D. Bidar v. London Borough of Ealing and Others [2005] ECR I-2119, AG Geelhoed; Case C-176/03 Commission v. Council [2005] ECR I-7879, AG Colomer; Case C-436/04 Criminal proceedings against L. Henri Van Esbroeck [2006] ECR I-2333, AG Colomer; Case C-499/04 H. Werhof v. Freeway Traffic Systems GmbH & Co. KG [2006] ECR I-2397, AG Colomer; Case C-212/06 Government of Communauté française and Gouvernement Wallon v. Gouvernement Flamand, accessible at http://curia.europa.eu/, AG Sharpston; Case C-303/05 Advocaten voor de Wereld, n. 21 above, AG Colomer.

  36. 36.

    Case 555/07 Seda Kücükdeveci, AG Bot n. 19 above.

  37. 37.

    Case C-466/00 Kaba [2003] ECR I-2219, AG Colomer; Case C-317/04 Parliament v. Council [2006] ECR I-4721, AG Léger.

  38. 38.

    Case T-112/98 Mannersmannröhrer-Werke v. Commission [2001] ECR II-729, para 76.

  39. 39.

    For a similar position see Case C-105/04 Grothandel, n. 19 above, AG Kokott, where the applicability of the Charter was denied ratione temporis, having the latter been solemnly proclaimed after the contested decision was adopted.

  40. 40.

    See A. Barbera, ‘La Carta dei diritti dell’Unione europea’, (2001) Il Diritto dell’Unione europea 241; see also L. Azzena, ‘Prospettive della Carta dei diritti e ruolo della giurisprudenza’, in F. Ferrari (ed.), I diritti fondamentali dopo la Carta di Nizza. Il costituzionalismo dei diritti (Giuffré, 2001) 123 and L. Montanari, ‘Una decisione del Tribunale di prima istanza fra CEDU e la Carta di Nizza’, (2001) Diritto Pubblico Comunitario ed Europeo 670.

  41. 41.

    Case T-474/04 Pergan Hilfsstoffe für industrielle Prozesse GmbH [2007] ECR II-4225; Case T-242/02 The Sunrider Corp. v. OHIM [2005] ECR II-2793; Case T-210/01 General Electric Company [2005] ECR II-5575; Case T-223/00 Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co. Ltd and Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH [2003] ECR II-2553; Case T-224/00 ADM Company and ADM Ltd [2003] ECR II-2597; Joined cases T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01, Philip Morris International [2003] ECR II-1; Case T-211/02 Tideland Signal Ltd [2002] ECR II-3781; Case T-54/99 max.mobil Telekommunikation Service GmbH [2002] ECR II-313; Case T-390/08 Bank Melli Iran v. Council, at http://www.curia.europa.eu. In Case T-77/01 Diputación Foral de Alava [2002] ECR I-81 the Court ruled that “it must be pointed out that that [the principle of effective judicial protection] is a general principle of Community law which underlies the constitutional traditions common to the Member States. The principle is also laid down in Arts. 6 and 13 of the ECHR and in Art. 47 of the Charter of fundamental rights” (para 35 of the order). In Case T-193/04 Tillack v. Commission [2006] ECR II-3995, the CFI referred to the Charter without mentioning other sources. It affirmed that “the principle of sound administration (. . .) constitutes the expression of specific rights [. . .] for the purposes of Article 41 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, proclaimed on 7 December 2000 in Nice, which is not the case here” (para 127).

  42. 42.

    Case T-54/99 max.mobil Telekommunikation Service GmbH, n. above 41, para 57. For an interpretation of Art. 41 CFR, also see the Order in Case T-198/01R Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau [2002] ECR II-2153, para 85.

  43. 43.

    A. Celotto, G. Pistorio, ‘L’efficacia giuridica della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea’ (2005) Giurisprudenza Italiana 434. A similar stance (i.e. not specifying the legal value of the Charter) was adopted in Case T-194/04 The Bavarian Lager Co. Ltd [2007] ECR II-4523; Case T-193/04 Hans-Martin Tillack v. Commission [2006] ECR II-3995; Joined Cases T-391/03 and T-70/04 Y. Franchet and D. Byk v. Commission [2006] ECR II-2023; Case T-242/02 Sunrider v. OHMI, n. 41 above; Case T-236/01 Tokai Carbon [2004] ECR II-1181.

  44. 44.

    Joined Cases T-377/00 etc. Philip Morris International, n. 41 above, para 122.

  45. 45.

    Case T-177/01, Jégo-Quéré [2002] ECR II-2365.

  46. 46.

    On this specific case and its (potential) impact on locus standi granted to individuals within the EC legal order, cf. in this volume the contribution by G. Sanna, ‘Chapter 9’.

  47. 47.

    A. Celotto, G. Pistorio, ‘L’efficacia giuridica della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea’, n. 40 above, 437.

  48. 48.

    Joined cases T-377/00 etc. Philip Morris International, n. 41 above, para 122; Case T-177/01, Jégo-Quéré, n. 45 above, para 42. Case T-390/08, Bank Melli Iran v. Council, at. http://curia.europa.eu, para 105.

  49. 49.

    Case T-54/99, max. mobil Telekommunikation Service, n. 41 above, para 48.

  50. 50.

    A. Spadaro, ‘Verso la Costituzione europea. il problema delle garanzie giurisdizionali dei diritti’, in A. Pizzorusso, R. Romboli, A. Ruggeri, A. Saitta, G. Silvestri (eds.), n. 21 above, 147.

  51. 51.

    See Case T-259/02 Raiffeisen Zentralbank v. Commission [2006] ECR II-5961; Case T-228/02 Organisation des Modjahedines du Peuple d'Iran v. Council [2006] ECR I-4665; Case T-391/03 Y. Franchet and D. Byk, n. 43 above; Case T-439/04 Eurohypo AG v. OHIM [2006] ECR II-1269; Joined Cases T-22/02 and T-23/02 Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd and Others Sumika Fine Chemicals Co. Ltd [2005] ECR II-4065; Case T-71/03 Tokai Carbon [2005] ECR II-10; Case T-2/03 Verein für Konsumenteninformation [2005] ECR II-1121; Case T-67/00 JFE Engineering Corp. [2004] ECR II-2501; Case T-11/03 Afari v. European Central Bank [2004] ECR II-267.

  52. 52.

    Case C-540/03 Parliament v. Council [2006] ECR I-5769. See A. Arnull, ‘Family reunification and fundamental rights’, (2006) European Law Review 611.

  53. 53.

    See A. Spadaro, ‘Verso la Costituzione europea. il problema delle garanzie giurisdizionali dei diritti’, in A. Pizzorusso, R. Romboli, A. Ruggeri, A. Saitta, G. Silvestri (eds.), n. 21 above, 147.

  54. 54.

    Case C-540/03 Parliament v. Council, n. 52 above, para 38.

  55. 55.

    Case C-432/05 Unibet Ltd v. Justitiekanslern [2007] ECR I-2271, para 37.

  56. 56.

    Case C-303/05 Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW, n. 21 above, para 46.

  57. 57.

    Case C-450/06 Varec SA v. Belgium, n. 9 above, para 48.

  58. 58.

    Joined cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation, n. 25 above, para 335.

  59. 59.

    Case C-12/08 Mono Car Styling SA, accessible at http://curia.europa.eu.

  60. 60.

    Case C-244/06 Dynamic Medien, accessible at http://curia.europa.eu, para 41.

  61. 61.

    Case C-438/05 Viking [2007] ECR I-10779, para 43.

  62. 62.

    Case C-341/05 Laval [2007] ECR I-11767, paras 90 and 91.

  63. 63.

    See further in this volume, S. Coppola, ‘Chapter 11’.

  64. 64.

    Ibid., para 91. The Court reached an analogous position in the Viking case, n. 61 above, para 44.

  65. 65.

    Case C-76/06 P Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd, n. 26 above; Case C-305/05 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others, n. 30 above.

  66. 66.

    Case C-275/06 Promusicae v. Telefónica de España SAU [2008] ECR I-271, para 64.

  67. 67.

    Ibid., para 46.

  68. 68.

    Ibid., para 64.

  69. 69.

    Ibid., para 65.

  70. 70.

    G.F. Ferrari, L. Montanari, ‘I diritti nel progetto di Costituzione europea’, (2003) Diritto Pubblico Comunitario ed Europeo 1716.

  71. 71.

    Appl. No 28957/95, Goodwin v. The United Kingdom, (2002) 35 EHRR.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., para 58.

  73. 73.

    V. Monetti, ‘Sentenze della Corte di Strasburgo’, in G. Bisogni, G. Bronzini, V. Piccone (eds.), I giudici e la Carta dei diritti dell’Unione europea (Chimienti 2006) 115. On the different wording of the rights, see Scoppola v. Italy (Appl. No 10249/03, accessible at http://www.echr.coe.int). In this judgment the Court affirmed that: “the wording of Article 49 § 1 of the Charter differs – and this can only be deliberate (see, mutatis mutandis, Christine Goodwin, cited above, § 100 in fine) – from that of Article 7 of the Convention”. This does not impede to conclude that there is an equivalent level of protection.

  74. 74.

    Bosphorus v. Ireland, n. 6 above.

  75. 75.

    Appl. No 73049/01, Anheuser-Busch inc. v. Portugal, (2007) accessible at http://www.echr.coe.int. In this case the Court quoted the Charter as a source of EC law.

  76. 76.

    Appl. Nos 52562/99 and 52620/99, Sørensen v. Denmark and Rasmussen v. Denmark, (2006) accessible at http://www.echr.coe.int.

  77. 77.

    Appl. No 13229/03, Saadi v. The United Kingdom, (2008) accessible at http://www.echr.coe.int

  78. 78.

    Appl. No 55759/07, Maresti v. Croatia, (2009) accessible at http://www.echr.coe.int. See also Appl. No 34503/97, Demir and Baykara v. Turkey, (2008) accessible at http://www.echr.coe.int, para 150. In the recent Micallef v. Malta (Appl. No 17056/06) of 15 October 2009, the Court of Strasbourg mentioned the CFR as the main text of reference for the European Union legal order underlining the different wording of the right to a fair trial contanined in Article 47 of the CFR with respect to that of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. See Appl. No 14939/03, Zolotukhin v. Russia, (2009) unreported. See also Appl. No 7925/04, Pishchalnikov v. Russia, (2009), unreported and Appl. No 36391/02, Salduz v. Turkey, (2009), also unreported, in which the Court referred to Articles 48 and 52 of the CFR.

  79. 79.

    Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland (2007), accessible at http://www.echr.coe.int, para 30.

  80. 80.

    Cf. Section 2.

  81. 81.

    Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland, n. 79 above, para 30.

  82. 82.

    Appl. No 34503/97, Demir and Baykara v. Turkey, (2008) accessible at http://www.echr.coe.int, para 105.

  83. 83.

    Appl. No 53924/00, Vo. v. France, (2004) Reports of Judgments and Decisions - VIII.

  84. 84.

    Appl. No 58675/00, Martinie v. France, (2006) accessible at http://www.echr.coe.int.

  85. 85.

    Demir and Baykara v. Turkey, n. 82 above.

  86. 86.

    Basic and advanced queries on decisions by national ordinary courts referring to the EU Charter of Fundamental rights can be performed at http://www.europeanrights.eu.

  87. 87.

    Spanish Constitutional Court, Judgment 30 November 2000, No 292.

  88. 88.

    Spanish Constitutional Court, Judgment 13 February 2006, No 41.

  89. 89.

    Spanish Constitutional Court, Judgment 22 December 2008, No 176.

  90. 90.

    Italian Constitutional Court, Judgment 24 April 2002, No 135/2002, para 2.2. A similar conclusion was reached by the Portuguese Constitutional Court in Judgment (accordao) No 275/02.

  91. 91.

    M. Cartabia, A. Celotto, ‘La giustizia costituzionale in Italia dopo la Carta di Nizza’, (2002) Giurisprudenza Costituzionale 4485.

  92. 92.

    Italian Constitutional Court, Judgment 24 October 2002, No 445/2002. See also Italian Constitutional Court, Judgment 15 December 2008, No 438/2008.

  93. 93.

    The Italian Constitutional Court assumed the same position in the judgment 15 December 2008, No 438/2008. See for a similar conclusion, the Portuguese Constitutional Court, Judgment 9 July 2009, No 359/2009.

  94. 94.

    Italian Constitutional Court, Judgment 23 October 2006, No 393/2006, para 6.2; Italian Constitutional Court, Judgment 8 November 2006, No 394/2006, para 6.4.

  95. 95.

    No Law 5 December 2005, No 251.

  96. 96.

    Italian Constitutional Court, Order 5 March 2007, No 93.

  97. 97.

    Italian Constitutional Court, Judgment 11 March 2009, No 86.

  98. 98.

    A. Ruggieri, n. 21 above, 14.

  99. 99.

    Belgian Constitutional Court, Judgment 23 January 2008, No 10/2008.

  100. 100.

    Case C-305/05 Ordre des Barreaux francophones et germanophones, n. 65 above.

  101. 101.

    See also Belgian Constitutional Court, Judgment 19 March 2009, No 58/2009.

  102. 102.

    Belgian Constitutional Court, Judgment 12 February 2009, No 17/2009.

  103. 103.

    French Constitutional Council, Decision 19 November 2004, No 2004-505 DC, para 22. See L. Azoulay, F. Ronkes Agerbeek, ‘Conseil Contitutionnel, Decision No 2004-505 DC of 19 November 2004, on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe’, (2005) Common Market Law Review 871. In regard to other parts of the European Constitutional Treaty (policies and functioning of the Union and new prerogatives of National parliaments), the French Constitutional Council ruled that the permission to ratify may only be granted after the revision of the French Constitution. In France there are control mechanisms (political and judicial) which may be activated between the signature of a treaty and its ratification. The Constitutional Council is responsible for adopting the relevant decisions.

  104. 104.

    Spanish Constitutional Court, Judgment 13 December 2004, DCT 1/2004.

  105. 105.

    P. Caretti, ‘Il Tribunal constitucional e il Conseil constitutionnel sulla Costituzione per l’Europa’, (2005) Quaderni costituzionali 419.

  106. 106.

    On the multilevel system of protection of fundamental rights in Europe, cf. the contribution in this volume by G. Di Federico, ‘Chapter 2’.

  107. 107.

    I. Gomez Fernandez, ‘Una svolta nella giurisprudenza del Tribunal Constitucional spagnolo’, (2005) Quaderni costituzionali 424.

  108. 108.

    French Constitutional Council, Decision 20 December 2007, No 2007-560 DC, paras 11 and 12. In a similar case, the Czech Court established that the norms of the Treaty of Lisbon and of the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights are compatible with the principles and the Constitutional order of the State, see Judgment 26 November 2008, No 19/08.

  109. 109.

    German Constitutional Court, judgment 30 June 2009, No BvR 2 BvE 2/08 2 BvE 5/ 08 -2 BvR 1010/08 -2 BvR 1022/08 -2 BvR 1259/08 - 2 BvR 182/09, para 35. See J. Ziller, ‘Solange III (or the Bundesverfassungsgericht’s, Europefriendliness). On the decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court over the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon’ (2009) Rivista Italiana di Diritto Pubblico Comunitario, 973.

  110. 110.

    German Constitutional Court, judgment 22 October 1986, No 2 BvR 197/83.

  111. 111.

    German Constitutional Court, judgment 12 October 1993, No 2 BvR 2134/92.

  112. 112.

    Ibid., para 189.

  113. 113.

    S. Rodotà, ‘La Carta come atto politico e documento giuridico’, in A. Manzella, P. Melograni, E. Paciotti, S. Rodotà (eds.), Riscrivere i diritti in Europa (il Mulino, 2001) 73; L.S. Rossi, ‘How fundamental is a fundamental principle? Primacy and fundamental rights after the Lisbon Treaty’ (2008) Yearbook of European Law, 65. L.S. Rossi, ‘Supremazie incrociate: Trattato costituzionale europeo e Costituzioni nazionali, in L. Daniele (ed.) La dimensione internazionale ed europea del diritto nell’esperienza della Corte Costituzionale (ESI, 2007) 399.

  114. 114.

    S. Rodotà, ‘Nel silenzio della politica i giudici fanno l’Europa’, in G. Bronzini, V. Piccone (eds.), La Carta e le Corti. I diritti fondamentali nella giurisprudenza europea multilivello (Chimienti 2007) 27.

  115. 115.

    Cfr. V. Skouris, ‘La protezione dei diritti fondamentali nell’Unione europea nella prospettiva dell’adozione di una Costituzione europea’, in L.S. Rossi, (ed.), Il progetto di Trattato-Costituzione. Verso una nuova architettura dell’Unione europea (Giuffré 2004) 249. On the position adopted by the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic with regard to the Charter, see G. Di Federico, n. 106 above.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CIRDE (Interdepartmental Research Centre on European Law), University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Valentina Bazzocchi

Authors
  1. Valentina Bazzocchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valentina Bazzocchi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Centro Interdipartimentale Ricerche sul, University of Bologna, Viale Filopanti 9, Bologna, 40100, Italy

    Di Federico Giacomo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bazzocchi, V. (2011). The European Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Courts. In: Giacomo, D. (eds) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0156-4_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation