Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

One Law, One Court and Human Rights

  • Chapter
New Europe - Old Values?

Part of the book series: Europeanization and Globalization ((EAG,volume 1))

  • 488 Accesses

Abstract

The article deals with the new development regarding the adoption of the European Convention for Human Rights by the European Union. The foundations for this development were laid down in the Lisbon Treaty in 2007 and the 14th Protocol to the European Convention for Human Rights in 2004. Consequently, the EU would also be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court for Human Rights when human rights are concerned. However, the prolonged negotiation process that started after these two instruments had come into force showed that there are many open issues and that the European Court of Justice is not going to relinquish part of its jurisdiction so easily.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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.

    Lisbon Treaty amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community. The latter was renamed to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is available at: http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/full_text/index_en.htm. Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending the control system of the Convention (ETS No. 194) is available at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/194.htm.

  2. 2.

    Council of Europe, European Convention on Human Rights, Accession of the European Union, http://hub.coe.int/what-we-do/human-rights/eu-accession-to-the-convention.

  3. 3.

    In 1996, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its Advisory Opinion on the possible accession of the EC to the Convention. The CJEU thought that it was necessary to amend the basic treaties before the accession would be possible. See Opinion No. 2/94 [1996] ECR I-1759.

  4. 4.

    Draft Explanatory report 47+1(2013)007, para 5.

  5. 5.

    The topic had opened after the 1979 Commission Memorandum, which led to an official request to the European Court of Justice in relation to the legality of such accession, and the ECJ found such accession incompatible with the European Community Treaty (Opinion 2/94).

  6. 6.

    Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v Ireland, Application No. 45036/98, judgment of 30 June 2005. In 1996, the CJEU concluded that the EC had to implement the UN SC Resolution. Case C-84/95 Bosphorus v Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications and others [1996] ECR I-3953.

  7. 7.

    Michaud v France, Application No. 12323/11, judgment of 6 May 2013.

  8. 8.

    Michaud v France (2013), para 115.

  9. 9.

    Polakiewitz (2013), p. 12.

  10. 10.

    Nada v Switzerland, Application No. 10593/08, judgment of 12 September 2012.

  11. 11.

    Case T-85/09 Kadi v Commission [2010] ECR II-05177.

  12. 12.

    Pavone (2012), p. 9.

  13. 13.

    There are number of cases where the CJEU has referred to the ECHR and its general principles, such as case C-222/84 Johnston v Chief Constable of the RUC, [1986] 5 ECR 1651 on access to judicial protection; case C-185/97 Coote v Granada Hospitality [1998] IRLR 656 (ECJ) on discrimination; Joint affairs C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01 Rechnungshof v Österreichischer Rundfunk, (ECR 20003 I- 4989) on privacy and data protection.

  14. 14.

    Case C-617/10 Åklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson (26 February 2013), para 44. See also case C-571/10 Servet Kamberaj v Istituto per l’Edilizia sociale della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano (IPES) and Others (24 April 2012), paras 60–62.

  15. 15.

    De Búrca (2013), pp. 169 and 175.

  16. 16.

    See, for example, case C-60/00, Mary Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ECR I-06279; case C-434/09, Shirley McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2011] ECR I-00000; and case C-256/11, Murat Dereci and Others v Bundesministerium für Inneres (15 November 2011).

  17. 17.

    Document CDDH (2002)010 Addendum 2.

  18. 18.

    The European Commission and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe through its Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) have worked on the necessary legal instruments for the accession of the EU to the European Convention for Human Rights since 2010 when an informal working group consisting of legal experts from the Commission and from 14 countries belonging to the Council of Europe was constituted. The details of the process are available at: http://hub.coe.int/what-we-do/human-rights/eu-accession-to-the-convention.

  19. 19.

    Revised Draft Decisions (CM/Del/Dec(2011)1126/4.1, CM(2011)149).

  20. 20.

    FIFTH NEGOTIATION MEETING 47+1(2013)008. On the same occasion, a number of other necessary instruments were adopted: Draft Explanatory report (47+1(2013)007), a draft Declaration by the EU, a draft Rule to be added to the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements in cases to which the EU is a party and a draft model of Memorandum of Understanding.

  21. 21.

    Press release—DC041(2013).

  22. 22.

    Draft Explanatory report 47+1(2013)007, para 36.

  23. 23.

    Draft Explanatory report 47+1(2013)007, para 39.

  24. 24.

    Matthews v United Kingdom, Application No. 24833/94, judgment of 18 February 1999; Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v Ireland (2005); and Cooperatieve Producentenorganisatie van de Nederlandse Kokkelvisserij U.A. v the Netherlands, Application No. 13645/05, decision of 5 February 2009.

  25. 25.

    Draft Accession Agreement (2013), Article 3(6).

  26. 26.

    Draft Explanatory report 47+1(2013)007, para 54.

  27. 27.

    Draft Explanatory report 47+1(2013)007, paras 65–66.

  28. 28.

    Draft Explanatory report 47+1(2013)007, paras 67–69.

  29. 29.

    Draft Explanatory report 47+1(2013)007, paras 70–81.

  30. 30.

    Draft Explanatory report 47+1(2013)007, paras 82–88.

  31. 31.

    See cases Broniowski v Poland, Application no. 31443/96, judgment of 22 June 2004; and Varnava and Others v Turkey, Applications nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, judgment of 18 September 2009.

  32. 32.

    COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Press Release (2013).

  33. 33.

    AIRE Centre is a UK domiciled NGO “whose mission is to promote awareness of European law rights and assist marginalised individuals and those in vulnerable circumstances to assert those rights”. See more at: http://www.airecentre.org/#sthash.tXu80TBa.dpuf.

  34. 34.

    NGO Briefing Note on the Accession Agreement (2013).

  35. 35.

    CCBE represents the bars and law societies of 32 member countries and 12 further associate and observer countries. Statement on the European Union accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. July 2013, available at: http://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/NTCdocument/EN_CCBE_Statement_on1_1373010530.pdf.

  36. 36.

    Polakiewitz (2013), p. 12.

  37. 37.

    Polakiewitz (2013), p. 2.

  38. 38.

    Finally, it needs to be emphasised that on 18 December 2014, the CJEU delivered Opinion 2/13 on whether the Draft Accession Agreement (2013) is compatible with EU law. The CJEU found that the agreement is not compatible with the EU law since it did not sufficiently take into account the specific nature of the European Union and that it in many ways violated the autonomy of the EU legal order.

References

Articles

  • De Burca G (2013) After the EU Charter of fundamental rights: the court of justice as a human rights adjudicator? Maastrich J Eur Comp Law 2(20):168–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavone T (2012) The past and future relationship of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights: a functional analysis. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2042867

  • Polakiewitz J (2013) EU law and the ECHR: will EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights square the circle? Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=233149

Web

Legal Sources

  • Draft Explanatory report on the Accession of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 3–5 April 2013, 47+1(2013)007

    Google Scholar 

  • Fifth negotiation meeting between the CDDH ad hoc negotiation group and the European Commission on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, Final report to the CDDH, 3–5 April 2013, 47+1(2013)008

    Google Scholar 

  • Lisbon Treaty amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community (renamed to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)

    Google Scholar 

  • NGO Briefing Note on the Accession Agreement and next steps to the attention of the Council Working Party on Fundamental Rights and Free Movement of Persons (FREMP), Brussels 6 September 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending the control system of the Convention (ETS No. 194)

    Google Scholar 

  • Revised Draft Decisions, 1145th meeting – 13 June 2012, Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) – Report to the Committee of Ministers on the elaboration of legal instruments for the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights (CM/Del/Dec(2011)1126/4.1, CM(2011)149)

    Google Scholar 

  • Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), Report 53rd meeting, 25–28 July, Document CDDH (2002)010 Addendum 2

    Google Scholar 

Case-Law

  • CJEU:

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-617/10 Åklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson (26 February 2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-84/95 Bosphorus v Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications and others [1996] ECR I-3953

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-185/97 Coote v Granada Hospitality [1998] IRLR 656 (ECJ)

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-222/84 Johnston v Chief Constable of the RUC, [1986] 5 ECR 1651

    Google Scholar 

  • Case T-85/09 Kadi v Commission [2010] ECR II-05177

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-60/00, Mary Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ECR I-06279

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-256/11, Murat Dereci and Others v Bundesministerium für Inneres (15 November 2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-571/10 Servet Kamberaj v Istituto per l’Edilizia sociale della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano (IPES) and Others (24 April 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-434/09, Shirley McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2011] ECR I-00000

    Google Scholar 

  • Joint affairs C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01 Rechnungshof v Österreichischer Rundfunk, (ECR 20003 I- 4989)

    Google Scholar 

  • Opinion No. 2/94 [1996] ECR I-1759

    Google Scholar 

ECHR:

  • Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v Ireland, Application No. 45036/98, judgment of 30 June 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Broniowski v Poland, Application no. 31443/96, judgment of 22 June 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooperatieve Producentenorganisatie van de Nederlandse Kokkelvisserij U.A. v the Netherlands, Application No. 13645/05, decision of 5 February 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews v United Kingdom, Application No. 24833/94, judgment of 18 February 1999

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaud v France, Application No. 12323/11, judgment of 6 May 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Nada v Switzerland, Application No. 10593/08, judgment of 12 September 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Varnava and Others v Turkey, Applications nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, judgment of 18 September 2009

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

    Vesna Crnić-Grotić & Maša Marochini Zrinski

Authors
  1. Vesna Crnić-Grotić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maša Marochini Zrinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vesna Crnić-Grotić .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Jean Monnet Department of European Public Law, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

    Nada Bodiroga-Vukobrat

  2. Court of Justice of the European Union, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Siniša Rodin

  3. University of Applied Sciences, Hochschule für öffentliche Verwaltung und Finanzen Ludwigsburg, Ludwigsburg, Germany

    Gerald Sander

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Crnić-Grotić, V., Marochini Zrinski, M. (2016). One Law, One Court and Human Rights. In: Bodiroga-Vukobrat, N., Rodin, S., Sander, G. (eds) New Europe - Old Values?. Europeanization and Globalization, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02213-0_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation