Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:13:21.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Autonomy and Effectiveness as Common Concerns: A Path to ECHR Accession After Opinion 2/13

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Christoph Krenn

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Opinion 2/13 is a sweeping blow. After four years of negotiations, it took the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or the Court) only a few paragraphs to pick to pieces the draft accession agreement on the EU's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), finding a conflict with the EU Treaties on ten grounds. The Court's message is clear: Accession, under the terms of the draft agreement, would risk undermining the very essence of the EU's constitutional system.

Type
Special Section - Opinion 2/13: The E.U. and the European Convention on Human Rights
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , 01 March 2015 , pp. 147 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Opinion Pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU, CJEU Case C-2/13 (Dec. 18, 2014), http://curia.europa.eu/ [hereinafter Opinion 2/13].Google Scholar

2 See only Douglas-Scott, Sionaidh, Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR: A Christmas Bombshell From the European Court of Justice, U.K. Const. L. Blog (Dec. 24, 2014), http://ukconstitutionallaw.org; Peers, Steve, The CJEU and the EU's Accession to the ECHR: A Clear and Present Danger to Human Rights Protection, EU L. Analysis Blog (Dec. 18, 2014), http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.de; Wendel, Mattias, Mehr Offenheit wagen! Eine kritische Annäherung an das Gutachten des EuGH zum EMRK-Beitritt, Verfassungsblog (Dec. 21, 2014), www.verfassungsblog.de; for a different view: Ulrich Haltern, Die Quittung für Verfassungsneid (Jan. 29, 2015), Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 21.Google Scholar

3 Peers, , supra note 2.Google Scholar

4 See only, Editorial Comments: The EU's Accession to the ECHR – a “NO” from the ECJ!, 52 Common Market L. Rev. 1, 14 (2015).Google Scholar

5 Protocol (No 8) Relating to Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the Accession of the Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Oct. 26, 2012, 2012 O.J. (C 326/273).Google Scholar

6 Id. art. 1.Google Scholar

7 See infra Part C.Google Scholar

8 See infra Part B.I.Google Scholar

9 Opinion 2/13 at paras. 229–334; See View of Advocate General Kokott at paras. 175–79, 180–84, 130–41, Opinion Procedure 2/13, CJEU Case C-2/13 (June 13, 2014), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

10 See infra Part B.II.Google Scholar

11 See infra Part B.III.Google Scholar

12 See infra Part B.IV.Google Scholar

13 See European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 222, art. 59, para. 4 [hereinafter ECHR].Google Scholar

14 Because the EU will not accede to the Council of Europe, from whose budget the Convention system is financed, but only to the ECHR, the EU's financial contribution has to be negotiated. See Council of Europe, Draft Agreement on the Accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights, Fifth Negotiation Meeting Between the CDDH Ad Hoc Negotiation Group & the Eur. Comm'n on the Accession of the Eur. Union to the Eur. Conv. On H.R. app. 1, art. 8 (2013) [hereinafter Draft Agreement].Google Scholar

15 Moreover, a number of provisions’ formulations have to be altered to also apply to the European Union. See id. art. 1.Google Scholar

16 In detail, see Paul Gragl, The Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights 138–73, 209–56 (2013); Lock, Tobias, Walking on a Tightrope: The Draft ECHR Accession Agreement and the Autonomy of the EU Legal Order, 48 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1025, 1034–37 (2011); Jean-Paul Jacqué, The Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 48 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 995, 995-1023 (2011).Google Scholar

17 Decoupling the notion of federalism from the federal state and applying it to the EU, Christoph Schönberger, Unionsbürger. Europas föderales Bürgerrecht in vergleichender Sicht 6-12 (2005); see also Robert Schütze, European Constitutional Law 47-97 (2012).Google Scholar

18 On the complexities, in detail, Andrés Delgado Casteleiro, United We Stand: The EU and its Member States in the Strasbourg Court, in The EU Accession to the ECHR 105, 106-111 (Vasiliki Kosta, Nikos Skoutaris and Vassilis Tzevelekos eds., 2014).Google Scholar

19 See Council of Europe, Draft Agreement on the Accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights, Fifth Negotiation Meeting Between the CDDH Ad Hoc Negotiation Group & the Eur. Comm'n on the Accession of the Eur. Union to the Eur. Conv. On H.R. app. 5, para. 39 (2013) [hereinafter Draft Explanatory Report].Google Scholar

20 Draft Agreement art. 3.Google Scholar

21 Draft Agreement art. 3, para. 2.Google Scholar

22 Draft Agreement art. 3, para. 7.Google Scholar

23 Opinion 2/13 at paras. 229–35.Google Scholar

24 Draft Agreement art. 3, para. 7.Google Scholar

25 Draft Agreement art. 3, para. 233.Google Scholar

26 Draft Agreement art.3, paras. 215–25.Google Scholar

27 See in general, Kumm, Mattias, The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict: Constitutional Supremacy in Europe Before and After the Constitutional Treaty, 11 Eur. L. J. 262 (2005).Google Scholar

28 Weiler, Joseph, The Autonomy of the Community Legal Order: Through the Looking Glass, in The Constitution of Europe: Do the New Clothes have an Emperor? 286, 322 (1999).Google Scholar

29 Vaubel, Roland, Constitutional Courts as Promoters of Political Centralization: Lessons for the European Court of Justice, 28 Eur. J. of L. & Econ. 203, 218 (2009).Google Scholar

30 Draft Agreement art.3, para. 6.Google Scholar

31 For a detailed explanation, see Gragl, supra note 16, at 209–11.Google Scholar

32 Draft Explanatory Report at para 65.Google Scholar

33 Draft Agreement art. 3, para. 6.Google Scholar

34 Opinion 2/13 at paras. 242–48.Google Scholar

35 Opinion 2/13 at paras. 236–41.Google Scholar

36 Broberg, Morten & Fenger, Niels, Preliminary References to the European Court of Justice 235–59 (2d ed. 2014).Google Scholar

37 Weiler, Joseph, The Transformation of Europe, 100 Yale L. J. 2403 (1991).Google Scholar

38 Pescatore, Pierre, Les Travaux du ‘Groupe Juridique’ dans la Négociation des Traités de Rome, 34 Studia Diplomatica 159 (1981).Google Scholar

39 Rasmussen, Hjalte, The European Court of Justice 118 (1998).Google Scholar

40 Conant, Lisa, Justice Contained: Law and Politics in the European Union 209–10 (2002).Google Scholar

41 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art. 15, May 9, 2008, 2008 O.J. (C 115) 47, art. 267, para. 3 [hereinafter TFEU].Google Scholar

42 See Bobek, Michal, Of Feasibility and Silent Elephants: The Legitimacy of the Court of Justice through the Eyes of National Courts, in Judging Europe's Judges: The Legitimacy of the Case Law of the European Court of Justice Examined 197–234 (Maurice Adams, Johan Meeusen, Gert Straetmans & Henri de Waele eds., 2013).Google Scholar

43 See Stian Øby Johansen, Some Thoughts on the ECJ Hearing on the Draft EU-ECHR Accession Agreement, Øbykanalen (May 6–7, 2014), https://obykanalen.wordpress.com (describing how President Skouris pushed the agent representing the Commission on this point).Google Scholar

44 See TFEU art. 216, para. 2.Google Scholar

45 Stefano Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal, CJEU Case C-399/11 (Feb. 26, 2013), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

46 Joined Cases, N. S. v. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't und M. E. and Others v. Refugee Applications Comm'n and Minister for Justice, Equal. and Law Reform, CJEU Cases C-411/10 & C-493/10, 2011 E.C.R. I-13905.Google Scholar

47 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft v. Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, CJEU Case C-11/70, 1970 E.C.R. I-1125.Google Scholar

48 Boer, Nik de, Addressing Rights Divergences Under the Charter: Melloni, 50 Common Market L. Rev. 1083–1103 (2013) (inserting the case into the larger picture).Google Scholar

49 See Liisberg, Jonas Bering, Does the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Threaten the Supremacy of Community Law? 38 Common Market L. Rev. 1181 (2001) (describing the discussions in the Convention that elaborated the Charter).Google Scholar

50 Melloni, CJEU Case C-399/11 at para. 60.Google Scholar

51 See id. at para. 63.Google Scholar

52 S.T.C., Dec. 13, 2004, Declaration 1/2004 concerning the existence or inexistence of contradiction between the Spanish Constitution and Articles I-6, II-111 and II-112 of the Treaty which lays down a Constitution for Europe, signed in Rome on 29 October 2004; an unofficial translation is available at: www.tribunalconstitucional.es.Google Scholar

53 Accept in multipolar rights constellations; see Christoph Grabenwarter & Katharina Pabel, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention 13–14 (5th ed. 2012).Google Scholar

54 M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, ECHR App. No. 30696 (Jan. 21, 2011).Google Scholar

55 See N.S., CJEU Cases C-411/10 at paras. 78–80.Google Scholar

56 Tarakhel v. Switzerland, ECHR App. No. 29217/12 (Nov. 4, 2014).Google Scholar

57 Id. at paras. 114–15.Google Scholar

58 Id. at paras. 116–22.Google Scholar

59 See Mitsilegas, Valsamis, The Limits of Mutual Trust in Europe's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: From Automatic Inter-State Cooperation to the Slow Emergence of the Individual, 31 Y.B. Eur. L. 319 (2012).Google Scholar

60 Opinion 2/13 at para. 194.Google Scholar

61 EU Regulation 604/2013, June 26, 2013, 2013 O.J. (L 180/31).Google Scholar

62 See Peers, supra note 2.Google Scholar

63 Opinion 2/13 at paras. 192–95.Google Scholar

64 See generally Kottmann, Matthias, Introvertierte Rechtsgemeinschaft. Zur richterlichen Kontrolle des auswärtigen Handelns der Europäischen Union 153–231 (2014).Google Scholar

65 See the contribution in this issue by Halberstam, Daniel, It's the Autonomy, Stupid!’ A Modest Defense of Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR, and the Way Forward. Google Scholar

66 Protocol (No 8) Relating to Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the Accession of the Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Oct. 26, 2012, 2012 O.J. (C 326/273).Google Scholar

67 Id. Google Scholar

68 See only Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. BVerfGE 111, 307, 317 or Manchester City Council v. Pinnock, [2010] UKSC 45, para. 48.Google Scholar

69 As is well known, the ECHR and the judicial activity of the ECtHR have profoundly impacted these concepts in many European states. See Alec Stone Sweet & Helen Keller, Assessing the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, in A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems 677 (2009); Mitchel de S.-O.-L'E. Lasser, Judicial Transformations: The Rights Revolutions in the Courts of Europe (2009).Google Scholar

70 See Peters, Anne, Elemente einer Theorie der Verfassung Europas 242–43 (2001).Google Scholar

71 On the German Federal Constitutional Court, see Christoph Schönberger, Anmerkungen zu Karlsruhe, in Das entgrenzte Gericht. Eine kritische Bilanz nach sechzig Jahren Bundesverfassungsgericht 9, 59–65 (Matthias Jestaedt, Oliver Lepsius et al. eds., 2011).Google Scholar

72 Weiler, Joseph H.H., Federalism Without Constitutionalism: Europe's Sonderweg, in The Federal Vision. Legitimacy and Levels of Governance in the United States and the European Union 54, 56 (Kalypso Nicolaidis & Robert Howse eds., 2001).Google Scholar

73 Opinion 2/13 at paras. 153–59 (paying particular attention to para. 156).Google Scholar

74 Opinion 2/13 at para. 157 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

75 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 para. 5 (2010), http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2010-05/convention_en.pdf.Google Scholar

76 Protocol (No 8) Relating to Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the Accession of the Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Oct. 26, 2012, 2012 O.J. (C 326/273).Google Scholar

77 Id. Google Scholar

78 ECHR art 35, para. 1.Google Scholar

79 On this principle, in detail, see Tobias Lock, Walking on a Tightrope: The Draft ECHR Accession Agreement and the Autonomy of the EU Legal Order, 48 Common Market L. Rev. 1025, 1034–37 (2011).Google Scholar

80 See for instance Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy, App no. 39221/98 and others (Jul. 13, 2000), para 249.Google Scholar

81 ECHR art 35, para. 1.Google Scholar

82 See Draft Explanatory Report, at para. 7.Google Scholar

83 See supra Part B.III.2.Google Scholar

84 See only the contributions in Spyridωn I. Phlogaitēs, Tom Zwart, Julie Fraser (eds.) The European Court of Human Rights and Its Discontents: Turning Criticism Into Strength (2013).Google Scholar

85 See, for instance Vajnai v. Hungary, ECHR App no 33629/06 (Jul. 8 2008) (on the principle to ban symbols representing Hungary's totalitarian past).Google Scholar

86 See Belilos v. Switzerland, ECHR App. No. 10328/83 (Apr. 29, 1988).Google Scholar

87 EU Regulation 604/2013, June 26, 2013, 2013 O.J. (L 180/31).Google Scholar

88 See supra Part B.II.Google Scholar

89 See supra Part B.III.1.Google Scholar

90 Also, Advocate General Kokott has proposed this solution. See View of Advocate General Kokott, supra note 9, at para. 120.Google Scholar

91 Id. at paras. 82–103.Google Scholar

92 On this problem see Weiler, Joseph, Epilogue: Judging the Judges – Apology and Critique, in Judging Europe's Judges: The Legitimacy of the Case Law of the European Court of Justice Examined 235, 253 (Maurice Adams, Johan Meeusen, Gert Straetmans & Henri de Waele eds., 2013).Google Scholar

93 See, Gerards, Janneke, The scope of ECHR rights and institutional concerns, in Shaping Rights in the ECHR. The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights 84, 86-89 (Eva Brems and Janneke Gerards eds., 2013).Google Scholar