Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:57:33.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Right to an Effective Remedy Pursuant to Article II-107 Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Treaty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Katharina Pabel

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.

The fundamental right to an effective remedy as guaranteed in Art. II-107(1) of the ‘Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe’ (CT) is part of a comprehensive guarantee of effective legal protection and procedural guarantees. In the following, this fundamental right and how it relates to Parts I and III of the CT will be investigated in detail. First, the scope of Art. II-107(1) CT will be identified in Part B. Part C comments on the binding effect of this right. Finally, in Part D, some aspects of the Union's system of legal protection will be investigated in the light of Art. II-107(1) CT, and it will be discussed whether this right could be an instrument to close gaps in the legal protection of individuals against measures of the European Union.

Type
Part II: Institutional Aspects of the Constitution - Towards a New Institutional Balance?
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 6 , Issue 11: The Unity of the European Constitution: 2nd German-Polish Seminar on the Constitutional Law of the European Union , 01 November 2005 , pp. 1601 - 1616
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, Dec. 16, 2004, 2004 O.J. (C 310) 53 [hereinafter CT].Google Scholar

2 The Declarations concerning the explanations related to the Charter of Fundamental Rights are part of the Declarations concerning provisions of the Constitution (No. 12). They are published as Annex A after the text of the Constitutional Treaty, see CT 2004 O.J. (C 310) 420, 424.Google Scholar

3 Case C-222/84, Johnston, 1986 E.C.R. 01651; Case C-222/86, Heylens, 1987 E.C.R. 04097; Case C-97/91, Borelli v. Commission, 1992 E.C.R. 06313.Google Scholar

4 Infra A. II in this article.Google Scholar

5 Martin Borowsky, Art. 52 para. 8, in Kommentar zur Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union (Jürgen Meyer ed., 2003); Stefan Griller, Der Anwendungsbereich der Grundrechtscharta und das Verhältnis zu sonstigen Gemeinschaftsrechten, Rechten aus der EMRK und zu verfassungsgesetzlich gewährleisteten Rechten, in Grundrechte für Europa – Die Europäische Union nach Nizza 131, 157 (Alfred Duchanek & Stefan Griller eds., 2002).Google Scholar

6 Grabenwarter, Christoph, Die Charta der Grundrechte für die Europäische Union, 116 Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 1, 2 (2001); Yvonne Dorf, Zur Interpretation der Grundrechtecharta, 60 Juristenzeitung 126, 128 (2005); Franz Matscher, Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte und seine Bedeutung mit Blick auf eine Europäische Grundrechtscharta, in Towards a European Constitution 255, 265 (Michael Gehler et al. eds., 2005).Google Scholar

7 See supra note 2, at 456. For the question of the specific role of case-law developed by the European Court of Human Rights, see Christoph Grabenwarter, Die EMRK in der europäischen Verfassungsentwicklung, in Tradition und Weltoffenheit des Rechts. Studies in Honour of Helmut Steinberger 1129, 1143 (Hans-Joachim Cremer et al. eds., 2002).Google Scholar

8 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Explanations Relating to the Complete Text of the Charter, Art. 47 at 65 [hereinafter Charter Explanation]. According to Art. 112 para. 7 CT the explanations constitute guidelines for the interpretation of the Charter and they shall be given due regard by the courts of the Union and of the Member States. They explicitly indicate that they have no legal status and function as mere support of interpretation. Thus, they help to identify the meaning and scope of the Union's fundamental rights but have no binding force as to the interpretation of the Union's human rights provisions; see Dorf, supra note 6, at 130.Google Scholar

9 For the ambit of Art. 13 ECHR see Christoph Grabenwarter, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention 351 (2d ed. 2005).Google Scholar

10 Moreover Art. 107-I CT does not form part of the list, which is provided in the explanations on Art. 52, see Charter Explanation, supra note 8, at 74 (which contains those fundamental rights, whose meaning and scope is the same as that of corresponding Articles of the ECHR). Admittedly, this list is not a binding guideline of interpretation. As to the other statements of the explanations the list can only be considered as a valuable tool for interpretation, but it cannot anticipate the result of the interpretation.Google Scholar

11 The ECJ already refers to the ECHR and the case-law of the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights. See, e.g., Case C-465/00, Rechnungshof, 2003 E.C.R. I-04989, para. 71; Case C-245/01, RTL Television GmbH, 2003 E.C.R. I-12489, para. 68; Case C-112/00, Schmidberger, 2003 E.C.R. I-05659, para. 79; see Antonio Vitorino, La Cour de justice et les droits fondamentaux depuis la proclamation de la Charte, in Une communaute de droit. Studies in Honour of Gil Carlos Rodríguez Iglesias 111, 119 (Ninon Colneric et al. eds., 2003); Stefan Kadelbach & Niels Petersen, Europäische Grundrechte als Schranken der Grundfreiheiten, 30 Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift 693, 695 (2003).Google Scholar

12 See Borowsky, , supra note 5.Google Scholar

13 See CT, supra note 2; see also Dorf, supra note 6, at 131. By way of a historical interpretation of the Charter's fundamental rights it is possible to draw conclusions from a comparison of these norms with their judicially developed foundations.Google Scholar

14 Grabenwarter, , supra note 9, at 350; José Antonio Pastor Ridruejo, Le principe de subsidiarité dans la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme, in Internationale Gemeinschaft und Menschenrechte. Studies in Honour of Ress 1077, 1081 (Jürgen Bröhmer et al. eds., 2005); with regard to procedural requirements, the obligation to exhaust remedies according to Art. 35 ECHR is the counterpart of the material guarantee stipulated in Art. 13 ECHR.Google Scholar

15 Eser, , Art. 47, in Kommentar zur Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union para. 11 (Jürgen Meyer ed., 2002); Hans-Werner Rengeling & Peter Szczekalla, Grundrechte in der Europäischen Union para. 1156 (2004).Google Scholar

16 For the scope of protection guaranteed by Art. 19(4) Grundgesetz (German Basic Law) in comparison to Art. 6 ECHR see Christoph Grabenwarter & Katharina Pabel, Der Grundsatz des fairen Verfahrens, in Konkordanzkommentar zum europäischen und deutschen Grundrechtsschutz para. 77 (Rainer Grote & Thilo Marauhn eds., 2005).Google Scholar

17 Only developments of the guarantee of a fair trial resulting from the jurisdiction of the ECHR, which contributes to the concretisation of rights resulting from this principle, have been included in Art. II-107 CT. This pertains especially to the right to receive legal aid according to Art. II-107(3) CT; see Eser, supra note 15, at para. 38; Eckhard Pache, Das europäische Grundrecht auf einen fairen Prozess, 20 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 1342, 1344 (2001).Google Scholar

18 As a consequence of the autonomous interpretation of the terms “civil rights” and “criminal charge” carried out by the European Court of Human Rights a couple of proceedings fall in the ambit of Art. 6 ECHR which in the legal systems of the Member States would be qualified as public-law matters. See Grabenwarter, supra note 9, at 283 (with references to comprehensive case-law).Google Scholar

19 For the scope of the binding effect of the European Union's fundamental rights on the Member States, see Griller supra note 5, at 139.Google Scholar

20 Infra sec. C II 3 in this article.Google Scholar

21 While disregarding the question of whether it has the quality of a state or of a federal state.Google Scholar

22 See, e.g., Peter Pernthaler, Österreichisches Bundesstaatsrecht 645 (2004).Google Scholar

23 Specialised courts, the General Court, the Court of Justice, see CT Art. I-29(1).Google Scholar

24 See Ulrich Everling, Rechtsschutz im europäischen Wirtschaftsrecht auf der Grundlage der Konventsregelungen, in Der Verfassungsentwurf des Europäischen Konvents 363, 370 (Jürgen Schwarze ed., 2004).Google Scholar

25 See Wolfram Cremer, Gemeinschaftsrecht und deutsches Verwaltungsprozessrecht – zum dezentralen Rechtsschutz gegenüber EG-Sekundärrecht, 37 Die Verwaltung 165, 172 (2004).Google Scholar

26 For that, see Christian Calliess, Kohärenz und Konvergenz beim europäischen Individualrechtsschutz, 55 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 3577, 3582 (2002); Martin Nettesheim, Effektive Rechtsschutzgewährleistung im arbeitsteiligen System europäischen Rechtsschutzes, 57 Juristenzeitung 928, 934 (2002).Google Scholar

27 Borowski, Martin, Die Nichtigkeitsklage gem. Art. 230 Abs. 4 EGV, 39 Europarecht 879, 909 (2004). See the respective postulation in Nettesheim, supra note 26, at 934. Concerning the principle of effective legal protection according to the case-law of the ECJ see, e.g., Michael Tonne, Effektiver Rechtsschutz durch staatliche Gerichte als Forderung des Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrechts 248 (1997); Stefan Frank, Gemeinschaftsrecht und staatliche Verwaltung 122 (2000); Christoph Grabenwarter, Die Europäische Union und die Gerichtsbarkeit des öffentlichen Rechts, in Verhandlungen des 14. Österreichischen Juristentages, Vol. I/2 Verfassungsrecht 15, 26 (Österreichische Juristenkommission ed., 2001); Jörg Gundel, Rechtsschutzlücken im Gemeinschaftsrecht?, 93 Verwaltungsarchiv 81 (2001); Bernhard Wegener, Art. 220 EG-Vertrag, in Kommentar zu EU-Vertrag und EG-Vertrag, para. 29 (Christian Calliess & Matthias Ruffert eds., 2nd ed. 2002); Rudolf Streinz, Primär- und Sekundärrechtsschutz im Öffentlichen Recht, 61 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung Deutscher Staatsrechtslehrer 300, 340 (2002).Google Scholar

28 See e.g. Cremer, Wolfram, Art. 230 EG-Vertrag, in Kommentar zu EU-Vertrag und EG-Vertrag, para. 9 (Christian Calliess & Matthias Ruffert eds., 2nd ed. 2002); Carsten Nowak, Zentraler und dezentraler Individualrechtsschutz in der EG im Lichte des gemeinschaftsrechtlichen Rechtsgrundsatzes effektiven Rechtschutzes, in Individualrechtsschutz in der EG und der WTO 47 (Carsten Nowak & Wolfram Cremer eds., 2002).Google Scholar

29 See supra notes 3, 27.Google Scholar

30 Apart from that, individuals have the possibility to bring actions for failure to act (Art. 232 EC) and actions for damages (Art. 235, 288(2) EC) before the European courts.Google Scholar

31 From the wealth of literature see, e.g., Calliess, supra note 26, at 3579; Wolfram Cremer, Individualrechtsschutz gegen Rechtsakte der Gemeinschaft: Grundlagen und neuere Entwicklungen, in Individualrechtsschutz in der EG und der WTO 27 (Carsten Nowak & Wolfram Cremer eds., 2002); Nettesheim, supra note 26, at 932; Borowski, supra note 27, at 894; Franz C. Mayer, Individualrechtsschutz im Europäischen Verfassungsrecht, 59 Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 606 (2004); Eckhard Pache, Rechtsschutzdefizite im europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht, in Grundrechtsschutz für Unternehmen im europäischen Binnenmarkt 199 (Thomas Bruha, Carsten Nowak, & Hans Arno Petzold eds., 2004).Google Scholar

32 See Case T-177/01, Jégo-Quéré v. The Commission, 2002 E.C.R. II-02365, para. 41. See also the Opinion of the Advocate-General Jacobs concerning Case C-50/00, Union de Pequeños Agricultores, 2002, E.C.R. I-06677, para. 43 (which was adopted previously).Google Scholar

33 Case C-50/00, Union de Pequeños Agricultores, 2002, E.C.R. I-06677, para. 39; Case C-263-02 P, The Commission v. Jégo-Quéré, 2004 E.C.R., para. 29. see Daniel Dittert, Effektiver Rechtsschutz gegen EG-Verordnungen: Zwischen Fischfangnetzen, Olivenöl und kleinen Landwirten, 37 Europarecht 708 (2002); Christian Calliess & Martina Lais, Anmerkung, 14 Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 344 (2002).Google Scholar

34 See Danwitz, Thomas von, Grundfragen einer Verfassungsbindung der Europäischen Union, in Eine Verfassung für Europa 251, 258 (Klaus Beckmann, Jürgen Dieringer, & Ulrich Hufeld eds., 2004).Google Scholar

35 See deviating statements in Jürgen Bast, Legal Instruments, in Principles of European Constitutional Law (Armin von Bogdandy & Jürgen Bast eds., 2005, forthcoming); Jürgen Gündisch, Grundrechte und Rechtsschutz, in Eine Verfassung für Europa 270, 287 (Klaus Beckmann, Jürgen Dieringer, & Ulrich Hufeld eds., 2004); Pache, supra note 31, at 208.Google Scholar

36 See Cremer, Wolfram, Der Rechtsschutz des Einzelnen gegen Sekundärrechtsakte der Union gem. II-270 Abs. 4 Konventsentwurf des Vertrags über eine Verfassung für Europa, 31 Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift 577, 579 (2004); Mayer, supra note 31, at 610. Legislative acts (see Art. I-33(1) subpara. 2, 3 CT, European laws and European framework laws) correspond to directives and regulations according to the types of legal acts effective under current European law.Google Scholar

37 Cremer, , supra note 36, at 579; John Temple Lang, Declarations, regional authorities, subsidiarity, regional policy measures, and the Constitutional Treaty, 29 Eur. L. Rev. 94, 102 (2004); deviating statements by Bast supra note 35.Google Scholar

38 The relating documents show that the possibility of an individual action against legislative acts should not be introduced by the re-formulation of Art. 230(4) EC Treaty. See CONV (03) 734, 2 May 2003, 20. See Petzold, Hans Arno, Lückenhafter Rechtsschutz gegen EG-Verordnungen in der Arbeit des Europäischen Konvents, in Grundrechtsschutz für Unternehmen im europäischen Binnenmarkt 247, 252 (Thomas Bruha et al eds., 2004).Google Scholar

39 Everling, , supra note 24, at 81.Google Scholar

40 Mayer, , supra note 31, at 610.Google Scholar

41 Cremer, , supra note 36, at 583.Google Scholar

42 See Cremer, , supra note 36, at 583.Google Scholar

43 James v. United Kingdom, 98 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at para. 85 (1986); Lithgow v. United Kingdom, 102 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at para. 206 (1986); Observer and Guardian v. United Kingdom, 216 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at para. 76 (1991). See Grabenwarter, supra note 9, at 353.Google Scholar

44 Silver v. United Kingdom, 61 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at para. 118 (1983); Campbell and Fell v. United Kingdom, 80 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at para. 127 (1984).Google Scholar

45 Explanation on Art. 47 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights, 2004 O.J. (C 310) 420, 450.Google Scholar

46 Case C-50/00, Union de Pequeños Agricultores, 2002 E.C.R. I-06677, para. 45.Google Scholar

47 Nettesheim, , supra note 26, 933; Pache, supra note 31, at 202; Jürgen Schwarze, Der Rechtsschutz Privater vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof: Grundlagen, Entwicklungen und Perspektiven des Individualrechtsschutzes im Gemeinschaftsrecht, 117 Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 1297, 1313 (2002).Google Scholar

48 Danwitz, Von, supra note 34, at 259; Everling, supra note 24, at 381.Google Scholar

49 Everling, , supra note 24, at 381.Google Scholar

50 Schwarze, Jürgen, Ein pragmatischer Verfassungsentwurf – Analyse und Bewertung des vom Europäischen Verfassungskonvent vorgelegten Entwurfs eines Vertrags über eine Verfassung für Europa, 38 Europarecht 535, 536 (2003). In this respect the legal basis has changed after the integration of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Before that, the Charter existed parallely to primary law; in this context a superiority of fundamental rights could be assumed.Google Scholar

51 Bast, , supra note 35.Google Scholar

52 Case C-50/00, Union de Pequeños Agricultores, 2002 E.C.R. I-06677, para. 44.Google Scholar

53 For another interpretation of this reference, see Eser, supra note 15, at para. 12.Google Scholar

54 Lang, Temple, supra note 37, at 104.Google Scholar

55 See Cremer, , supra note 25, at 172.Google Scholar

56 Borowski, , supra note 27, at 896.Google Scholar

57 See, e.g., Witte, Bruno De, The Past and Future Role of the European Court of Justice in the Protection of Human Rights, in The EU and Human Rights 877 (Philip Alston ed., 1999); Pache, supra note 31, 207.Google Scholar

58 See Calliess, , supra note 26, at 3581.Google Scholar

59 Hans-Werner Rengeling et al., Handbuch des Rechtsschutzes in der Europäischen Union 208 (2003).Google Scholar

60 Id. at 210; Bernhard Schima, Das Vorabentscheidungsverfahren, 4 (2nd ed. 2004).Google Scholar

61 See, e.g., Ludwig Allkemper, Der Rechtsschutz des einzelnen nach dem EG-Vertrag 171 (1995). Contra Pache, supra note 31, at 219; Schwarze, supra note 47, at 1314.Google Scholar

62 Grabenwarter, , supra note 9, at 356 (with reference to the case-law of the ECHR).Google Scholar

63 For the corresponding jurisprudence of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Constitutional Court), see BVerfGE 73, 339, 366; BVerfGE 75, 223, 233.Google Scholar