Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T21:13:43.282Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Same Legal Value as the Treaties”? Rank, Primacy, and Direct Effects of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Lucia Serena Rossi

Abstract

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.

Article 6 of the TEU states that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights “shall have the same legal value as the Treaties.” This Article investigates the Charter's real status in the EU legal order. To this end, the Charter's force will be analyzed relative to EU institutions, the Member States, and individuals. The resulting picture will enable consideration of the Charter's place in the EU hierarchy of norms, as well as the question of its primacy and direct effect.

Type
Articles
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , 01 July 2017 , pp. 771 - 798
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by German Law Journal, Inc. 

References

1 Antonio Tizzano, L'application de la Charte des droits fondamentaux dans les Etats membres à la lumière de son article 51, paragraphe 1, 19(3) Il diritto dell'Unione europea, 429-38 (2014). See also Case C-101/08, Audiolux SA e.a v. Groupe Buzelles Lambert SA et. al., ECLI:EU:C:2009:626, Judgment of Oct. 15, 2009, para. 63 (“The general principles of Community law have constitutional status.”).Google Scholar

2 See Tridimas, Takis, General Principles of EU Law (2006); Michael Wimmer, The Dinghy's Rudder: General Principles of European Union Law through the Lens of Proportionality, 20(2) Eur. Pub. L. 331–53 (2014).Google Scholar

3 Case 26-62, Van Gend & Loos v. Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration, EU:C:1963:1, Judgment of Feb. 5, 1963.Google Scholar

4 Case 6-64, Costa v. E.N.E.L., EU:C:1964:66, Judgment of July 15, 1964.Google Scholar

5 Case C-129/14 PPU, Spasic, EU:C:2014:586, Judgment of May 27, 2014.Google Scholar

6 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union art. 51, § 1.Google Scholar

The provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. They shall therefore respect the rights, observe the principles and promote the application thereof in accordance with their respective powers and respecting the limits of the powers of the Union as conferred on it in the Treaties.Google Scholar

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [henceforth CFR] art. 51, § 2 (“The Charter does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks as defined in the Treaties.”).Google Scholar

7 Tizzano, supra note 1 (“C'est le droit de l'Union qui délimite le champ d'applicaiton de la Charte et non pas le contraire [it is Union law that delimits the Charter's scope, not the other way around].”).Google Scholar

8 From the outset, in the Nice proclamation of 2000, the European Commission and the Council of Ministers vowed that they would respect the Charter even if it was to never enter into force.Google Scholar

9 Case C-36/02, Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs v. Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn, EU:C:2004:614, Judgment of Oct. 14, 2004.Google Scholar

10 Case C-112/00, Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v. Republik Österreich, EU:C:2003:333, Judgment of June 12, 2003.Google Scholar

11 See Case C-12/11, McDonagh v. Ryanair Ltd., EU:C:2013:43, Judgment of Jan. 31, 2013, para. 44; C-579/12 RX-II, Commission v. Strack, EU:C:2013:570, Judgment of Sept. 19, 2013, para. 40.Google Scholar

12 C-237/15 PPU, Minister of Justice and Equality v. Lanigan, EU:C:2015:474, Judgment of July 16, 2015.Google Scholar

13 See Lenaerts, Koen, Exploring the Limits of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, 8(3) Eur. Const. L. Rev. 375–403 (2012).Google Scholar

14 Id. at 388.Google Scholar

15 Case C-92/09 & C-93/09, Schecke v. Land Hessen, EU:C:2010:662, Judgment of Nov. 9, 2010.Google Scholar

16 C-236/09, Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats and Others v. Conseil des Ministres, EU:C:2011:100, Judgment of Mar. 1, 2011.Google Scholar

17 C-362/14, Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner, EU:C:2015:650, Judgment Oct. 6, 2015.Google Scholar

18 Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland v. Minister for Communications and Kärntner Landesregierung and Others, EU:C:2014:238, Judgment of Apr. 8, 2014.Google Scholar

19 That impact of the Charter has been analyzed in detail in Elise Muir, The Fundamental Rights Implications of EU Legislation: Some Constitutional Challenges, 51 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 219–46 (2014). See also Allan Rosas and Heidi Kaila, L'application de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne par la Cour de justice: Un premier bilan, 16(1) Il diritto dell'Unione europea, 1-28 (2011).Google Scholar

20 See Lenaerts, Koen, Exploring the Limits of the EU Charter, 8 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 3, 375–403 (2012). See also Schutter, Oliver De, Les droits et principes sociaux dans la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne, in La Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne 117 (J.Y. Carlier & O. De Schutter eds., 2002).Google Scholar

21 CFR art. 51, § 1. On CFR art. 51, see also P. Eeckhout, The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Federal Question, 39 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 945–94 (2002); Eleanor Spaventa, The interpretation of Article 51 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: The Dilemma of Stricter or Broader Application of the Charter to National Measures; Study for the Petition Committee, PE 556.930; Michael Dougan, Judicial Review of Member State Action under the General Principles and the Charter: Defining the Scope of Union Law, 52 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1201–46 (2015).Google Scholar

22 Case C-292/97, Karlsson and Others, EU:C:2000:202, Judgment of Apr. 13, 2000, para. 37 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

23 Case C-159/90, Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland v. Grogan and Others, EU:C:1991:378, Judgment of Oct. 4, 1991.Google Scholar

24 Case C-299/95, Kremzow v. Republik Österreich, EU:C:1997:254, Judgment of May 29, 1997.Google Scholar

25 Case C-5/88, Wachauf v. Bundesamt für Ernährung and Forstwirtschaft, EU:C:1989:321, Judgment of July 13, 1989.Google Scholar

26 Case C-260/89, Elliniki Radiophonia Tiléorassi v. Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis and Sotirios Kouvelas and Nicolaos Avdellas and Others, EU:C:1991:254, Judgment of June 18, 1991.Google Scholar

27 Case C-60/00, Carpenter v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, EU:C:2002:434, Judgment of July 11, 2002.Google Scholar

28 Case C-309/96, Annibaldi v. Sindaco del Comune di Guidonia and Presidente Regione Lazio, EU:C:1997:631, Judgment of Dec. 18, 1997.Google Scholar

29 See Case C-279/09, DEB Deutsche Energiehandels- und Beratungsgesellschaft v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, EU:C:2010:811, Judgment of Dec. 22, 2010.Google Scholar

30 For a case clearly falling outside the scope of EU law, see Case C-339/10, Estov and Others v. Ministerski savet na Republika Bulgaria, EU:C:2010:680, Judgment of Nov. 12, 2010.Google Scholar

31 Case C-40/11, Iida v. Stadt Ulm, EU:C:2012:691, Judgment of Nov. 8, 2012.Google Scholar

32 Case C-617/10, Åklagaren v Åkerberg Fransson, EU:C:2013:105, Judgment of Feb. 26, 2013, para. 25–27.Google Scholar

33 The ECJ remanded to the national court the task of ruling on whether the tax penalties in question were administrative or criminal, thus deciding whether there had been a violation of the ne bis in idem prohibition.Google Scholar

34 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] [Federal Constitutional Court], Apr. 24, 2013, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 1 BvR 1215/07 [hereinafter Judgment of Apr. 24, 2013], http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2013/04/rs20130424_1bvr121507en.html.Google Scholar

35 Id. at para. 91.Google Scholar

36 Case C-198/13, Víctor Manuel Julian Hernández v. Reino de España, EU:C:2014:2055, Judgment of July 10, 2014.Google Scholar

37 Case C-419/14, WebMindLicenses v. Nemzeti Adó, EU:C:2015:832, Judgment of Dec. 17, 2015, paras. 77–85, with special emphasis on paragraph 76.Google Scholar

[P]reventing possible tax evasion, avoidance and abuse is an objective recognised and encouraged by the VAT Directive (see inter alia, to this effect, judgment in Halifax and Others, C-255/02, EU:C:2006:121, paragraph 71), investigative measures carried out in the context of a criminal procedure with a view, in particular, to prosecuting offences in that sphere have an aim which meets an objective of general interest recognised by the European Union.Google Scholar

38 Case C-650/13, Thierry Delvigne v. Commune de Lesparre-Médoc and Préfet de la Gironde, EU:C:2015:648, Judgment of Oct. 6, 2015, para. 26.Google Scholar

39 Act Concerning the Election of the Members of the European Parliament by Direct Universal Suffrage, annexed to Council Decision 76/787, Euratom, 1976 O.J. (L 278) 1 (ECSC), as amended by Council Decision 2002/772, Euratom, 2002 OJ (L 283) 1 (EC).Google Scholar

40 Case C-650/13, supra note 38, at para. 32.Google Scholar

41 See Case C-418/11, Texdata Software, EU:C:2013:588, Judgment of Sept. 26, 2013; Case C-195/12, Industrie du bois de Vielsam, EU:C:2013:598, Judgment of Sept. 26, 2013.Google Scholar

42 Case C-260/89, Panellinia Omospondia Syllogon Prossopikou v. Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis, EU:C:1991:254, Judgment of June 18, 1991, para. 43. See also Case C-368/95, Familiapress v. Heinrich Bauer Verlag, EU:C:1997:325, Judgment of June 26, 1997, para. 24, and C-573/12, Ålands Vindkraft, EU:C:2014:2037, para. 125.Google Scholar

43 Case C-390/12, Pfleger and Others, EU:C:2014:281, Judgment of Apr 30, 2014.Google Scholar

44 Case C-98/14, Berlington Hungary Tanácsadó és Szolgáltató and Others v. Magyar Állam, EU:C:2015:386, Judgment of June 11, 2015.Google Scholar

45 Id. at para. 74.Google Scholar

46 Case C-206/13, Siragusa v. Regione Sicilia, EU:C:2014:126, Judgment of Mar. 6, 2014.Google Scholar

47 For a list of other judgments where the Charter has been found to be inapplicable, see Spaventa, supra note 21.Google Scholar

48 The Treaty of Lisbon makes no reference to the primacy of EU law except in the Declaration Concerning Primacy, which, unlike the Constitutional Treaty, never came into force. Declaration No. 17, annexed to the final act of the intergovernmental conference that signed the Treaty into law on Dec. 13, 2007.Google Scholar

49 Case C-106/77, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Simmenthal, EU:C:1978:49, Judgment of Mar. 9, 1978.Google Scholar

50 See Case C-105/14, Taricco and Others, EU:C:2015:555, Judgment of Sept. 8, 2015.Google Scholar

51 Case C-112/13, A v. B and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2195, Judgment of Sept. 11, 2014.Google Scholar

52 On the events leading to that provision on the level of protection, see Liisberg, Jonas Bering, Does the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Threaten the Supremacy of Community Law?, 38(5) Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1171–99 (2001). On CFR art. 53, see Witte, Bruno De, Tensions in the Multilevel Protection of Fundamental Rights: The Meaning of Article 53 EU Charter, in Citizenship and Solidarity in the European Union: From the Charter of Fundamental Rights to the Crisis—the State of the Art 205–17 (Canothilho Silveira & Madeira Froufe eds.); see also Besselink, L., The Parameters of Constitutional Conflict after Melloni, 39(4) Eur. L. Rev. 531–52 (2014).Google Scholar

53 See Case C-285/98, Kreil v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, EU:C:2000:2, Judgment of Jan. 11, 2000; see also C-571/10, Kamberaj, EU:C:2012:233, Judgment of Jan. 11, 2000.Google Scholar

54 Case C-399/11, Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal, EU:C:2013:107, Judgment of Feb. 26, 2013.Google Scholar

55 Case C-208/09, Ilonka Sayn-Wittgenstein v. Landeshauptmann von Wien, EU:C:2010:806, Judgment of Dec. 22, 2010.Google Scholar

56 Case C-198/13, Hernández v. Reino de España, Judgment of July 10, 2014; see also WebMindLicenses, supra note 37, at para. 47.Google Scholar

57 On this question, see Rossi, Lucia Serena, How Fundamental Is a Fundamental Principle? Primacy and Fundamental Rights after the Lisbon Treaty, 27(1) Yearbook of Eur. L. 65–87 (2008).Google Scholar

58 Case C-399/09, Landtová v. Česká správa socialního zabezpecení, EU:C:2011:415, Judgment of June 22, 2011. In a sort of “rebuttal” to that judgment, the Czech court held that Council Regulation No. 1408/71 was inapplicable on the ground that it was issued ultra vires. On this matter, see Komarek, Jan, “Playing with Matches: The Czech Constitutional Court's Ultra Vires Revolution,” Verfassungsblog: On Matters Constitutional, Feb. 22, 2012, http://verfassungsblog.de/playing-matches-czech-constitutional-courts-ultra-vires-revolution/.Google Scholar

59 On two previous occasions-Lissabon Urteil (Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] [Federal Constitutional Court], Jun. 30, 2009, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 2 BvR 2/08) and Honeywell (Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] [Federal Constitutional Court], July 6, 2010, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 2 BvR 2661/06)–the BVerfGE held that it could decide not to apply an EU norm enacted ultra vires if the norm could threaten a core value of the German constitution. On the Gauweiler case (Case C-62/14, Peter Gauweiler and Others v. Deutscher Bundestag, EU:C:2015:400, Judgment of June 16, 2015), see Munari, Francesco, Da Pringle a Gauweiler: I tormentati anni dell'unione monetaria e i loro effetti sull'ordinamento giuridico europeo, 20(4) Il Diritto dell'Unione europea 723–755 (2015) at 746–47 and Editorial Comments Ultra Vires: Has the Bundesverfassungsgericht Shown Its Teeth?, 50(4) Common Mkt. L. Rev. 925–29 (2013).Google Scholar

60 See BVerfGE, 2 BvR 2735/14, Dec. 15, 2015. On this matter, see D. Sarmiento, “Awakenings: the ”Identity Control“ Decision by the German Constitutional Court,” Verfassungsblog: On Matters Constitutional, Jan. 27, 2016, http://verfassungsblog.de/awakenings-the-identity-control-decision-by-the-german-constitutional-court/.Google Scholar

61 See, inter alia, C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, ECLI:EU:C:2008:461, Judgment of Sept. 23, 2008, paras. 282ff.Google Scholar

62 Opinion 2/13 of the ECJ, EU:C:2014:2454, Dec. 18, 2014.Google Scholar

63 Karlsson, supra note 22, at para. 45.Google Scholar

64 The Praesidium Explanations also refer to an inexistent Paragraph 3 of Article 35 TFEU.Google Scholar

65 Case C-650/13, Delvigne v Commune de Lesparre Médoc and Préfet de la Gironde, ECLI:EU:C:2015:648, Judgment of Oct. 6, 2015; see also Council Decision 76/787, supra note 39.Google Scholar

66 Case C-528/13, Léger v. Ministre des Affaires Sociale, EU:C:2015:288, Judgment of Apr. 29, 2015.Google Scholar

67 Case C-400/10 PPU, McB v. L. E., EU:C:2010:582, Judgment of Oct. 5, 2010, para. 59.Google Scholar

68 Case C-22/10 P, Rewe-Zentral v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, 120/78, EU:C:1979:42, Judgment of Feb. 20, 1979.Google Scholar

69 See, e.g., Case C-34/09, Ruiz Zambrano v. Office national de l'emploi, ECLI:EU:C:2011:124, Judgment of Mar. 8, 2011. See also Armin Von Bogdandy et al. Reverse Solange: Protecting the Essence of Fundamental Rights against member States, 49 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 489–519 (2012).Google Scholar

70 Case 32/84, Van Gend & Loos v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, Enschede, ECLI:EU:C:1985:104, Judgment of Feb. 5, 1963; see also Gend, Van, supra note 3.Google Scholar

71 This began with Case 33-70, SACE v. Finance Minister of the Italian Republic, EU:C:1970:118, Judgment of Dec. 17, 1970.Google Scholar

72 Case 243/78, Simmenthal v. Commission of the European Communities, ECLI:EU:C:1980:65, Judgments of Mar. 9, 1978; supra, Note 50; Case 103/88, Costanzo v. Comune di Milano, EU:C:1989:256, June 22, 1989.Google Scholar

73 Case C-282/10, Dominguez v. Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique and Préfet de la région Centre, EU:C:2012:33, Judgment of Jan. 24, 2012, and the case law cited in that judgment.Google Scholar

74 Case C-91/92, Faccini Dori v. Recreb Srl, EU:C:1994:292, Judgment of July 14, 1994.Google Scholar

75 See Krenn, Christopher, A Missing Piece in the Horizontal Effect ‘Jigsaw’: Horizontal Direct Effect and the Free Movement of Goods, 49(1) Common Mkt. L. Rev. 177–216 (2012) (pointing out that the Treaty's horizontal effects stand on much shakier ground in the movement of goods than in that of persons, in that the latter is bound up with the question of EU citizenship).Google Scholar

76 For an interesting classification of the different kinds of provisions contained in the Charter, see Sarmiento, Daniel, Who's Afraid of the Charter? The Court of Justice, National Courts and the New Framework of Fundamental Rights Protection in Europe, 50(5) Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1267–304 (2013).Google Scholar

77 See Leczykiewicz, Dorota, Horizontal Application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, 38 Eur. L. Rev. 479–97 (2013).Google Scholar

78 For a recent commentary in that regard, see D. Guðmundsdóttir, A Renewed Emphasis on the Charter's Distinction between Rights and Principles: Is a Doctrine of Judicial Restraint More Appropriate?, 53(3) Common Mkt. L. Rev. 685–720 (2015).Google Scholar

79 We should consider whether a difficult situation may arise when UK or Polish citizens invoke the Charter. It would seem that on a first reading of Protocol 30, on the Charter's application to Poland and the UK, this scenario can be ruled out. But in the N. S. judgment of December 21, 2011, the ECJ held that this protocol “does not intend to exempt the Republic of Poland or the United Kingdom from the obligation to comply with the provisions of the Charter or to prevent a court of one of those Member States from ensuring compliance with those provisions.” N. S. (C-411/10) and M. E. and Others (C-493/10), Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10, EU:C:2011:865.Google Scholar

80 C-356/12, Glatzel, EU:C:2014:350, Judgment of May 22, 2014. On this question, see Krommendijk, Principled Silence or Mere Silence on Principles ? The Role of the EU Charter's Principles in the Case Law of the Court of Justice, 11 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 321–56 (2015), and Lenaerts, supra note 13.Google Scholar

81 Case C-510/13, EON Földgáz Trade Zrt v. Magyar Energetikai, EU:C:2015:189, Judgment of Mar. 19, 2015.Google Scholar

82 Case C-396/13, Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry v. Elektrobudowa Spolka Akcyjna, EU:C:2015:86, Judgment of Feb. 12, 2015; Lenaerts, supra note 13.Google Scholar

83 Case C-316/13, Fenoll v. Centre d'aide par le travail “La Jouvene” and APEI, EU:C:2015:200, Judgment of Mar. 26, 2015.Google Scholar

84 Case C-555/07, Kücükdeveci v. Swedex GmbH & Co. KG., EU:C:2010:21, Judgment of Jan. 19, 2010.Google Scholar

85 Case C-144/04, Mangold v. Rüdiger Helm, EU:C:2005:709, Judgment of Nov. 22, 2005.Google Scholar

86 Case C-176/12, Association de médiation sociale v Union locale des syndicats CGT and Others, EU:C:2014:2, Judgment of Jan. 15, 2014, paras. 43–47.Google Scholar

87 C-101/01, Lindqvist, EU:C:2003:596, Judgment of Nov. 6, 2003.Google Scholar

88 See, Lucia Serena Rossi, La Carta dei diritti come strumento di costituzionalizzazione dell'U. E., 13(3) Quaderni Costituzionali 565–576 (2002).Google Scholar

89 A broad casuistry of the Charter's application even in this period may be found at www.europeanrights.eu. On the Charter's influence on the ECJ's case law, see also Sara Iglesias Sánchez, The Court and the Charter: The Impact of the Entry into Force of the Lisbon Treaty on the ECJ's Approach to Fundamental Rights, 49(5) Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1565–1611 (2012).Google Scholar

90 According to a settled doctrine of the ECJ, “the European Union is a union based on the rule of law in which all acts of its institutions are subject to review of their compatibility with, in particular, the Treaties, general principles of law and fundamental rights.” See in that connection the judgments in Schrems, supra note 17, at para. 60; Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P, and C-595/10 P, Commission and Others v. Kadi, EU:C:2013:518, Judgment of July 18, 2013, para. 66; Case C-583/11 P, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v. Parliament and Council, EU:C:2013:625, Judgment of Oct. 3, 2013, para. 91; Case C-274/12 P, Telefónica SA v. European Commission, EU:C:2013:852, Judgment of Dec. 19, 2013, para. 56.Google Scholar