Państwo i Społeczeństwo
V : 2 0 0 5 n r 1
Dianę Ryland
THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
OF THE EUROPEAN UNION:
QUESTIONS, PROBLEMS A N D PERSPECTIYES1
The Charter o f Fundamental Rights o f the European Union was signed and so-
lemnly proclaimed in Nice in December 20002. A large ąuestion accompanied its
inception, namely: what would be the status o f this Charter? That ąuestion may be
broken down into numerous inter-related ąuestions, including, inter alia, what
were the reasons for drafting this Charter; would the Charter be referred to, or in-
corporated in, the Treaty; would its provisions be legally binding; what would be
the scope o f its provisions; how would consistency o f interpretation o f political and
civil rights between the European Court o f Justice and the European Court o f Hu
mań Rights be ensured?
The scope o f the Charter’s provisions remains problematic, as does the
Charter’s legał effects. The social/solidarity articles in the Charter are controversial
and a problem for the United Kingdom. The generał provisions on the application
and interpretation o f the Charter, explanatory notes and the Charter’s preamble
purport to put these ąuestions and problems into perspective. This paper will ąu
estion such perspectives.
Questions
The European Council at Cologne in 1999 decided that ‘there appears to be a need,
at the present stage o f the Union’s development, to establish a Charter o f funda
mental rights in order to make their overriding importance and relevance more
1 D ianę R yland LL .B L L .M , S e n io r L ec tu re r in L aw , U n iv e rsity o f L in co ln , U n ited K in g d o m . 2 [2000] O J C 364/1.
visible to the U nion’s citizens’3. The decision was taken by the European Council
to ‘propose to the European Parliament and the Commission that, together with the
Council, they should solemnly proclaim on the basis o f the draft document a Euro
pean Charter o f Fundamental Rights. It will then have to be considered whether
and, if so, how the Charter should be integrated into the Treaties’4.
W hat reasons were given for drafting this Charter? A visible and specific
list of values and fundamental rights on which the European Union is based serves
the political ideał o f citizenship and identification with a closer ‘federal’ Union5.
The adoption o f the Charter as an explicit intemal statement o f fundamental rights,
where previously one did not exist, would address the allegations of double stan-
dards eam ed by a European Union which attached conditions o f respect for demo-
cracy, the rule o f law and fundamental freedoms to all membership applications6,
and, particularly to those acceding Member States in the recent wave o f enlarge-
ment7. A Charter is not a legally binding document in itself but a statement of aspi-
rations, o f political intent. Because of the novel composition o f the body responsi-
ble for its drafting8, and, significantly, its solemn proclamation by the European
Union institutions, the weight o f academic opinion was that legał effect had been
accorded to it9, or would be, indirectly, through the interpretative role o f the Euro
pean Court o f Justice10. A decision as to the status o f the Charter was postponed at
Nice until the next European Union Intergovemmental Conference in 200411. The
Charter has been referred to in an increasing number o f the Opinions o f Advocates
General in their legally reasoned, researched Opinions given in open Court prior to
the Courts majority ruling. Advocate General Leger analysed the principle of ac
cess to documents, concluding that it constitutes a fundamental right, inter alia, in
3 E u ro p ea n C o u n cil D e cisio n on the D ra w in g U p o f a C h arte r o f F u n d a m e n ta l R ights o f th e European U n io n , A n n e x I V to th e C o n c lu sio n s o f th e P resid e n cy o f th e C o lo g n e E u ro p ean C o u n cil o f 3 and 4 Ju n e 1999, h ttp ://w w w .e u ro p a rl.e u .in t/d g 7 /su m m its/e n /k o l2 .h tm # U P . Q u o ted in K oen L en earts ‘F u n d a m e n ta l R ights in the E u ro p ean U n io n ’, (2 0 0 0 ) E L R ev. p . 5 7 5 , a t p. 576. H ouse o f Lords (H o fL ) S e le c t C o m m itte e on the E uropean U n io n (E U ), E U C h a rte r o f F u n d a m e n ta l R ig h ts, E ig h th R ep o rt S essio n 1999-2000, p ara. 30. C f, D. R y l a n d , ‘T h e C h a rte r o f F u n d a m e n ta l R ig h ts o f th e E u ro p ean U nion: P a n d o ra ’s B ox o r P a n a c e a ? ’, vol. 45 , n u m b er 5/6 (2 0 0 3 ), M a n a g e r ia l L a w , p. 145 ff.
4 H o fL S e le c t C o m m itte e on th e E U , op. cit. para. 123.
5 P. E e c k h o u t , ‘T h e EC C h a rte r o f F u n d am en tal R ights and the F ederal Q u e stio n ’, (2 0 0 2 ) C M L Rev., p . 945 at p. 9 9 1 ; C h . M c C r u d d e n , ‘T h e F u tu rę o f th e E U C h arte r o f F u n d a m e n ta l R ig h ts ’, „Jean M o n n et W or- k in g P a p e r” 10/01, p. 4 a t p . 2 1 ; h ttp ://w w w .je an m o n n e tp ro g ram .o rg , J. H. H. W e i l e r , ‘E dito rial: D oes the E u ro p e an U n io n T ru ły N e e d a C h arte r o f R ig h ts ? ’ (2 0 0 0 ), E U , p. 95.
6 A rtic le 4 6 (d ) o f th e T rea ty on E u ro p ean U n io n . H o fL S e le c t C o m m itte e o n th e E U , op. cit., para. 150. 7 K n o w n as th e C o p e n h a g e n c rite ria , p u rs u a n t to w h ich ap p lic an t S tates are re q u ire d to a ch iev e, in te r alia, ‘sta b ility o f in stitu tio n s g u a ra n te e in g d e m o c ra cy , th e ru le o f law , h u m an rig h ts and re sp ec t fo r and pro tectio n o f m in o r itie s.’ C o n c lu sio n s o f the P re sid e n c y o f th e C o p en h ag en C o u n cil 1993, EC B uli 6 -1 9 9 3 , p. 13. Q u o ted in A. W i l l i a m s , ‘E n la rg e m e n t o f the U n io n a n d H u m an R ights C o n d itio n ality : A P o licy o f D is tin c tio n ? ’ (2 0 0 0 ), EL Rev., p. 601 a n d 607.
s C f G . d e B u r c a , ‘D ra ftin g o f th e E U C h arte r o f F u n d a m e n ta l R ig h ts ’ (2 0 0 1 ), E L R ev., p. 126. 9 K. L e n e a r t s a n d E. d e S m i j t e r , ‘A B ill o f R ig h ts fo r th e E u ro p ean U n io n ’ (2 0 0 1 ), C M LR ev., p. 273 a t p. 298 and 299.
10 H o fL S e le c t C o m m itte e on the E U , op. cit., p ara. 125; C h. M c C r u d d e n , op. cit., p. 12. Editorial C o m m e n ts, ‘T h e E U C h a rte r o f F u n d a m e n ta l R ig h ts S till U n d er D is c u s sio n ’ (2 0 0 1 ), C M L Rev., p. 1 a t p. 5. C om - m u n ic a tio n fro m th e C o m m issio n on th e Legał N a tu rę o f th e C h arte r o f F u n d a m e n ta l R ig h ts o f the European U n io n . C O M (2 0 0 0 ) 6 4 4 , 11 O c to b e r 2 0 0 0 , p ara. 9, p. 5.
view o f its inclusion in the Charter12. Advocate General Tizzano was o f the opinion
that the Charter provides the most reliable and definitive confirmation o f the fact
that the right to paid annual leave constitutes a fundamental right13. The Court of
First Instance ruled that the right to an effective remedy for everyone whose rights
and freedoms guaranteed by the law o f the Union are violated has been reaffirmed
by Article 47 o f the Charter o f Fundamental Rights o f the European Union14,
proclaimed at Nice on 7 December 200015. The Court o f Justice, in comparison,
has been conspicuously silent and has not mentioned the Charter in its judgm ents16.
One leading commentator has submitted: ‘The solemn declaration o f such a Char
ter, whatever its provisional or its finał legał status, might be part o f an ongoing
process that has the potential to transform substantially the Union and its legał
system17.
The Charter18, comprised o f civil, political, economic and social provisions
is divided into seven titles, under the respective headings o f Dignity; Freedoms;
Eąuality; Solidarity; Citizen’s Rights; Justice and General Provisions Goveming
the Interpretation and Application o f the Charter. It contains rights, which already
have legał effect in the Treaties, and provisions purporting to state new ‘rights19.
There is nothing controversial in the Charter preserving the jurisprudence o f the
European Court o f Justice under which, in addition to limiting the institutions in
the exercise o f their legislative role, Member States are reąuired to protect funda
mental principles o f law when implementing European Community law20. Some
perceive the Charter as potentially expanding the competence o f the European
Union in respect o f human rights, i.e. imposing duties on M ember States,
espe-12 Ib id em , p. 94 9 . A rtic le 42 o f the C h arte r (n o w A rticle 11-102 o f th e T rea ty e sta b lis h in g a C o n stitu tio n for E uropę (T C E )). C ase C -3 5 3 /9 9 P , C o u n cil v H au ta la , [2001] E C R 1-9565, O p in io n o f A d v o c a te G en eral L eger o f 10 Ju ly 2 0 0 1 , p ara. 77 ff.
13 A rticle 3 1 (2 ) o f th e C h a rte r (n o w A rticle 11-91(2) T C E ). C ase C -1 7 3 /9 9 B ro a d c a slin g , E n terta in m en t, C in em a to g ra p h ic a n d T h ea tre U nion (B E C T U ) v S o f S f o r T rade a n d In d u stry , [20 0 1 ] E C R 1-4881, O p in io n o f A d v o cate G en eral T izz a n o , 8 Feb. 2 0 0 1 , p aras. 19, 20, 22 , 2 8 and 29.
14 N o w A rtic le 11-107 T C E .
15 C ase T - l 77/2001 J e g o -Q u e r e a n d C ie SA v C o m m issio n , C o u rt o f F irst In stan ce, 3 M ay 2 0 0 2 , p ara. 42 , [2002] E C R 11-2365.
16 G. d e B u r c a , ‘H u m an R ights: T h e C h arte r and B e y o n d ’, op. cit., p. 5; P. E e c k h o u t , op. cit., p. 945 at p. 950. C ase C - l 12/00, S c h m id b e r g e r v R e p u b lic o f A u stria , [2003] E C R 1-5659, c ited in J. D u t h e i l d e la R o c h e r e , ‘T h e EU a n d th e !n d iv id u al: F u n d am en tal R ig h ts in the D raft C o n stitu tio n a l T r e a ty ’ (2 0 0 4 ), C M LR ev., p. 345 at p. 349.
17 A v o n B o g d a n d y , ‘T h e E u ro p ean U n io n as a H um an R ig h ts O rg a n isa tio n : H u m an R ig h ts and the C ore o f the E u ro p ean U n io n ’ 2 0 0 0 , C M L R ev., p. 1307.
18 N o w en titled th e C h arte r o f F u n d a m e n ta l R ights o f the U n io n , C O N V 7 2 6 /0 3 , ‘D raft te x t o f P art 11 w ith c o m m e n ts’, T h e E u ro p ean C o n v e n tio n , T h e S ecre ta ria t, B ru ssels 26 M ay 2 0 0 3 , h ttp ://e u ro p e a n -c o n v e n tio n .e u . in t/d o c_ reg ister.asp ?lan g = E N .
19 C o m m issio n C o m m u n ic atio n on the C h arte r o f F u n d a m e n ta l R ig h ts o f th e E u ro p ean U n io n , C O M (20 0 0 ) 559, 13 S e p te m b e r 2 0 0 0 , p ara . 9.
20 H ofL Select C om m ittee on the EU, op. cit. para. 148. C ase 5/88 W a c h a u f v B undesam t fu r E rn a h ru n g und Forstwirtschaft [1989] E C R 2609. Article 5 1 o f the C harter - N o w A rticle II-l 1 1(1) and (2) T C E , w hich aim s to de- termine the field o f application o f the C harter, provides that the provisions o f the C harter a re addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies o f the U nion w ith due regard for the principle o f subsidiarity and to the M em b er States only when they are im plem enting U nion law, and that they shall therefore respect the rights, observe the principles and prom o- te the application th e re o f in accordance w ith their respective pow ers and respecting the lim its o f the pow ers o f the Union as conferred on it in the other Parts o f the Constitution. The C harter does no t extend the field o f application o f U nion law beyond the pow ers o f the U nion o r establish any n ew po w er or task for the Union.
cially if the Charter is incorporated into the Treaties21. What would be the relation-
ship between the Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights?22 Would
there be two human rights mechanisms with scope for diverse interpretations from
the Court o f Justice and the European Court of Human Rights?
Problems
There will be tensions between the Charter’s provisions and the existing balance
achieved in the Treaties argues Graine de Burca. She submits that one example of
considerable potential disharmony is the obligation to promote the right o f collec-
tive bargaining in Article 28 o f the ‘Solidarity’ section o f the Charter, (now Article
11-88 TCE) which includes strike action. This provision conflicts with Article
137(5) o f the European Community Treaty (now Article 111-210(6) TCE), which
excludes Community power to act in respect o f the right to strike (despite the refe-
rence to national laws in Article 28 o f the Charter (now Article 11-88 TCE). Thus,
a particular tension exists between the competences o f Member States and the
Charter’s promotion o f social rights23.
The Charter has ‘highlighted’ two issues, namely: the lack o f a Treaty-
based catalogue o f EU fundamental rights; and the abstention o f the European
Union as a party to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms24. A Working Group under the Convention on the Fu
turę o f Europę, W orking Group II, was convened with a dual mandate: first, to
consider the procedures for, and the conseąuences of, any incorporation o f the
Charter into the Treaties; and, second to consider the conseąuences o f accession by
the Community or the Union to the European Convention on Human Rights25.
Perspectives
The finał report o f W orking Group II informed o f the consensus to incorporate the
Charter into the Convention’s new Consolidated Constitutional Treaty, at the be-
ginning as a Title or Chapter o f that Treaty. The basie starting point for the W or
king G roup’s conclusions was that o f respect for the substantive eon tent o f the
Charter, which, having been reached by a consensus o f those with specific experti-
se in fundamental rights, would not be undone by this Working Group. Any techni-
cal drafting amendments advocated by the Working Group, specifically to the
hori-21 G . d e B u r c a , ‘H u m a n R ig h ts: T h e C h arte r and B e y o n d ’, op. cit., p. 12 and 13. 22 C h. M c C r u d d e n , 'op. cit. p. 18. H ofL Select C om m ittee on the EU , op. cit. paras. 9 6 ,9 9 , 103 and 136. 23 G. d e B u r c a , ‘H u m a n R ights: T h e C h arte r and B e y o n d ’, op. cit., pp. 2 and 12. 24 H o fL S e le c t C o m m itte e o n the E U , op. cit., para. 119.
25 ‘M an d a te o f th e W o rk in g G ro u p (II) on the C h a rte r’. C O N V 7 2 /0 2 , T h e S e c re ta ria t, T h e European C o n v e n tio n , B ru sse ls 31 M ay 2 0 0 2 , h ttp ://w w w .eu ro p ea n -c o n v e n tio n .eu .in t/b ie n v e n u c .a sp ? la n g = E N & C o n te n t =W G 1I. ‘A t th e C o u n cil o f E u ro p ę lev el, a cc e ssio n b y the E u ro p ean U n io n to the E u ro p ean C o n v en tio n on H um an Rights w ould require an am en d m en t to the EC H R , necessarily to its Article 59 which currently restricts contracting parties to m em bers o f the C ouncil o f Europę, w hich m ay only be European States.’ C O N V 116/02, op. cit., p. 19.
zontal (now generał) provisions, would be just that and would serve to confirm and
render elear and legally watertight the Charter’s provisions. The W orking Group
stressed the importance o f the distinction between rights and principles in the
Charter, and recommended the insertion o f a new horizontal Article 52(5)26. In
order to assuage doubts and dilemmas in the controversial area o f social ‘rights’, in
particular those o f the United Kingdom govemment27 which is opposed to their
direct enforceability in the national courts, the inserted Article 52(5) o f the Charter
(now Article 11-112(5) TCE) provides: ‘The provisions o f this Charter which con-
tain principles may be implemented by legislative and executive acts taken by in
stitutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, and by acts o f Member States
when they are implementing Union law, in the exercise o f their respective powers.
They shall be ju d ic ia lly cognisable only in the interpretation o f such acts and in the
ruling on their leg a lity,2S.
Ali members o f Working Group II either strongly supported, or were ready
to give favourable consideration to, the creation of a constitutional authorisation
enabling the European Union to accede to the European Convention on Human
Rights. The W orking Group stipulated that accession by the European Union
would have legał effect only insofar as European Union law is concemed. The
Group recognised that accession had become a ąuestion o f credibility in a Europe
an Union to which Member States have transferred more and more competences,
and which attached as a condition o f membership to applicant M ember States adhe-
rence to the European Convention on Human Rights. According to the Group’s
arguments, accession would be the tool to bring about a harmonious development
in the jurisprudence on fundamental rights emanating from the two distinct Euro
pean Courts, the European Court of Justice and the European Court o f Human Ri
ghts. Accession would not result in a loss to the autonomy o f the European Court
o f Justice. ‘After accession, the Court o f Justice would remain the sole supreme
arbiter o f ąuestions o f Union law and of the validity o f Union acts29.
The European Council meeting in Thessaloniki welcomed the presentation of
the draft Constitutional Treaty30 as a good basis for the work o f the Intergovemmental
Conference culminating in agreement on the Constitutional Treaty in 200431. The
amended Charter o f Fundamental Rights of the Union forming Part Two of the draft
26 ‘Finał R ep o rt o f W o rk in g G ro u p II’. C O N V 3 5 4 /0 2 , T h e S e c re ta ria t, T h e E u ro p ea n C o n v e n tio n , B rus- sels 22 O c to b er 2 0 0 2 , C h a p te r A , p. 3 -6 , 8 and A n n ex , p. 17, h ttp ://w w w .e u ro p e a n -c o n v e n tio n .e u .in t/b ie n v e n u e . asp ?lan g = H N & C o n ten t= W G 11.
27 W h ich g o v e m m e n t b e lie v es th a t the C o n stitu tio n sh o u ld re c o g n ise the d iv e rs ity o f th e so cial sy stem s in the EU , in p a rtic u la r c o lle ctiv e b a rg a in in g a rra n g e m e n ts and the ro le p la y e d b y tra d e u n io n s, and w h ich arg u es th at there m u st b e a b a la n c e b etw een re g u la tio n and la b o u r m a rk e t flex ib ility . W o rk in g D o c u m en t 13 C o n trib u tio n by th e UK, S p a n ish a n d E sto n ia n G o v ern m en t R e p rese n ta tiv es. C o n v en tio n on th e F u tu rę o f E u ro p ę: S o cial E uropę W o rk in g G ro u p X I, h ttp ://w w w .e u ro p a n -c o n v e n tio n .e u .in t.
28 (ęm p h a sis ad d ed ). ‘ O n e m ay w o n d e r to w h a t e x te n t the C o u rt o f J u stic e o f th e E u ro p ean C o m m u n itie s w ill acc e p t such lim ita tio n .’ J. D u t h e i I d e la R o c h e r e , op. cit., p. 352.
29 C O N V 3 5 4 /0 2 , op. c it., C h a p te r B, p. 11 -1 3 , c / p . 14.
30 C O N V 8 2 0 /0 3 . T h e S e c retariat, T h e European C o n v en tio n , B ru sse ls, 2 0 Ju n e 2 0 0 3 ; C O N V 802/03, v o lu m e II, p a rts tw o , th re e and four, T h e S ecre ta ria t, T h e E u ro p ean C o n v en tio n , B ru sse ls, 12 Ju n e 2 0 0 3 , http: //e u ro p e a n -c o n v en tio n .e u .in t/d o c_ reg iste r.asp ? lan g = E N .
31 P re sid e n c y C o n c lu sio n s, T h e ssa lo n ik i E u ro p ean C o u n cil, 19 and 2 0 Ju n e 200 3 . h ttp ://w w w .e u ro p a .e u . in t.p ? M A X = & B ID = 7 6 & D ID = 7 6 2 7 9 & L A N G = & F IL E = /p ressD a ta /e n /e c/7 6 2 7 9 .p d f& P ictu re = 0 .
Constitutional Treaty32, ineorporated all the alterations to the generał provisions of the
Charter on which Working Group II reached consensus as detailed in its finał report33.
Debates and negotiations concemed to limit the jurisdictional reach of the
Charter and the interpretative jurisdiction thereunder o f the European Court of Justice,
by way o f reference to the explanations34 relating to the Charter, continued during the
proceeding Italian and Irish Presidencies35. Finally36, the 5th paragraph of the Preamble
o f the Charter reads:
This Charter reaffirms, with due regard for the powers and tasks o f the Union and the principle o f subsidia- rity, the rights as they result, in particular, from the constitutional traditions and intemational obligations common to the Member States, the European Convention for the Protection o f Human Rights and Funda mental Freedoms, the Social Charters adopted by the Union and by the Council o f Europę and the case law o f the Court o f Justice o f the European Union and o f the European Court o f Human Rights.
In this context
the C harter w ill be interpreted b y the courts o f the Union and the M em ber States with due regard to the
explanations p rep a red under the authority o f the Praesidium o f the Convention which drafted the Charter
a nd updated under the responsibility o f the Praesidium o f the European Convention.
A new sub-article (7) to Article 11-52 (now Article II-112(7) TCE) on the Sco-
pe and interpretation o f rights and principles, provides: ‘
The explanations drawn up as
a way o f providing guidance in the interpretation o f the Charter o f Fundamental Ri
ghts shall be given due regard by the courts o f the Union and o f the M ember States31.
The details o f the explanations of the Praesidium have been moved to a Decla-
ration conceming the explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and
ineorporated in the Finał Act. According to Declaration 12 annexed to the Constitutio
nal Treaty:
‘The Conference takes note o f the explanations relating to the Charter o f
Fundamental Rights prepared under the authority o f the Praesidium o f the Convention
which drafted the Charter and updated under the responsibility o f the Praesidium o f
the European Convention, as set out below.
’ Thereafter, under the heading of Explana-
tions relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, it is stated: ‘
These explanations
32 C O N V 8 0 2 /0 3 , op. cit. [‘T h e fuli tex t o f the C h arte r, w ith all the d ra ftin g ad ju stm en ts given in W o rking G ro u p ’s fin ał re p o rt (C O N V 3 5 4 /0 2 ) w ill be set o u t eith e r in a seco n d p a rt o f th e C o n stitu tio n o r in a Protocol a n n ex ed th e re to , as th e C o n v en tio n d e c id e s .’] C O N V 5 2 8 /0 3 , op. cit., p. 3.
33 C O N V 3 5 4 /0 2 , op. cit., p. 2. See also , a b o v e n o tes 50, 51, 97 , 99 , 100 and 101. T ech n ical am en d m en ts in c lu d e , in te r alia'. a m e n d m e n ts to th e h e ad in g ‘g en erał p ro v isio n s g o v e r n in g th e in terp re ta tio n a n d a p p lica tio n o f the C h a r te r ’(e m p h a sis a d d e d ); ‘C o m m u n ity ’ and ‘T reaty esta b lish in g th e E u ro p ean C o m m u n ity 7 ’T rea ty on E u ro p ean U n io n ’ h a v e b een re p la c e d w ith ‘U n io n ’ and w ith ‘C o n stitu tio n ’, re sp ec tiv e ly ; an d , in stitu tio n s, b o d ies and a g e n c ie s o f th e U n io n (em p h a sis added). C O N V 7 2 6 /0 3 , op. cit., p . 3.
34 C H A R T E 4 4 7 3 /0 0 , C O N V 4 9 , U O ct. 2000. U p d ated u n d e r the P rae sid iu m o f P resid e n t V alery G i scard d ’E sta in g , C O N V E N T 8 2 8 /1 /0 3 R E V 1 ,1 8 Ju ly 2 0 0 3 ; C O N V E N T 4 5 5 4 /0 2 , p. 10. R eferen ces taken from P ro fe sso r A . J a c o b s , ‘T h e F e n c es S u rro u n d in g th e C h arte r o f F u n d a m e n ta l R ig h ts in the N ew E u ro p ean C o n sti tu tio n ’, in: D. R y l a n d (e d .) In te r n a tio n a l L e g a ł E s s a y s in H o n o u r o f J o C a rb y -H a ll: A n E r a o f H um a n Rights, B arm a ric k , F o rth c o m in g 20 0 6 .
35 T h e 2 0 0 3 /2 0 0 4 In te rg o v e m m e n ta l C o n fe re n ce , h ttp ://e u ro p a .e u .in t/sc a d p lu s/c ig 2 0 0 4 /d e b a te s2 _ e n .h tm . T h e ln te rg o v e rn m e n ta l C o n fe re n c e ag reed on the c o n tin u o u s n u m b e rin g o f the te x t o f the C o n stitu tio n using A rab ie n u m e ra ls. In o rd e r to m a k e e le ar the d iv isio n o f th e C o n stitu tio n in to fo u r p a rts, th ese co n tin u o u s num bers are p re c ed e d b y R o m an n u m e ra ls c o rre s p o n d in g to each part.
36 C IG 8 2 /0 4 , P R E S ID 2 4 , A n n e x 7 , 16 Ju n e 20 0 4 and C IG 8 5 /0 4 , P R E S ID 27 , A n n e x 10, 18 Ju n e, 1GC 2 0 0 3 - M e e tin g o f H ead s o f S ta te o r G o v e m m e n t, B ru ssels, 17/18 Ju n e 2 0 0 4 , B russels.
37 W h erea s P ro fe sso r A n to in e Jac o b s, op. cit. asserts th a t b y a ss e rtin g the refere n c e to th e e x p lan atio n s in the p re a m b le to the C h a r te r the statu s o f th e e x p la n atio n s w as, th u s, e le v ate d , h e b e lie v es th a t it is d o u b tfu l w het- h e r th e in sertio n o f su b -a rtic le 7 h a s fu rth er elev ated th e ir status.
were originally prepared under the authority o f the Praesidium o f the Convention
which drafted the Charter o f Fundamental Rights o f the European Union. They have
been updated under the responsibility o f the Praesidium o f the European Convention,
in the light o f the drafting adjustments made to the text o f the Charter by that Conven-
tion, (notably to Articles 51 and 52)3S and o f further developments o f Union law. Al-
though they do not as such have the status o f law, they are a valuable tool o f interpre
tation intended to clarijy the provisions o f the Charter39
. It is to be noted that the
explanations do not have the status o f law.
The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europę was signed on 29 Octo-
ber 2004 in Rome40. The Constitution establishes the European Union41, merging
its three pillars, and bestows legał personality on the Union42. The Union is foun-
ded on the values, which are common to the Member States, o f respect for human
dignity, freedom, democracy, eąuality, the rule o f law and respect for human ri
ghts43. The Union’s objectives include,
inter alia,
its aim to promote its values44,
and, in its relations with the wider world, that it shall contribute to the protection of
human rights45. The Charter o f Fundamental Rights o f the Union is given Constitu
tional status in Part One of the Treaty. Thereunder: ‘
The Union shall recognise the
rights, freedom s and principles set out in the Charter o f Fundamental Rights which
constitutes P art l f b.
A legał basis is inserted providing that the Union shall accede
to the European Convention for the Protection o f Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms, and that such accession shall not affect the U nion’s competences as
defined in the Constitution47. ‘Fundamental Rights, as guaranteed by the European
Convention for the Protection o f Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and as
they result from the constitutional traditions common to the M ember States,
shall
constitute generał principles o f the Union ’s law '4*.
This strongly worded provi-
sion49 assimilates the legał protection o f fundamental rights as generał principles of
Union law with those fundamental rights guaranteed under the European
Conven-38 A rticles II-l 11 and II-l 12 o f the C o n stitu tio n .
39 C1G 86 /0 2 A D D 2, P ro v isio n al C onsolidated v ersio n o f th e D e cla ra tio n s to b e an n ex e d to th e Finał A ct o f the In te rg o v e m m e n ta l C o n fe re n ce , B ru ssels, 25 Ju n e 2004.
40 C IG 8 7 /1 /0 4 , 13 O ct. 2 0 0 4 , sig n ed on 29 O c to b er 2 0 0 4 in R o m e , h ttp ://u c.eu .in t/ig c p d f/en /o4/cg 0 0 /cg 0 0 0 8 7 -re0 1 .e n 0 4 .p d f . [2004] O J C 310. T his T rea ty shall e n te r in to fo rce on 1 N ov. 2 0 0 6 , pro v id ed that all th e in stru m en ts o f ra tifica tio n have b een d e p o sited , A rticle IV -447 T C E .
41 A rticle 1-1, P art I o f the T rea ty e sta b lish in g a C o n stitu tio n fo r E u ro p ę (T C E ).
42 A rticle 1-7, T C E . S ee ‘Finał R ep o rt o f W o rk in g G ro u p III on Legał P e rs o n a lity ’, C O N V 3 0 5 /0 2 . The Secretariat, T h e E u ro p ean C o n v en tio n , B russels, 1 O c to b er 2 0 0 2 , h ttp ://w w w .eu rp ea n -c o n v e n tio n .eu .in t /b ien v en u e.a sp ? la n g = E N & C o n te n t= W G IlI.
43 A rticle 1-2 TC E .
44 A rticle 1-3(1) T C E .
C f
A rticle 1-19(1) T C E T he U n io n shall b e serv ed b y a sin g le in s titu tio n a l fram e- w ork w hich shall a im to p ro m o te the v alu es o f the U nion.45 A rticle 1-3(4) T C E .
46 A rticle 1-9(1) T C E . (e m p h a sis added).
47 A rticle 1-9(2) T C E .
Cf.
D eclaratio n 2 on A rticle 1-9(2) an n ex ed to the F in ał A ct. In a c c o rd a n c e w ith A rticle 111-325(6) T C E .48 A rticle 1-9(3) T C E . (e m p h a sis added).
49 A rticle 6 (2 ) o f the T rea ty on E u ro p ean U nion (T E U ) p ro v id e s: ‘T h e U n io n shall r e s p e c t fu n d am en tal rights as g u aran teed b y th e E u ro p ean C o n v en tio n for the P ro tectio n o f H u m an R ig h ts and F u n d a m e n ta l F reed o m s ... and as th ey re su lt fro m th e c o n stitu tio n a l tra d itio n s c o m m o n to the M e m b e r S tates, as g en erał p rin c ip le s o f C o m m u n ity la w .’ (e m p h a sis ad d ed ).
tion on Human Rights. Incorporation of the Charter o f Fundamental Rights o f the
Union into Part II o f the Constitutional Treaty raises enormous potential for the
development o f the protection o f fundamental rights as generał principles o f Union
law50. In furtherance o f their respective roles, the European Court o f Justice and the
General Court51 ‘shall ensure that in the interpretation and application o f the Con
stitution the law is observed’52. In addition, the role o f national courts, developed in
the jurisprudence o f the European Court o f Justice, is formally recognised in the
Constitutional Treaty. An additional paragraph provides: ‘Member States shall
provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legał protection in the fields covered
by Union law ’53.
The scope certainly will exist for judicial interpretative protection, through
the mechanism for referral to the ECJ for preliminary rulings on all ąuestions of
European law, conceming the Charter o f Fundamental Rights o f the European
Union54. Two case studies may be given in example. First, there may, thus, be an
avenue o f redress in European Union law (and in circumstances where one does
not exist under the ECHR) for victims o f health-debilitating levels of nighttime
aircraft noise. One commentator has expressed the opinion that: ‘[t]he wide com-
petencies o f the EU and the existing secondary legislation in this area55, in con-
junction with the existing provisions o f intemational instruments regarding the
rights to private life, to property, and political participation would allow for a sub-
stantive elaboration o f fundamental principles o f human rights regarding environ-
mental protection by the Court o f Justice. This has not yet happened, but could
happen if sufficiently innovative and resourceful litigation was started within the
Member States and was forwarded via preliminary references to Luxembourg’56.
There would be scope for the European Court o f Justice to give more extensive
protection as long as it did not reduce the protection accorded under a comparable
provision o f the European Convention o f Human Rights by the European Court of
50 T h e re w a s n o m en tio n o f h u m a n rig h ts in the fo u n d in g T reaty o f R om e in 1957. T h e European Econo- m ic C o m m u n ity w as fo u n d e d p rim a rily on e co n o m ic p o lic ie s. T h ere w as n o b a sis in the T reaty fo r a generał h u m an rig h ts p o lic y . In o rd e r to re in fo rc e th e p rin c ip le o f th e su p re m ac y o f C o m m u n ity law , th e E u ropean C o u rt o f Ju stic e d e c la re d th a t fu n d a m e n ta l h u m an rig h ts w ere en sh rin ed in the g en erał p rin c ip le s o f C o m m u n ity law and p ro te c te d b y th e C o u rt. C ase 2 9 /6 9 S ta u d e r v U lm [1969] E C R 41 9 . C ase 11/70 In te rn a tio n a le H a n d elsg esell- sc h a ft [1970] E C R 1125.
51 T h e C o u rt o f F irst In stan ce w ill b e re -n a m e d th e G en eral C o u rt u n d e r the C o n stitu tio n a l Treaty, 52 A rtic le 1-29(1) T C E . M ain tain in g th e legał b a sis fo r th e C o u rts role in in te rp retin g g en erał p rin cip les o f U n io n law .
53 A rtic le 1-29(2) T C E .
54 In th e c o n te x t o f so cia l law see A . J a c o b s , op. cii. K. L e n e a r t s an d D. G e r a r d , ‘T h e stru c tu re o f the U n io n a c c o rd in g to the C o n stitu tio n fo r E uropę: the em p e ro r is g ettin g d re s se d ’, (2 0 0 4 ) E L R ev., p. 289 at p. 318, su b m it, ‘L o g ica lly , p rin c ip le s c an th e re fo re b e ju d ic ia lly c o g n isa b le o n ly in th e in te rp reta tio n o r a p p reciatio n o f th e le g a lity o f th o se acts. T h a t is n o t to say, h o w ev er, th a t su ch p rin c ip le s c a n n o t p la y a ro le in th e interp retatio n o f U n io n law m o re g e n e ra lly ’.
55 C o m m u n ity D ire c tiv e s on n o ise p ro te c tio n p ro v id e s the b a sis fo r th e c o m p e ten c e o f the European C o u rt o f Ju stic e to issu e su ch p re lim in a ry ru lin g s.
56 P. E l e f t h e r i a d i s , ‘ T h e F u tu rę o f E n v iro n m en ta l R ig h ts in th e E u ro p e a n U n io n ', in: P. A l s t o n (ed.), T h e E U a n d H u m a n R ig h ts, O x fo rd U n iv e rsity Press, 1999, c h ap ter 16, p. 5 2 9 at p. 549 and 547. See further, D. R y l a n d , ‘A irc ra ft N o ise versu s R esp e ct fo r H om e and Priv ate L ife ’, in: D. R y l a n d (ed .) In te rn a tio n a l L e g a ł E ssa y s in H o n o u r o f J o C a rb y -H a ll: A n E ra o f H u m a n R ig h ts, B arm arick , F o rth co m in g 2006.
Human Rights57. There would, thus, be the potential for the European Court of
Justice, on a referral for a preliminary ruling from a national court, to accord more
extensive protection in an interpretation of Article 11-67 o f the Constitution on the
right to respect for home and private life, aided by the principle o f proportionali-
ty58, than the finding that there had been no violation o f Article 8 ECHR by the
majority o f the Grand Chamber o f the European Court o f Human Rights59. More-
over, a preliminary ruling o f the European Court o f Justice under Article 234 o f the
European Community Treaty60 is legally binding61; whereas, national courts have
only to take into account a judgment o f the European Court o f Human Rights62.
In the second instance, the case o f Mary Carpenter v. Secretary o f State fo r
the Home Department, conceming the freedom to provide services and, more parti-
cularly the right o f the provider’s third country national spouse to reside in the
Member State of origin of the provider63, would support such an argument for the
interpretative development o f fundamental rights under the preliminary ruling pro-
cedure. The European Court o f Justice, in that case declared that a European Union
Member State ‘may invoke reasons o f public interest to justify a national measure
which is likely to obstruct the exercise o f the freedom to provide services only if
that measure is compatible with the fundamental rights whose observance the Co
urt ensures.’ The Court read and interpreted the Treaty ‘ in the light o f the funda
mental right to respect for family life’, and went on to rule that the decision to de-
port Mrs Carpenter constituted ‘an interference with the exercise by Mr Carpenter
o f his right to respect for his family life within the meaning o f Article 8 o f the
Convention for the Protection o f Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, si-
gned at Rome on 4 November 1950 ...w hich is among the fundamental rights
which, according to the Court’s settled case law, restated by the Preamble to the
Single European Act and by Article 6(2) EU, are protected in Community law .’
According to the Court, and on the facts, the decision to deport Mrs Carpenter did
‘not strike a fair balance between the competing interests, that is, on the one hand,
the right of Mr Carpenter to respect for his family life, and on the other hand, the
maintenance of public order and public safety.’ It, thus, constituted an infringement
which was not proportionate to the objective pursued64.
57 Article II-l 12(3) TC E: Insofar as this C harter contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed b y the Convention for the Protection o f H um an Rights and Fundam ental Freedom s, the m ean in g and scope o f those rights shall be the sam e as those laid dow n by the said Convention. This provision shall not prevent U nion law providing more extensiveprotection. K. L e n a e r t s and E. de S m i j t e r , op. cit., p. 2 9 2 ,2 9 3 and 296.
58 In a c c o rd a n c e w ith A rticle 11-112(1) C T E on the sco p e and in te rp reta tio n o f th e C h a rte r’s rig h ts and prin cip les, A n y lim itatio n on th e ex ercise o f the rig h ts and freed o m s re c o g n ise d b y th e C h a rte r m u st b e pro v id ed fo r b y law , re sp ec t th e e sse n ce o f th o se rig h ts and freed o m s and satisfy the p rin c ip le o f p ro p o rtio n a lity .
59 A p p licatio n no. 3 6 0 2 2 /9 7 , H a tto n a n d O th ers v The U n ited K in g d o m , ju d g m e n t 8 Ju ly 2 0 0 3 . T h e E u ro p ean C o u rt o f H um an R ig h ts, sittin g as a G ran d C ham ber.
60 A rticle 111-369 T C E .
61 T h e a u th o r is th a n k fu l to P ro fe sso r Jo C arb y -H all fo r ra isin g this re le v a n t p o in t.
62 S ectio n 2 o f the H u m an R ig h ts A c t 1998. J. W a d h a m , The H um an Rights A c t 1998, O xford 2003, p. 63. 63 C ase C -6 0 /0 0 , E C R 2 0 0 2 I 6279.
The implications o f this judgment for an interpretive ruling by the Europe
an Court o f Justice o f the right to respect for home and private life as a generał
principle o f Union Law are profound.
Concluding Comments
The interpretative provisions incorporated in the Constitution may have circu-
mvented the direct enforceability o f the Charter o f Fundamental Rights. The scope
still exists for the provisions of the Charter, embedded as Part
II o f the Treaty, to be
enforced indirectly by way o f an interpretative ruling from the European Court of
Justice, on a reference from a national court on a ąuestion o f Union law. Potential-
ly, there may be conflicts with the European Convention on Human Rights and the
constitutional traditions o f Member States. This is a constituent element o f a heal-
thy legał process in which laws evolve according to circumstances, social accep-
tance, policy and time65. This author maintains that indirectly, in interpretation, the
Constitution will give rise to some interesting case law on the protection o f funda
mental rights in the European Union.
65 P. E e c k h o u t , op. cit., p. 94 5 a t p. 99 3 . D. S p i e l m a n , ‘H u m an R ig h ts C ase L aw in the S trasb o u rg a n d L u x e m b o u rg C o u rts: C o n flic ts, In c o n siste n c ie s, and C o m p le m e n ta ritie s ’, in: P. A l s t o n (ed .), The E U a n d H u m a n R ig h ts, O x fo rd 1999, p .7 5 7 a t p . 778 and 779. A t the sam e tim e see J. D u t h e i l d e la R o c h e r e , op. cit., p. 35 3 , a c c o rd in g to w h o m , ‘th e ris k o f co n tra d ic tio n b e tw ee n th e c ase law o f th e E C J and the C o u rt o f H um an R ig h ts, w h ich h a d b e en e x tra o rd in a rily e x em p lifie d a t the tim e the C o n v en tio n w as e la b o ra tin g the C h arter, no w seem s less th re a te n in g th a n e x p e c te d .’ She c ite s C ase C -l 12/00 S ch m id b erg er, as an ‘e x am p le o f the effo rt m ade b y th e E C J to re c o n cile th e free m o v e m e n t o f g o o d s u n d e r EC law w ith th e free d o m o f ex p re ssio n and freed o m o f a sse m b ly a n d asso c iatio n g u a ra n te ed , w ith in certain lim itatio n s, b y A rticles 10 and 11 o f th e E C H R .’
