Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The European Court of Justice and Human Rights Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Judging International Human Rights

Abstract

This chapter deals with the role that the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) plays in the protection of human rights within the EU and, in particular, its stance vis-à-vis the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and reconstructs the changing role of the Convention. It starts by recalling the process of development of fundamental rights as a counterweight to intrusions into the individual rights by directly applicable EU law, in which the ECJ used the ECHR as a primary source of inspiration. In the course of this process, the ECJ responded to the competing jurisdiction on fundamental rights of member state constitutional and supreme courts, which had formulated claims of reserved jurisdiction. After the codification of ECJ’s jurisprudence by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and its entry into force as binding law, however, the contribution argues that a new phase has begun. Not only does the Court now tend to manifest its claim to exclusive jurisdiction on fundamental rights within the whole field of application of EU law vis-à-vis member states’ judiciaries. It also defends this claim against the European Court of Human Rights by rejecting the EU’s envisaged accession to the ECHR. A final section of the paper briefly looks at the ECJ’s jurisprudence on other international human rights treaties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Following the nomenclature of Art 19 TEU, the term “Court of Justice of the European Union” (CJEU) comprises three instances: the specialised courts, the European General Court (EGC) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Judgments appearing in the official records are cited accordingly, references to decisions after 2011 follow the new ECLI system.

  2. 2.

    As far as the ECHR is not addressed as an independent source of law, hereinafter the term “fundamental rights” will be used.

  3. 3.

    Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the European Human Rights Convention) (Rome, 04 Nov 1950, CETS 5).

  4. 4.

    Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (New York, 13 Dec 2006, UNTS 2513, 3; OJ 2010 L 23/35).

  5. 5.

    ECJ, Case 6/64, Costa v ENEL, [1964] ECR 1251, at 1270.

  6. 6.

    ECJ, Case C-184/89, Nimz v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, [1991] ECR I-297, para 19.

  7. 7.

    ECJ, Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, [1970] ECR 1125, para 3; more recently joined Cases C-188 and 189/10, Melki and Abdeli, [2010] ECR I-5667, paras 41–45; Case C-416/10, Križan et al, EU:C:2013:8, paras 70–73.

  8. 8.

    FCC, “Solange II,” BVerfGE 73, 339 (22 Oct 1986), reversing “Solange I,” BVerfGE 37, 271 (29 May 1974); the essence of this jurisprudence has meanwhile been codified in Art 23 (1) Basic Law; see also Banana Market, BVerfGE 102, 147 (07 June 2002); Data Retention, BVerfGE 125, 260 (02 Mar 2010).

  9. 9.

    FCC, Maastricht Treaty, BVerfGE 89, 155 (12 Oct 1993); Honeywell, BVerfGE 126, 286 at 302 (06 July 2010); Outright Monetary Transactions, BVerfGE 134, 366 at 380, 14 Jan 2014.

  10. 10.

    FCC, Lisbon Treaty, BVerfGE 123, 267 (30 June 2009); a further reservation concerns the budgetary powers of the German Parliament, see the decisions on European Finance Stability, BVerfGE 129, 124 at 179 (07 Sept 2011), BVerfGE 132, 195 at 239 (12 Sept 2012), and BVerfGE 135, 317 at 399 (18 Mar 2014).

  11. 11.

    Cf FCC, Counter-Terrorism Database, BVerfGE 133, 277 at 316 (24 Apr 2013).

  12. 12.

    Accordingly, human dignity, as enshrined in Art 1 (1) and 79 (3) Basic Law as an immutable human right, belongs to the constitutional identity of the German state, so it opens judicial review if the applicant plausible invokes that right, see FCC, European Arrest Warrant (2), BVerfGE 140, 317, para 83 (15 Dec 2015); for a commentary, see Nowag (2016).

  13. 13.

    By contrast, the Austrian Constitutional Court (VfGH, U 466/11, 14 Mar 2012) integrated the CFR completely into its jurisprudence as a standard, drawing from experience with the ECHR as a constitutional statute; see Holoubek (2014), pp. 131–133.

  14. 14.

    Chapter 10, Art 5 of the Swedish Constitution.

  15. 15.

    Supreme Court of Ireland, Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ltd. v Grogan, [1989] 4 I.R. 760 (19 Dec 1989); Corte Costituzionale, Frontini, Sentenza 183/73, [1974] Foro Italiano I, 314 (23 Dec 1973); Tribunal Constitucional de España, Tratado de Maastricht, Decl. 1/1992, [1992] BOE núm. 177, at 2 (01 July 1992); Idem, Tratado Constiticional, Decl. 1/2004, [2005] BOE núm 3, at 5 (13 Dec 2004); but see Idem, Melloni, Sent. 26/2014, [2014] BOE núm. 60, at 85 (13 Feb 2014).

  16. 16.

    Supreme Court of Denmark (Højesteret), Carlsen v Rasmussen I 367/1997 [1998] UfR 800 (06 Apr 1998); Corte Costituzionale, Fragd, Sentenza 232/89, [1990] Foro Italiano I, 1855 –, 13 Apr 1989; Czech Constitutional Court (Ústavní Soud), Slovak Pensions, [2012] Pl. ÚS 5/12 (31 Jan 2012); with respect to an early decision of the Constitutional Court of Hungary (Alkotmánybíróság) see Harmathy (2001), p. 315; see also the citation of the FCC (supra, n 11) in Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, R on application of HS2 Action Alliance Ltd. et al v The Secretary of State for Transport, [2014] 3 UKSC, para 111 (22 Jan 2014).

  17. 17.

    Supreme Court of Sweden (Högsta Domstolen), BillerudKorsnäs v Naturskyddsverket, Ö 461-11, [2014] NJA 79 (25 Feb 2014).

  18. 18.

    Conseil Constitutionnel, Loi relative au droit d’auteur et aux droits voisins dans la société de l’information, N. 2006-540 DC, JO 2006, 11541 (27 July 2006); Ústavní Soud, Lisbon Treaty, [2008] Pl. ÚS 19/08 (26 Nov 2008); for Ireland see supra, n 15.

  19. 19.

    As to Greek State Council (Symvoulio Epikrateias), Vagias et al v DI.K.A.T.S.A., No 2878/97 (08 July 1998), see Maganaris (1998), p. 179; Polish Constitutional Court (Trybunal Konstytucyjny), Constitutionality of the Treaty of Accession, Dec. K 18/04 (11 May 2005); Lithuanian Constitutional Court (Konstitucinio Teismo), Cases No 13/2000 and Others (14 Mar 2006).

  20. 20.

    The first fundamental rights decision was ECJ, Case 29/69, Erich Stauder v Stadt Ulm, [1969] ECR 419.

  21. 21.

    ECJ, Case 4/73, J. Nold, Kohlen- und Baustoffgroßhandlung v Commission, [1974] ECR 491, paras 12–13; the ECHR is mentioned for the first time in Case 36/75, Rutili v Ministre de l’intérieur, [1975] ECR 1219, para 32; as a standard for Community law the ECHR is first used in Case 44/79, Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz, [1979] ECR 3727, para 15.

  22. 22.

    Cf Alston and Weiler (1998), p. 658.

  23. 23.

    ECJ, joined Cases C-46/87 and C-227/88, Hoechst AG v Commission, [1989] ECR 2859, para 18; Case C-274/99 P, Conolly v Commission, [2001] ECR I-1611, paras 39–49.

  24. 24.

    Cf Douglas-Scott (2006), pp. 644–652.

  25. 25.

    In Hoechst (supra n 23), para 17, the Court held that a formal search warrant was needed only for private apartments, but not for business premises; in Case C-94/00, Roquette Frères v Directeur général de la concurrence, [2002] ECR I-9011, para 29, the Court expanded protection, following the line drawn in ECtHR, Niemietz v Germany, Ser. A No 251-B (1992), para 31 and Colas Est v France, Rep. 2002-III, para 41.

  26. 26.

    The reason is that due process guarantees like in Art 6 ECHR only apply to judicial proceedings, but not to administrative antitrust procedures. See Case 374/87, Orkem v Commission, [1989] ECR 3283, paras 34–35; upheld in Case C-301/04 P, Commission v SGL Carbon AG, [2006] ECR I-5915, para 43; cf van den Berghe (2010), p. 120; Weiß (2011), pp. 78–80.

  27. 27.

    See ECJ, Case C-260/89, Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorassi v Dimotiki Plioforisis, [1991] ECR I-2925, para 41 (“ERT Case”).

  28. 28.

    Toth (1997), p. 491.

  29. 29.

    Cf the debate between Coppel and O’Neill (1992), p. 669, and Weiler and Lockhart (1995), pp. 51 and 579.

  30. 30.

    OJ 2000 C 364/01; proclaimed again by the presidents of Parliament, Council and Commission in 2007, OJ C 303/1. The CFR is quoted here in the version as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, OJ 2010 C 83/389. For the drafting process, see De Búrca (2015).

  31. 31.

    See the official explanations in OJ 2007 C 303/17; Lenaerts (2012), pp. 394–399.

  32. 32.

    After a period in which the Charter was used as a non-binding reference document, see EGC, Case T-54/99, max.mobil v Commission, [2002] ECR II-316, para 48; ECJ, Case C-303/05, Advocaten voor de Wereld v Leden van de Ministerraad, [2007] ECR I-3633, para 46.

  33. 33.

    Pernice (2002), p. 10.

  34. 34.

    Joint communication from the Presidents of the two courts, Costa and Skouris (24 Jan 2011), http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-02/cedh_cjue_english.pdf Accessed 16 Mar 2017.

  35. 35.

    Callewaert (2008), p. 117.

  36. 36.

    See supra, n 31.

  37. 37.

    See, for instance, ECJ, Case C-93/12 Agrokonsulting Stoyanov, EU:C:2013:432, para 59.

  38. 38.

    ECJ, Case C-571/10, Kamberaj, EU:C:2012:233, paras 59–63.

  39. 39.

    For consequences, see Weiß (2011), pp. 72–95.

  40. 40.

    It is unclear what Art 6 (3) TEU means for the reservation of UK and Poland according to which the Charter shall not create new rights before British and Polish domestic courts, Protocol (No. 30) to the TEU on the Application of the Charter to Poland and the United Kingdom.

  41. 41.

    On the structuring of review see Kühling (2011), pp. 501–511. For declarations of invalidity see, e.g., ECJ, joined Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09, Schecke and Eifert, [2010] ECR I-11063, paras 45–89; Case C-236/09, Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats, [2011] ECR I-773; joined Cases C-293/12 and 594/12, Digital Rights Ireland EU:C:2014:238; Case C-362/14, Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner, EU:C:2015:650.

  42. 42.

    Cf ECJ, Case C-131/12, Google Spain, EU:C:2014:317, paras 74–88.

  43. 43.

    De Búrca (2013), pp. 174–176.

  44. 44.

    ECJ, Case C-562/13, CPAS v Abdida, EU:C:2014:2453, para 47 (Art 53 (3) CFR, Art 3 ECHR); Case C-583/13 P, Deutsche Bahn, EU:C:2015:404, paras 14–48.

  45. 45.

    For such concerns see Masing (2015), p. 477; Volkmann (2015), pp. 481–487.

  46. 46.

    ECJ, Case C-402/05 P, Kadi and Al Barakaat v Council and Commission, [2008] ECR I-6351; Cases C-399/06 P and 403/06 P, Hassan and Ayadi v Council and Commission, [2009] ECR I-11393; Cases C-584/10 P et al, Commission v Kadi, EU:C:2013:518, para 66. For discussion, see Halberstam and Stein (2009), p. 13.

  47. 47.

    See Google Spain (supra n 42), para 68.

  48. 48.

    See ECJ, Case C-83/14, Razpredelenie Bulgaria, EU:C:2015:480 (discrimination based on ethnic origin); the condition is that such behavior falls in the scope of EU law, see Case C-309/96, Annibaldi, [1997] ECR I-7493, where an Italian restriction on land use in a protected nature resort was found to be beyond the reach of EU objectives.

  49. 49.

    ECJ, Case C-5/88, Wachauf, [1989] ECR 2609, para 19; Case C-2/92, Bostock, [1994] ECR I-955 para 16.

  50. 50.

    ECJ, Case C-442/00, Rodríguez Caballero, [2002] ECR I-11915, para 31.

  51. 51.

    For an example ECJ, Case C-472/13, Shepherd, EU:C:2015:117, para 23.

  52. 52.

    See the ERT case (supra n 27); ECJ, Case C-112/00, Schmidberger, [2003] ECR I-5659, paras 77–80. This, of course, is a different use of the term “derogation” than with respect to the so-called derogation clauses of human rights treaties such as Art 15 ECHR.

  53. 53.

    See ECJ, Case C-36/02, Omega, [2004] ECR I-9609: As opposed to the ERT case (supra n 27), the ECJ found that a member state derogating from free movement of goods by prohibiting certain computer games for public policy reasons disposes of a margin of appreciation in assessing which measures are suitable to protect human dignity. See also Case C-159/90, SPUC v Grogan, [1991] ECR I-4685, about the distribution of information to pregnant women in Ireland about British clinics; the ECJ declared this conflict between the freedom to provide services with freedom of religion to be out of the reach of EU fundamental rights.

  54. 54.

    OJ 2007 C 303/17, at 32.

  55. 55.

    ECJ, Case C-617/10, Åkerberg Fransson, EU:C:2013:105, paras 25–27. The scope of EU law is not determined by the fact that a directive covers certain field, but depends on interpretation of its provisions; see Case C-87/12, Ymeraga, EU:C:2013:291, para 42.

  56. 56.

    Double jeopardy in tax law had been an issue for quite some time. For the resolution in the sense of the ne bis in idem principle Högsta Domstolen, PMP v Riksåklagaren, B 4946-12, [2013] NJA 502 (11 June 2013); further reference for the Swedish discussion in Bernitz (2015), p. 191.

  57. 57.

    The difference is that implementation refers to a specific duty under EU law, whereas scope merely means any field in which the EU has made, or might make, use of its powers. The FCC registered objections, see Counter-Terrorism Database, BVerfGE 133, 277, at 316 (24 Apr 2013). For critique see also, among many others, van Bockel and Wattel (2013), p. 866; Fontanelli (2013), p. 315; for a constructive reading Sarmiento (2013), p. 1267. Some chambers of the ECJ still tend to follow a more restrictive approach as in the Annibaldi Case (supra n 48), see Case C-206/13, Siragusa, EU:C:2014:126, paras 22–32; it remains to be seen if the Åkerberg Fransson rationale will prevail.

  58. 58.

    ECJ, Case C-399/11, Melloni v Ministerio Fiscal, EU:C:2013:107, paras 58–64; the requirement is less strictly applied in Case C-168/13 PPU, Jeremy F., EU:C:2013:358, paras 48–53, see remarks by Walter, Vordermayer (2015), pp. 142–143.

  59. 59.

    ECJ, joined Cases C-411/10 and 493/10, N.S. v Secretary of State, [2011] ECR I-13905; cf Canor (2013), p. 383. In Case C-404/15, Aranyosi, EU:C:2016:198, the Court held that execution must be postponed if there is a real risk of a violation of Art 4 CFR (inhuman treatment); however, extradition may not be abandoned; cf Anagnostaras (2016). To the same effect Case C-578/16 PPU, CK et al, EU:C:2017:127.

  60. 60.

    de Boer (2013), p. 1083; Besselink (2014), p. 531; Torres Perez (2014), p. 308.

  61. 61.

    See below, Sect. 2.2.2.3.

  62. 62.

    See supra n 8.

  63. 63.

    FCC, Maastricht, BVerfGE 89, 155 at 175 (12 Oct 1993). As to the “relationship of Cooperation,” see Grabenwarter (2015).

  64. 64.

    FCC, European Arrest Warrant (1), BVerfGE 113, 273 (18 July 2005); Emission Trading, BVerfGE 118, 79, at 95 (13 Mar 2007); Data Retention, BVerfGE 125, 260 at 308 (02 Mar 2010); Investment Subsidies, BVerGE 129, 186 at 198 (04 Oct 2011).

  65. 65.

    See the account of case law by Britz (2015), p. 275.

  66. 66.

    See supra, Sect. 2.1.1; cf also Reinbacher and Wendel (2016), p. 336.

  67. 67.

    FCC, Cassina, BVerfGE 129, 78, at 102 (19 July 2011).

  68. 68.

    FCC, Kloppenburg, BVerfGE 75, 223 (08 Apr 1987).

  69. 69.

    FCC, Investment Subsidies, BVerfGE 129, 186 (04 Oct 2011).

  70. 70.

    FCC, Prohibition for Women to Work at Night, BVerfGE 85, 191, at 203 (28 Jan 1992).

  71. 71.

    FCC, Container Recycling System, (2012) NJW 54: 598 (21 Nov 2011).

  72. 72.

    See Contributions in Keller and Stone Sweet (2008) and Caligiuri and Napoletano (2010), p. 129.

  73. 73.

    In the Netherlands, where there is no constitutional court, the judiciary is required to grant priority to self-executing treaties (Art 94 of the Constitution), which includes the ECHR. This is remarkable since the courts do not have the power to dismiss unconstitutional acts of parliament (Art 120 of the Dutch Constitution).

  74. 74.

    Examples are the Scandinavian states and UK.

  75. 75.

    This is the case, for instance, with Belgium, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain.

  76. 76.

    See ECtHR, Sürmeli v Germany, Rep. 2006-VII.

  77. 77.

    ECtHR, Sommerfeld v Germany, Rep. 2003-VIII; Görgülü v Germany (26 Feb 2004, 74969/01); Schneider v Germany (15 Sept 2011, 17080/07).

  78. 78.

    Violation of privacy: von Hannover v Germany Rep. 2004-VI; violation of freedom of the press Axel Springer AG v Germany (07 Feb 2012, 39954/08).

  79. 79.

    ECtHR, M. v Germany Rep. 2009-VI, as repeatedly upheld in further cases.

  80. 80.

    FCC, Presumption of Innocence, BVerfGE 74, 358, at 370 (26 Mar 1987) and BVerfGE 82, 106, at 114 (29 May 1990). Suggestions in legal writings to attribute to it a higher level in the legal hierarchy did not convince practice; see Giegerich (2013), paras 51–82, with further reference.

  81. 81.

    For an analysis see Tomuschat (2010), p. 513.

  82. 82.

    FCC, Görgülü, BVerfGE 111, 307, at 318 (14 Oct 2004).

  83. 83.

    Presumption of innocence (supra n 80).

  84. 84.

    Görgülü (supra n 82), at 329.

  85. 85.

    von Ungern-Sternberg (2013), pp. 27–31.

  86. 86.

    Görgülü (supra n 82), at 323.

  87. 87.

    Ibid, at 324; see also Huber (2011), p. 2385; for critique see Hofmann (2004), p. 9.

  88. 88.

    These passages spelling out restrictions on the duty to implement ECtHR judgments must be read in the context of a previous case in which the FCC had rejected a complaint by a member of the aristocracy against court decisions in a civil law suit which upheld the right of lion hunters to publish photographs taken in a private environment, see FCC, Caroline von Monaco BVerfGE 101, 361 (15 Dec 1999). At a later stage, the ECtHR held that the same decisions were in conflict with the right to private life, see n 74.

  89. 89.

    As to mandatory service (or the right to liberate oneself from it by payment of an amount of money) in a local fire brigade only for men: no unjustified discrimination seen in BVerfGE 13, 167 (17 Oct 1961); reversed in BVerfG (1995) NJW 27: 1733 (24 Jan 1995), after the ECtHR had found a violation of the prohibition of sex discrimination in Schmidt v Germany, Ser. A 291-B (1994). For the obligation to take note of the ECtHR jurisprudence, see BVerfG (Chamber), (2007) Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 7: 808 (13 Dec 2006); for the stabilising effects in a system of competing jurisdictions Merli (2007), pp. 403–404.

  90. 90.

    FCC (Chamber), (2003) NJW 31: 2225 and 2228 (05 Feb 2003).

  91. 91.

    FCC, Preventive detention, BVerfGE 128, 326 (04 May 2011).

  92. 92.

    Ibid, at 364.

  93. 93.

    For exceptions to this rule see Pinto de Albuquerque, State Obligations in the European System, in this Volume.

  94. 94.

    E Comm’n HR, Confédération Française Démocratique du Travail v EC, 13 DR 231 (10 July 1978, 8030/77).

  95. 95.

    E Comm’n HR, Melchers v Germany, 64 DR 138 (09 Feb 1990, 13258/87).

  96. 96.

    E Comm’n HR, Procola v Luxembourg, 75 DR 5 (01 July 1993, 14570/89); ECtHR, Cantoni v France, Rep. 1996-V.

  97. 97.

    ECtHR, Guerra et al v Italy, Rep. 1998-I.

  98. 98.

    ECtHR, Matthews v UK, Rep. 1999-I.

  99. 99.

    ECtHR, Bosphorus v Ireland, Rep. 2005-VI.

  100. 100.

    Supra, n 8; see also Lavranos (2008), p. 275.

  101. 101.

    ECtHR, Connolly v 15 Member States of the EU Application (07 Feb 2008, 73274/01).

  102. 102.

    ECtHR, Boivin v 34 Member States of the Council of Europe Rep. 2008-IV; see discussion in Janik (2010), p. 127.

  103. 103.

    ECtHR, Kokkelvisserij v The Netherlands Rep. 2009-I.

  104. 104.

    ECtHR, Michaud v France Rep. 2012-VI, paras 105–116; such a refusal may result in a violation of Art 6 Vergauwen v Belgium (10 Apr 2012, 4832/04), paras 89–90.

  105. 105.

    ECtHR, Al-Jedda v UK Rep. 2011-IV, para 102; Al-Dulimi v Switzerland (21 June 2016, 5809/08).

  106. 106.

    ECtHR, Behrami v France; Behrami and Saramati v France, Germany and Norway (02 May 2007, 71412/01 and 78166/01), paras 69, 144–152; superseded with respect to the criteria for attribution by Al Skeini et al v UK, Rep. 2011-IV, paras 130–140.

  107. 107.

    See supra, n 46.

  108. 108.

    See ECJ, Case C-583/11 P, Inuit Tapiriit et al, EU:C:2013:625, paras 52–61.

  109. 109.

    Cf on different approaches with respect to expulsion of asylum seekers under the Dublin system as inhuman treatment on the one hand ECJ, Case C-394/12, Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt, EU:C:2013:813 (Greece), on the other hand ECtHR, Tarakhel v Switzerland (04 Nov 2014, 29217/12) (Italy).

  110. 110.

    European Council 21–22 June 1993, Conclusions of the Presidency, Doc. SN 180/1/93/REV 1.

  111. 111.

    Krüger and Polakiewicz (2001), p. 3.

  112. 112.

    CoE Parliamentary Assembly, The accession of the European Union/European Community to the European Convention on Human Rights, Report, Committee of Legal Affairs and Human Rights Doc. 11533, 18 Mar 2008.

  113. 113.

    See Commission, Memorandum of 04 Apr 1979, [1979] Bull EC Supp. 2; early discussion is found in Schermers (1978), p. 1; for an overview see Lenaerts and de Smijter (2001), pp. 274–277.

  114. 114.

    ECJ, Opinion 2/94 [1996] ECR I-1763.

  115. 115.

    Protocol No. 14 to the ECHR (Strasbourg, 13 May 2004, CETS No. 194), which entered into force 01 June 2010, amended Art 59 ECHR so that the EU may become a party.

  116. 116.

    Draft Agreement on the Accession of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Final Report for the Steering Committee of Human Rights (Doc. No 47 + 1 (2013)008 rev 2) Strasbourg, 10 June 2013); for a comprehensive commentary, see Callewaert (2014). The (first) Protocol (Paris, 20 Mar 1952, CETS 9), which embodies the rights to own property, to enjoy education, and to vote, and Protocol No. 6 concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty (Strasbourg, 28 Apr 1983, CETS 114) are as of summer 2015 binding on all EU member states.

  117. 117.

    See infra, Sect. 2.2.2.3; according to representatives of both the CoE and EU, accession remains on the agenda; see Comité directeur pour les droits de l’homme (CDDH), Rapport du CDHH sur l’avenir à plus long terme du système de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, CDHH (2015) R 84 Addendum 1, para 190; ECtHR, Observations de la Cour sur le Rapport du CDDH sur l’avenir à long terme du système de la Convention (2016), para 10 http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2016_Comment_on_CDDH_report_on_longer-term_future_of_Convention_FRA.pdf; European Commission, Report on the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, COM (2016) 265 final, at 8.

  118. 118.

    Such peculiarities include the status of the EU in the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers, of the Council of Europe, Art 7 DAA.

  119. 119.

    Cf Dawson and Muir (2011), p. 751.

  120. 120.

    ECJ, Case C-366/10, Air Transport Association of America and others, [2011] ECR I-13755, para 50, with further case law cited.

  121. 121.

    ECJ, Case 104/81, Hauptzollamt Mainz v Kupferberg & Cie., [1982] ECR 3644, paras 11, 13; Case 12/86, Demirel v Stadt Schwäbisch Gmünd, [1987] ECR 3719, para 14; joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/92, Christian Dior v TUK, [2000] ECR I-11307, para 42.

  122. 122.

    Weiß (2011), p. 90.

  123. 123.

    de Schutter (2010), p. 551.

  124. 124.

    Jacqué (2011), pp. 1013–1014 mentions ECtHR, MSS v Belgium, Rep. 2011-I as an example: Belgian authorities had sent an asylum seeker back to Greece which, under the so-called Dublin II regulation, was the responsible state to decide on the request for asylum. The ECtHR found a violation by Belgium and refused to apply the Bosphorus rationale (supra n 99) since, after carefully analysing the regulation, Belgium was free not to return the applicant. See also the hint by Lock (2011), pp. 1028–1033 at Kokkelvisserij (supra n 103), concerning the right to respond to submissions by the Advocate General to the ECJ.

  125. 125.

    “[A]pplications … addressed to Member States and/or the European Union […].”

  126. 126.

    See the analysis by Gragl (2014), pp. 31–40.

  127. 127.

    See the critique by Schilling (2011), pp. 91–99.

  128. 128.

    High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights, Brighton Declaration, 19 and 20 Apr 2012, http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2012_Brighton_FinalDeclaration_ENG.pdf Accessed 16 Mar 2017.

  129. 129.

    Art 1 of Protocol No. 15 amending the ECHR (Strasbourg, 24 June 2013, CETS No. 213), not yet in force, reformulates the preamble in this respect.

  130. 130.

    ECJ, Opinion 2/13, Accession to the ECHR, EU:C:2014:2455.

  131. 131.

    ECJ, Opinion 1/91 European Economic Area [1991] ECR I-6079, paras 44 to 46; Opinion 2/94 ECHR [1996] ECR I-1763, para 34; Opinion 1/00 European Common Aviation Area [2002] ECR I-3493, paras 12–13; Case C-459/03, Commission v Ireland [2006] ECR I-4635, paras 123–124 (Mox Plant); Opinion 1/09 European Community Patents Court [2011] ECR I-1132, para 74.

  132. 132.

    ECJ, Opinion 2/2013, Accession to the ECHR, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454, para 258.

  133. 133.

    Ibid, paras 184–200; bearing in mind the divergence of standards, for instance, in the treatment of refugees (n 106), the assumption of equivalence is problematic; see Polakiewicz (2015a), p. xxi.

  134. 134.

    ECJ, Opinion 2/2013, Accession to the ECHR, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454, paras 201–214.

  135. 135.

    Ibid, paras 215–243.

  136. 136.

    Ibid, paras 249–257.

  137. 137.

    Cf in this sense Pernice (2015), p. 47; for critique see Jacqué (2015), p. 19; Nergelius (2015), Peers (2015), p. 213; Tomuschat (2015), p. 133; but see Halberstam (2015), Malenovský (2015) and Schmahl (2016).

  138. 138.

    Cf also Ritleng (2013), p. 267.

  139. 139.

    Polakiewicz (2015b) and Weiß (2015).

  140. 140.

    ECJ, Case 374/87, Orkem v Commission, [1989] ECR 3283, para 31; joined Cases C-297/88 and C-197/89, Dzodzi, [1990] ECR I-3763, para 68; Case C-249/96, Grant, [1998] ECR I-621, para 44; Case C-540/03, Parliament v Council, [2006] ECR I-5769, para 37.

  141. 141.

    ECJ, Case C-438/05, International Transport Workers Federation, [2007] ECR I-10779, para 43; Case C-341/05, Laval un Partneri, [2007] ECR I-11761, para 90; Case C-271/08, Commission v Germany, [2010] ECR I-7091, para 43; critical reception prevails, see Lukas (2015), pp. 162–163.

  142. 142.

    ECJ, Case C-244/06, Dynamic Medien v Avides, [2008] ECR I-505, paras 39–52.

  143. 143.

    A special case are Conventions of the International Labour Organization on the protection of women from night work or underground, which are held to contravene directions on equal treatment, since views on the necessary degree of protection have changed over time. Member states had ratified these Conventions before their accession to the EC/EU, but were considered to be under an obligation not to enact new legislation. See ECJ, Case C-207/96 Commission v Italy, [1997] ECR I-6869; Case C-203/03, Commission v Austria, [2005] ECR I-935.

  144. 144.

    ECJ, Case C-540/03, Parliament v Council, [2006] ECR I-5769, paras 37–39, 57, 107; joined Cases C-395/08 and 396/08, INPS v Bruno et al, [2010] ECR I-5119, para 31; cf also Case C-579/12 RX-II, Commission v Strack, EU:C:2013:570, paras 27 and 46.

  145. 145.

    ECJ, Case C-73/08, Bressol, [2010] ECR I-2735, paras 83–88. In Grant (supra n 140), the Court considered discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, while found to fall under ICCPR, to be beyond the scope of EU law at the time (but see now Art 10 TFEU).

  146. 146.

    See supra n 4.

  147. 147.

    ECJ, joined Cases C-335/11 and 337/11, HK Danmark, EU:C:2013:222, paras 34–47; cf also Case C-354/13, FOA, EU:C:2014:2463, paras 42–60.

  148. 148.

    Ibid, para 32.

  149. 149.

    ECJ, Case C-363/12, Z. v A Government department, EU:C:2014:159, paras 84–90.

  150. 150.

    For an example see Dynamic Medien (supra n 142).

  151. 151.

    See Lamont (2014), p. 681.

  152. 152.

    Kumm (1999), p. 351; Sabel and Gerstenberg (2010), p. 511.

  153. 153.

    von Bogdandy et al. (2012), pp. 508–518.

  154. 154.

    See the famous “civis europaeus sum” by Advocate General Sir Francis Jacobs in Case C-168/91, Konstantinides v Stadt Altensteig, [1993] ECR I-1191, para 46. According to ECJ, Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale, [2001] ECR I-6193, para 31, European citizenship is the fundamental status of all Europeans; see also, among many others, Case C-34/09, Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi, [2011] ECR I-1177.

References

  • Alston P, Weiler J (1998) An “Ever Closer Union” in need of a human rights policy. Eur J Int Law 9:658–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anagnostaras G (2016) Mutual confidence is not blind trust! Fundamental rights protection and the execution of the European arrest warrant. Common Mark Law Rev 53:1675–1704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernitz U (2015) The Åkerberg Fransson case. In: Nergelius J, Kristoffersson E (eds) Human rights in contemporary European law. Hart, Oxford, pp 191–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Besselink L (2014) The parameters of constitutional conflict after Melloni. Eur Law Rev 39:531–552

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogdandy A, Kottmann M, Antpöhler C, Dischen J, Hentrei S, Smrkolj M (2012) Reverse Solange – protecting the essence of fundamental rights against EU member states. Common Mark Law Rev 49:489–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britz G (2015) Grundrechtsschutz durch das Bundesverfassungsgericht und den Europäischen Gerichtshof. Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift 42:269–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Caligiuri A, Napoletano N (2010) The application of the ECHR in the domestic systems. Ital Yearb Int Law 20:125–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callewaert J (2008) Unionisation and “Conventionisation” of Fundamental Rights in Europe. In: Wouters J, Nollkaemper PA, de Wet E (eds) The Europeanisation of international law – the status of international law in the EU and its member states. TMC Asser Instituut, The Hague, pp 109–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Callewaert J (2014) The accession of the European Union to the European Convention of Human Rights. Council of Europe, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Canor I (2013) My brother’s keeper? Horizontal Solange. Common Mark Law Rev 50:383–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppel J, O’Neill A (1992) The European Court of Justice: taking rights seriously? Common Mark Law Rev 29:669–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson M, Muir E (2011) Individual, institutional and collective vigilance in protecting fundamental rights in the EU: lessons from the Roma. Common Mark Law Rev 48:751–775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Boer N (2013) Addressing rights divergences under the charter: Melloni. Common Mark Law Rev 50:1083–1104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Búrca G (2013) After the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: the Court of Justice as a human rights adjudicator? Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 20:168–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Búrca G (2015) The drafting of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Eur Law Rev 40:799–810

    Google Scholar 

  • de Schutter O (2010) L’adhésion de l’Union européenne à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme: feuille de route de la négociation. RTDH 83:535–571

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas-Scott S (2006) A tale of two courts: Luxembourg, Strasbourg and the growing European Human Rights Acquis. Common Mark Law Rev 43:629–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontanelli F (2013) Hic Sunt Nationes: the elusive limits of the EU Charter and the German constitutional watchdog. Eur Const Law Rev 9:315–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Giegerich T (2013) Wirkungen und Rang der EMRK in den Rechtsordnungen der Mitgliedstaaten. In: Dörr O, Grote R, Marauhn T (eds) EMRK/GG Konkordanz-Kommentar, 2nd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 57–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabenwarter C (2015) Konkurrenz und Kooperation zwischen dem Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte, dem Europäischen Gerichtshof und dem Bundesverfassungsgericht. In: Schuman E (ed) Hierarchie, Kooperation und Integration im Europäischen Rechtsraum. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 129–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Gragl P (2014) A giant leap for European human rights? Common Mark Law Rev 51:13–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halberstam D (2015) “It’s the Autonomy, Stupid!” A modest defense of opinion 2/13 on EU accession to the ECHR, and the way forward. Ger Law J 16:105–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halberstam D, Stein E (2009) The United Nations, the European Union and the king of Sweden. Common Mark Law Rev 46:13–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmathy A (2001) Constitutional questions of the preparation of Hungary to accession to the EU. In: Kellermann A, de Zwaan J, Czuczai J (eds) EU enlargement: the constitutional impact at EU and national level. TMC Asser Instituut, The Hague, pp 315–326

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann R (2004) The German federal constitutional court and public international law: new decisions new approaches? Ger Yearb Int Law 47:9–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Holoubek M (2014) Ein Grundrechtskatalog für Europa. In: Becker U, Hatje A, Potacs M, Wunderlich N (eds) Verfassung und Verwaltung in Europa. Festschrift für Jürgen Schwarze zum 70. Geburtstag. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 109–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber P (2011) Auslegung und Anwendung der Charta der Grundrechte. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 64:2385–2390

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacqué J (2011) The accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights and fundamental freedoms. Common Mark Law Rev 48:995–1023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacqué J (2015) Pride and/or Prejudice? Les lectures possible de l’avis 2/13 de la Cour de justice. Cahiers de droit europeen 51:19–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Janik C (2010) Die EMRK und internationale Organisationen – Ausdehnung und Restriktion der equivalent protection-Formel in der neuen Rechtsprechung des EGMR. Heidelberg J Int Law 70:127–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller H, Stone Sweet A (eds) (2008) A Europe of rights: the impact of the ECHR on national legal systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Krüger H, Polakiewicz J (2001) Proposals for a coherent human rights protection system in Europe. Human Rights Law J 22:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühling J (2011) Fundamental rights. In: von Bogdandy A, Bast J (eds) Principles of European constitutional law, 2nd edn. Hart, Oxford, pp 479–451

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumm M (1999) Who is the final arbiter of constitutionality in Europe? Common Mark Law Rev 36:351–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamont R (2014) Article 24. In: Peers S, Hervery T, Kenner J, Ward A (eds) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. A commentary. Hart, Oxford, pp 661–692

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavranos N (2008) The Solange-method as a tool for regulating competing jurisdictions among international courts and tribunals. Loyola Los Angeles Int Comp Law Rev 30:275–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (2012) Exploring the limits of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Eur Const Law Rev 8:375–403

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K, de Smijter E (2001) A “Bill of Rights” for the European Union. Common Mark Law Rev 38:273–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lock T (2011) Walking on the tightrope: the draft ECHR accession agreement and the autonomy of the EU legal order. Common Mark Law Rev 48:1025–1054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukas K (2015) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Social Charter – an alliance for social rights? Eur Yearb Human Rights 15:153–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Maganaris E (1998) The principle of supremacy of community law – the Greek challenge. Eur Law Rev 23:179–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Malenovský J (2015) Comment tirer parti de l’avis 2/13 de la Cour de l’Union européenne sur l’adhésion à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. RGDIP 119:705–742

    Google Scholar 

  • Masing J (2015) Einheit und Vielfalt des Europäischen Grundrechtsschutzes. JuristenZeitung 70:477–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merli F (2007) Rechtsprechungskonkurrenz zwischen nationalen Verfassungsgerichten, Europäischem Gerichtshof und Europäischem Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte. Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer 66:392–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Nergelius J (2015) The accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights – a critical analysis of the opinion of the European Court of Justice. Swed Inst Eur Policy Stud 2015(3)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowag J (2016) EU law, constitutional identity, and human dignity: a toxic mix? Bundesverfassungsgericht: Mr R. Common Mark Law Rev 53:1441–1454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peers S (2015) The EU’s accession to the ECHR: the dream becomes a nightmare. Ger Law J 16:213–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pernice I (2002) The charter of fundamental rights in the constitution of the European Union. WHI Paper 14/02, Available via http://www.whi-berlin.eu/documents/whi-paper1402.pdf. Accessed 16 Mar 2017

  • Pernice I (2015) L’adhésion de l’Union européenne à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme est suspendue. Cahiers de droit europeen 51:47–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Polakiewicz J (2015a) The EU’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights: a matter of coherence and consistency. In: Morano-Foadi S, Vickers L (eds) Fundamental rights in the EU. A matter for two courts. Hart, Oxford, pp xvii–xxvii

    Google Scholar 

  • Polakiewicz J (2015b) The future of fundamental rights protection without accession. Speech at Maastricht University 26 June 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinbacher T, Wendel M (2016) Menschenwürde und Europäischer Haftbefehl – Zum ebenenübergreifenden Schutz grundrechtlicher Elementargarantien im europäischen Auslieferungsverfahren. EuGRZ 43:333–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritleng D (2013) De l’articulation des systèmes de protection des droits fondamentaux dans l’Union. RTDeur 267–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabel C, Gerstenberg O (2010) Constitutionalising an overlapping consensus: the ECJ and the emergence of a coordinate constitutional order. Eur Law J 16:511–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarmiento D (2013) Who’s afraid of the charter? The Court of Justice, National Courts and the new framework of fundamental rights protection in Europe. Common Mark Law Rev 50:1267–1304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schermers H (1978) The European communities under the European Convention of Human Rights. Leg Issues Econ Integr 5:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilling T (2011) Der Beitritt der EU zur EMRK – Verhandlungen und Modalitäten: Fast eine Polemik. Humboldt Forum Recht 8:83–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmahl S (2016) Der Beitritt der EU zur Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention: Wo liegt das Problem? JuristenZeitung 71:921–928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C (2010) The effects of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights according to the German constitutional court. Ger Law J 9:513–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C (2015) Der Streit um die Auslegungshoheit: Die Autonomie der EU als Heiliger Gral. EuGRZ 42:133–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres Perez A (2014) Melloni in three acts: from dialogue to monologue. Eur Const Law Rev 10:308–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Toth A (1997) The European Union and human rights: the way forward. Common Mark Law Rev 34:491–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Bockel B, Wattel P (2013) New Wine into Old Wineskins: the scope of the charter of fundamental rights of the EU after Åkerberg Fransson. Eur Law Rev 38:866–883

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Berghe F (2010) The EU and issues of human rights protection. Eur Law J 16:112–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volkmann U (2015) Doppelt genäht hält besser?. In: Geis ME, Winkler M, Bickenbach C (eds) Von der Kultur der Verfassung. Festschrift für Friedhelm Hufen zum 70. Geburtstag. Beck, Munich, pp 127–136

    Google Scholar 

  • von Ungern-Sternberg A (2013) Normative Wirkungen von Präjudizien nach der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 138:1–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter C, Vordermayer M (2015) Verfassungsidentität als Instrument richterlicher Selbstbeschränkung in transnationalen Integrationsprozessen. Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts 63:129–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler J, Lockhart N (1995) “Taking Rights Seriously” seriously: the European Court and its fundamental rights jurisprudence. Common Mark Law Rev 32:51–94 and 579–627

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiß W (2011) Human rights in the EU: rethinking the role of the European Convention on Human Rights after Lisbon. Eur Const Law Rev 7:64–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiß W (2015) The EU human rights Regime Post Lisbon: turning the CJEU into a human rights court? In: Morano Foadi S, Vuckers L (eds) Fundamental rights in the EU – a matter for two courts. Hart, Oxford, pp 69–89

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Stefan Kadelbach

Authors
  1. Stefan Kadelbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Kadelbach .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Stefan Kadelbach

  2. Faculty of Law, Augsburg University, Augsburg, Germany

    Thilo Rensmann

  3. Faculty of Law, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Eva Rieter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kadelbach, S. (2019). The European Court of Justice and Human Rights Law. In: Kadelbach, S., Rensmann, T., Rieter, E. (eds) Judging International Human Rights. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94848-5_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94848-5_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94847-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94848-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation