Abstract
Each system of governance that is able to regulate lives of human beings necessitates internal system of brakes and restrictions, which serve as the basic guarantee of the protection of dignity, privacy, and happy life of the individual. Only then can it be considered legitimate, democratic, and entitled to permanent existence. Only such a system can be described as a constitutional one. When the ambition of the European Union is to bear signs of the constitutional order, it is necessary to accept and actively create a supranational system of protection of fundamental rights of the individual. This chapter is devoted to the creation of that system and its basic elements—the Charter, Convention and General Principles. It also seeks to uncover the role of each of them within that complex structure of instruments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Maduro (1998), p. 31.
- 2.
This feature is described as republican standard or republican idea of constitutionalism. See Mac Amhlaigh (2011), pp. 27–28.
- 3.
- 4.
For deep analysis of the several approaches to the supranational constitutionalism, see De Búrca et al. (2012).
- 5.
The Court supported its quest for understanding European Law as an autonomous constitutional system also by some semantic turnovers. In Judgment 294/83 Les Verts or Opinion 1/91 on the Treaty on a European Economic Area, it expressly referred to the Treaty as constitutional charter of the integration entities. See commentary in Lenaerts (2010), pp. 295–315.
- 6.
This is playing the role of “Constitutional Court of the European Union”. See Lenaerts and Van Nuffel (2011), p. 22.
- 7.
See also Craig (2010), pp. 194–197.
- 8.
See further Frowein (1988), pp. 201–206.
- 9.
Solange I - Internationale Handelsgesellschaft von Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, decision of 29 May 1974, BVerfGE 37, 271.
- 10.
Solange II - Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft decision of 22 October 1986, BVerfGE 73, 339.
- 11.
See closer Lebeck (2006), pp. 908–912.
- 12.
Maastricht-Urteil decision of 12 October 1993, BVerfGE 89, 155.
- 13.
Lissabon-Urteil decision of 30 June 2009, 2 BvE 2/08.
- 14.
Sugar Quotas Regulation III decision of 8 March 2006, Pl. ÚS 50/04.
- 15.
European Arrest Warrant decision of 3 May 2006, Pl. ÚS 66/04.
- 16.
Lisbon Treaty I decision of 26 November 2008, Pl. ÚS 19/08.
- 17.
Lisbon Treaty II decision of 3 November 2009, Pl. ÚS 29/09.
- 18.
See closer Hamulak (2011), pp. 279–303.
- 19.
Opinion in Case C-411/05 Félix Palacios de la Villa, [2007] ECR I-08531, point 86.
- 20.
Judgement 222/84 Johnston/Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary of 15 May 1986, [1986] ECR, p. 1651).
- 21.
Judgment 43/75 Defrenne/SABENA of 8 April 1976, [1976] ECR, p. 455.
- 22.
Judgment 5/88 Wachauf/Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft of 13 July 1989, [1989] ECR, p. 2609.
- 23.
Judgment C-84/95 Bosphorus/Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications and others of 30 July 1996, [1996] ECR, p. I-3953.
- 24.
Judgment C-260/89 ERT/DEP of 18 June 1991, [1991] ECR, p. I-2925.
- 25.
Judgment C-368/95 Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags-und vertriebs GmbH/Bauer Verlag of 26 June 1997, [1997] ECR, p. I-3689.
- 26.
See further Douglas-Scott (2006), pp. 629–665.
- 27.
See commentary on this document Králová (2011), pp. 127–142.
- 28.
See press release of the CoE: “Milestone reached in negotiations on accession of EU to the European Convention on Human Rights” from the 5 April 2013. Available here: http://hub.coe.int/what-we-do/human-rights/eu-accession-to-the-convention.
- 29.
Paragraph 5 of the DRAFT Explanatory report to the Agreement on the Accession of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
- 30.
Judgment 1/58 Stork & Cie ECSC High Authority of 4 February 1959, [1959] ECR, p. 17.
- 31.
Judgment 36–58, 37–58, 38–59 and 40–59 Präsident Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft and others/ECSC High Authority of 15 July 1960, [1960] ECR, p. 423.
- 32.
Judgment 29/69 Stauder/Stadt Ulm of 12 November 1969, [1969] ECR, p. 419.
- 33.
It is important to stress the notion of “inspiration” here. Even though the Court of Justice was and still is open to draw inspiration from the national constitutional traditions and international sources, it does not mean that all acknowledged rights are transposed to the supranational level automatically. The Court of Justice understands the fundamental rights autonomously as the original part of supranational legal order and also offers an autonomous interpretation of the content of the fundamental rights. We may call it a “Community/Union view” with regard to the objectives of the Community/Union, which in some way limits the scope of protection afforded to fundamental rights (see 4/73 Nold or 44/79 Hauer, where fundamental right to property was to some extent suppressed by the Community economic and market interests).
- 34.
Judgment 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel of 17 December 1970, [1970] ECR, p. 1125.
- 35.
Judgment 4/73 Nold KG/Commission of 14 May 1974, [1974] ECR 1974 p. 491.
- 36.
Judgment 36/75 Rutili/Ministre de l’intérieur of 28 October 1975, [1975] ECR, p. 1219.
- 37.
Judgment 44/79 Hauer/Land Rheinland-Pfalz of 13 December 1979, [1979] ECR, p. 3727.
References
Craig P (2010) The Lisbon treaty, law, politics, and treaty reform. Oxford University Press, New York
De Búrca G et al (2012) The Worlds of European Constitutionalism. Cambridge University Press, New York
Douglas-Scott S (2006) A tale of two courts: Luxembourg, Strasbourg and the Growing European Human Rights Acquis. Common Market Law Rev 3:629–665
DRAFT Explanatory report to the agreement on the accession of the European Union to the convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, document CDDH-UE (2011) 16fin. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/hrpolicy/Accession/Working_documents/ CDDH-UE_2011_16_final_en.pdf. Accessed 29 Mar 2013
Frowein J (1988) Solange II, (BVerfGE 73, 339) Constitutional complaint Firma W. Common Market Law Rev 1:201–206
Hamulak O (2011) New fighter in the ring: the relationship between European Union Law and Constitutional Law of Member States from the perspective of the Czech Constitutional Court. J Eur Law 2:279–303
Jakab A (2006) Neutralizing the sovereignty question; compromise strategies in constitutional argumentations before European integration and since. Eur Constitut Law Rev 2:375–397
Klabbers J et al (2011) The constitutionalisation of international law. Oxford University Press, New York
Králová J (2011) Comments on the draft agreement on the accession of the European Union to the convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. CYIL 2:127–142
Lebeck C (2006) National constitutionalism, openness to international law and pragmatic limits of European Integration – European Law in the German Constitutional Court from the EEC to PJCC. German Law J 11:908–912
Lenaerts K (2010) The basic constitutional charter of a community based on the rule of law. In: Maduro MP, Azoulai L (eds) The past and future of EU law, the classics of EU law revisited on the 50th Anniversary of the Rome Treaty. Hart Publishing, Portland, pp 295–315
Lenaerts K, Van Nuffel P (2011) European Union Law, 3rd edn. Sweet and Maxwell, London
Mac Amhlaigh C (2011) The European Union’s Constitutional Mosaic: Big ‘C’ or Small ‘c’, Is that a Question? In: Walker N (ed) Europe’s Constitutional Mosaic. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 21–47
Maccormick N (1999) Questioning Sovereignty. Law, state, and nation in the European Commonwealth. Oxford University Press, New York
Maduro MP (1998) We the court. The European Court of Justice and the European Economic Constitution. A critical reading of Article 30 of the EC Treaty. Hart Publishing, Portland
Walker N (2003) Late Sovereignty in the European Union. In: Walker N (ed) Sovereignty in transition. Hart Publishing, Portland, pp 3–32
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hamuläk, O. (2014). Idolatry of Rights and Freedoms. In: Kerikmäe, T. (eds) Protecting Human Rights in the EU. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38902-3_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38902-3_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-38901-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-38902-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)