Abstract
This Chapter explores the many innovations introduced by the Lisbon Treaty in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (hereafter AFSJ) in order to assess the potential of Art. 6 TEU, insofar as it grants the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights a binding force. After considering the scope of the relevant new provisions, the author reviews the criticalities emerging in three particularly sensitive areas: due process, judicial review and data protection. The significant changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty concerning the nature of the Charter, the abolition of the pillar structure and the application of the ordinary legislative procedure, are believed to have a highly positive impact on the external dimension of the AFSJ. However, a number of factors are likely to compromise the Union’s ability to act consistently and to speak with one voice on the international scene. Some recommendations are formulated in order to address the problems resulting therefrom.
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.
In some areas of criminal law and policing a special legislative procedure will be enforced. See Art. 86 of the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) concerning the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office; see Art. 87 TFEU concerning the operational cooperation between competent authorities, including police, customs and other specialised law enforcement services in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of criminal offences.
- 2.
Protocol No 19.
- 3.
See R. Baratta, ‘Le principali novità del Trattato di Lisbona’, (2008) Il Diritto dell’Unione europea 69. See Protocol No 21.
- 4.
Protocol No 36, Art. 10.
- 5.
Protocol No 36, Art. 10(4).
- 6.
Protocol No 36, Art. 10(5).
- 7.
This variable geometry does not only characterize the Area of Freedom Security and Justice policy but also the rights because the Protocol No 30 on the application of the Charter of fundamental rights in the EU to the United Kingdom and to Poland provided specific derogations concerning in particular the social rights. On the scope of Protocol No 30, see in this volume G. Di Federico, Chapter 2.
- 8.
Protocol No 22, Art. 2.
- 9.
Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Austria.
- 10.
Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Slovenia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Estonia.
- 11.
Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping uo of cross-border cooperation, particularry terrorism and cross-border crime, [2008] OJ L 210/1; Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of the Decision 2008/615/JHA, [2008] OJ L 210/12.
- 12.
E. Baker, C. Harding, ‘From past imperfect to future perfect? A longitudinal study of the Third Pillar’, (2009) 34 European Law Review 47.
- 13.
C. Ladenburger, ‘Police and criminal law in the Treaty of Lisbon. A new dimension for the community method’, (2008) 4 European Constitutional Law Review 21.
- 14.
Case C-105/03 Pupino [2005] ECR I-5285.
- 15.
According to a consolidated case law, the principle of consistent interpretation is based on the binding character of directives, provided by Art. 249 TEC, and on the principle of loyal cooperation between the Member States and the Community, provided by Art. 10 TEC. See Case C-106/89 Marleasing [1990] ECR I-4135; Case C-334/92 Wagner Miret [1993] ECR I-6911, Case C-91/92 Faccini Dori [1994] ECR I-3325.
- 16.
Case C-105/03 Pupino, n. 14 above, para 42.
- 17.
For further developments of the Pupino precedent, see Case C-467/05 Giovanni Dell’Orto [2007] ECR I-5557.
- 18.
Case C-355/04 P Segi [2007] ECR I-1657.
- 19.
Declaration concerning privacy No 17.
- 20.
Opinion of the Council Legal Service of 22 June 2007, 1197/07 attached to the Declaration concerning privacy.
- 21.
Case 6/64 Costa v. ENEL [1964] ECR 585.
- 22.
Case C-314/08 Filipiak [2009] nyr.
- 23.
German Constitutional Court, Bundesverfassungsgericht, judgment 18 July 2005, 2 BvR 2236/04, in http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20050718-2bvr223604.html; Poland Constitutional Court, Trybunal Konstytucyjny, judgment 27 April 2005, No P 1/05, in http://www.trybunal.gov.pl/eng/summaries/documents/P-1-05-GB.pdf; Cypriot Constitutional Court, judgment 7 November 2005, No 294/2005; Belgian Constitutional Court, Cour d’Arbitrage belge, judgment 13 July 2005, No 124/2005, in www.arbitrage.be; Czech Constitutional Court, judgment 8 May 2006, in http://test.concourt.cz/angl-verze/doc/pl-66-04.html
- 24.
German Constitutional Court, judgment 30 June 2009, No BvR 2 BvE 2/08 2 BvE 5/08 -2 BvR 1010/08 -2 BvR 1022/08 –2 BvR 1259/08 – 2 BvR 182/09, para 35. For an exhaustive analysis of this judgment, see M. Poiares Maduro, G. Grasso, ‘Quale Europa dopo la sentenza della Corte costituzionale tedesca sul Trattato di Lisbona’, (2009) Il Diritto dell’Unione europea 503.
- 25.
Cf. German Constitutional Court, judgment 29 May 1974, No BvR 52/71 (Solange I); German Constitutional Court, judgment 22 October 1986, No 2 BvR 197/83 (Solange II). See also German Constitutional Court, judgment 12 October 1993, No 2 BvR 134/92 (Maastricht) and German Constitutional Court, judgment 7 June 2000, No 2 BvR 1/97 (Banenmarktordnung).
- 26.
German Constitutional Court, judgment 30 June 2009, n. 24 above, para 331.
- 27.
Ibid., para 332.
- 28.
V. Bazzocchi, ‘Il Mandato d’arresto europeo e le corti supreme nazionali’, (2007) Il Diritto dell’Unione europea 663.
- 29.
According to certain authors higher courts could (i.e. were not under an obbligation) request a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice (H. Labayle, ‘Un espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice’, (1997) Revue trimestrielle de Droit européen 863, P. Wachsmann, ‘Les droits de l’homme’, (1997) Revue trimestrielle de Droit européen 890; K. Leanaerts,, E. De Smijter, ‘Le Traité d’Amsterdam’, (1998) J. Trib. Droit européen 30 and B. Nascimbene, ‘L’incorporazione degli Accordi di Schengen nel quadro dell’Unione europea e il futuro ruolo del Comitato parlamentare di controllo’, (1999) Rivista Italiana di Diritto Pubblico Comunitario 738). Other commentators opine that higher national judges were required to submit a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice (L.S. Rossi, ‘Verso una parziale “comunitarizzazione” del terzo pilastro’, (1997) Il Diritto dell’Unione euopea 249; C. Curti Gialdino, ‘Schengen et le troisième pilier: le contrôle juridictionel organisé par le traité d’Amsterdam’, (1998) Revue du Marché de l’Union européenne 105 and H. Bribosia, ‘Liberté, sécurité et justice: l’imbroglio d’un nouvel espace’, (1998) Revue du Marché de l’Union européenne 34.
- 30.
Art. 10 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions. It is provided that, as a transitional measure, the powers of the Court of Justice are to remain the same with respect to acts in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters which have been adopted before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. This transitional measure is to cease to have effect 5 years after the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.
- 31.
E. Baker, C. Harding, n. 12 above, at 40.
- 32.
See the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures, Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002, [2002] OJ L 190/1, that has replaced the extradition procedures; see the European Evidence Warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters, Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA of 18 December 2008, [2008] OJ L 350/72. See also Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence; Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings, [2008] OJ L 220/32; Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgements in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, [2008] OJ L 327/27; Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions, [2008] OJ L 337/102.
- 33.
According to E. Baker, C. Harding, “in a context where the Union’s legal regime to protect fundamental rights is widely regarded as inadequate, its deficiencies with respect to the Third Pillar are particularly acute”, n. 12 above, at 45.
- 34.
Among these acts the most important is the European Arrest Warrant.
- 35.
European Commission, Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on certain Procedural Rights in Criminal Proceedings throughout the European Union, COM(2004)328, 24 April 2004. The five rights mentioned in the proposal of Framework Decision were: right to legal advice, right to interpretation and translation for non-native defendants, right to specific attention for persons who cannot understand or follow the proceedings, right to communication and/or consular assistance, the way in which the suspect/defendant is notified of his rights.
- 36.
There are the same fears that accompanied the elaboration and adoption of the Charter.
- 37.
Resolution of the Council of 30 November 2009 on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings,[2009] OJ C 295/1. The measures included into the roadmap are: translation and interpretation, information in Rights and Information about the Charges, Legal Advice and Legal Aid, Communication with Relatives Employers and Consular Authorities, Special Safeguards for Suspected or Accused Persons who are Vulnerable, and finally a Green Paper on Pre-Trial Detention.
- 38.
Art. 61 TFEU.
- 39.
C. Ladenburger, ‘Police and criminal law in the Treaty of Lisbon. A new dimension for the community method’, n. 13 above, at 35.
- 40.
C. Sotis, ‘Il Trattato di Lisbona e le competenze penali dell’Unione europea’, (2009) La Magistratura 27.
- 41.
Case C-105/03 Pupino, n. 14 above, para 35.
- 42.
Case C-355/04 P Segi, n. 18 above, para 51.
- 43.
Case T-253/02 Ayadi [2006] ECR II-2139.
- 44.
Joined cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat [2008] ECR I-6351.
- 45.
See further in this volume L. Paladini, Chapter 14.
- 46.
On the external supervision carried out by the Strasbourg Court upon accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, see in this volume G. Di Federico, ‘Chapter 2’. It is important to note that some limitations continue to characterise the right to an effective remedy within the EU judicial system, due to the restrictions resulting from Art. 263 (4) TFEU.
- 47.
Joined cases C-317/04 and C-318/04 European Parliament v. Council and Commission [2006] ECR I-4721.
- 48.
The different understanding of data protection and privacy further complicate the issue, since the US approach to privacy protection relies on industry-specific legislation, regulation and self-regulation, whereas the European Union relies on a comprehensive privacy legislation. In particular, the judicial system of the United States does not provide effective remedy because it only provides for administrative redress.
- 49.
Case C-301/06 Ireland v. Parliament and Council [2009] ECR I-593.
- 50.
Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, [2006] OJ L 105/54.
- 51.
European Convention of Fundamental Rights, European Convention No 108/1981 for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data.
- 52.
Agreement between the EU and the USA on PNR, Agreement between the EU and the USA on SWIFT; Agreement between the EC and Australia on PNR, Agreement between the EC and Canada on PNR; Agreement between Europol and third countries (Europol-USA, Canada, Iceland, Switzerland), and Treaty of Prüm.
- 53.
Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the protection of personal data and on the movement of such data, [2005] OJ L 281/31; Directive 97/66/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunication sector, [1998] OJ L 24/1; Directive 2002/58/EC on privacy and electronic communications, [2002] OJ L 201/37.
- 54.
Eurodac, Schengen Information System (SIS), System of Information of Europol, System of Information of Eurojust Visa Information System (VIS).
- 55.
According to the Communication of the Commission, COM (2005)597, interoperability is the ability of IT systems and of the business processes they support to exchange data and to enable the sharing of information and knowledge.
- 56.
V. Mitsilegas, ‘The third wave of Third Pillar law. Which direction for EU criminal justice?’, (2009) 34 European Law Review 557.
- 57.
An example is Council Decision 2008/633/JHA concerning access for consultation of the VIS by designated national authorities and Europol for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorism and other serious criminal offences.
- 58.
For many years this convention represented the text of reference for EU instruments in the Third Pillar, providing the minimum standard of data protection.
- 59.
P. Pawlak, ‘Made in the USA? The influence of the US on the EU‘s data protection regime’, accessible at http://www.ceps.be. The author affirms that “while the EU is convinced of the supremacy of ist data protection system, many aspects oft he US approach to data protection could be beneficial to EU citizens”, at 21.
- 60.
Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, [2008] OJ L 350/60.
- 61.
The European Data Protection Supervisor adopted three opinions in 2005, 2006, 2007.
- 62.
Art. 16 TFEU states: “everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning them”.
- 63.
H. Hijmans, A. Scirocco, ‘Shortcoming in EU data protection in the third and second pillars: Can the Lisbon Treaty be expected to help?’, (2009) 46 Common Market Law Review 1485, at 1517.
- 64.
Case T-49/04, Hassan [2006] ECR II-52.
- 65.
Case C-266/05 P Sison [2007] ECR I-1233; Case T-284/08, Organisation des Modjahedines du people d’Iran [2008] ECR II-3487; H. Hijmans, A. Scirocco, ‘Shortcoming in EU data protection in the third and second pillars: Can the Lisbon Treaty be expected to help?’, n. 63 above, 1509.
- 66.
Art. 29 TEU (Nice Treaty) stated that: “Without prejudice to the powers of the European Community, the Union’s objective shall be to provide citizens with a high level of safety within an area of freedom, security and justice by developing common action among the Member States in the fields of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and by preventing and combating racism and xenophobia”.
- 67.
Council Framework Decision on combating terrorrism, 13 June 2002, 2002/475/JHA, [2002] OJ L 164/3.
- 68.
A. Weyembergh, V. Santamaria, ‘Lutte contre le torrorisme et droits fondamentaux dans le cadre du trosième pilier. La décision-cadre du 13 juin 2002 relative à la lutte contre le terrorisme et le principe de la légalité’, in J. Rideau, (ed.), Les droits fondamentaux dans l’Union européenne. Dans le village de la Constitution européenne (Bruylant, 2009) 200; see M.L. Cesoni, ‘La mise en œuvre ne droit européen des dispositions internationals de lutte contre le terrorisme’, (2004) Revue Générale de Droit Public International 475.
- 69.
Case C-303/05 Advocaten voor de Wereld [ 2007] ECR I-03633.
- 70.
On the criminal competences of the EU, see C. Sotis, ‘Il Trattato di Lisbona e le competenze penali dell’Unione europea’, n. 40 above, at 20.
- 71.
See also L. Ficchi, ‘EU Member States and candidate countries facing a binding Charter of Fundamental Rights: What’s new?’.
- 72.
According to Art.s 82(3) and 83(3) TFEU, where a member of the Council “considers that a draft directive (…) would affect fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system, it may request that the draft directive be referred to the European Council. In that case, the ordinary legislative procedure shall be suspended. After discussion, and in case of a consensus, the European Council shall, within 4 months of this suspension, refer the draft back to the Council, which shall terminate the suspension of the ordinary legislative procedure”.
- 73.
See Art. 82(3), 83(3) and 87(3) TFEU.
- 74.
S. Carrera, F. Geyer, ‘The Reform Treaty and Justice and Home Affairs: Implications for the Common Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’, in E. Guild, F. Geyer, (eds.), Security versus Justice? Police and Judicial Cooperationin the European Union (Ashgate, 2008) 303.
- 75.
L.S. Rossi, ‘How fundamental are fundamental principles?’, in G. Venturini, S. Bariatti (eds.), Individual rights and international justice – Liber Fausto Pocar (Giuffré, 2009) 801.
- 76.
European Parliament, resolution 25 November 2009 on Multi-annual programme 2010–2014 regarding the area of freedom, security and justice (Stockholm programme), P7_TA-PROV(2009)0090.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bazzocchi, V. (2011). The European Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. In: Giacomo, D. (eds) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0156-4_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0156-4_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-0155-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-0156-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)