Human Rights in the EU Flashcards
General Overview
Art 6 TEU Union now recognise fundamental rights as part of EU law in the the Charter of Fundamental Rights of EU
Development of HR in EU - Initial Resistance
No fundamental rights up until Treaty of Lisbon. CoJ were resistant to an external check, but there has been adjustment. Costa - Economic German actors challenged EU claiming that it breached fundamental rights withheld in the German Constitution, refused on grounds that EU law is supreme and checking it against HR law would undermine it.
Community Law does not contain (as it stood) any vested guarantee in rights - Geitling v High Authority
Evident from this that something had to give, either national law or EU law develop
Stauder
Hallstein like many were worried that Human Rights laws could be overridden by EU law, which was addressed in this case. Stated fundamental human rights are contained within Community Law, yet this meant they could undermine it, therefore it needed to become more robust.
Internationale Handelsgesellschaft
The rights inspired the common community law between member states, but it must be protected
Nold v Commission
Court must look at constitutional traditions common to Member States, and therefore cannot uphold measures which go against this. International treaties relating to fundamental rights can also be looked at in order to find out wether there has been an infringement.
ECHR relationship
ECHR is the main source of which fundamental freedoms are protected, but it is not part of EU law. They will accede to it but have yet to find a way
R v Kent Kirk- Ban couldn’t be imposed as against Art 7 of retrospective crimes
Constitutional Traditions common to MS
More difficult as may differ between states, do not need to worry in terms of Convention.
Hauer v Land Rheinland Pfalz - Prohibit planting new vines. Originally framed question in terms of German Basic Law, CoJ reframed it in terms of Community Law, found no breach, even said in terms of constitution 9 other MS
Methodology? Are all constitutions equal? No real guidelines to this. Need not show highest standard applicable of MS (Mannesmannröhren-Werke) Nor if it is in all MS, or majority (AM & S Europe Ltd v Commission)
Avoid sensitive matters - P D and Sweden v Council - Relation to same-sex marriage difference in different MS
Scope of HR in terms of MS
MS are held to EU HR standards when applying EU law and when acting within scope of EU.
Wachauf - Milk quota implementation, MS required to respect fundamental rights thus should provide compensation when farmer lost lease due to quota, even though EC regulation did not provide for this (ECHR right of property does)
NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department - Recognition of what is legal in other states, Greek nationals did not want to be deported as would suffer degrading treatment. Has some discretion to investigate claims which then fell within EU so apply ECHR, UK couldn’t deport them. Carpenter similar case
This shows the court has developed but
Kadi - Freeze assets of suspected terrorists, CoJ annulled regulation as it infringed on right of property and right of effective legal remedy. Conflict between international and EU law ‘EC Treaty is an autonomous legal system which is not prejudiced by an international agreement’
Criticism of CoJ in interpreting ECHR
Appears more sympathetic to internal market rather than furthering fundamental rights. International Transport Workers’ Federation v Viking Line ABP conflict of employment rights, freedom of movement. Found that even fundamental rights can be held in scrutiny if restrict economic freedom
Relationship with ECHR
Lack of external scrutiny is an issue, bound by two masters EU and International law. Could potentially be breaching Convention when applying EU law (Matthews v UK) When this happens MS must choose which one to comply with, EU lacks scrutiny of specialised HR court.
Bosphorus v Ireland - Impounded aircraft due to UN Sanctions, argued it was against ECHR. May be liable to international organisations which they have transferred power, and if they have a system of HR comparable with ECHR then it is deemed not to be in breach, this applied here.
Accession to ECHR
1979, and 1990 Commission implied they should accede to the Convention. But no competence to do so, even though Art 6(2) states it will, stated it is liable to change character of EU law and autonomy
Charter of Fundamental Rights
Closely followed ECHR, but was not meant to be legally binding but due to Treaty of Lisbon it is.
Content - 54 Articles, 7 Chapters (Dignity, Freedoms, Equality) Art 21 prohibits discrimination on grounds of sexuality and Art 9 doesn’t define marriage as between a man and a woman. It is more flexible than ECHR.
General Provisions - Art 51(1) Both institutions and MS must respect rights (2) Do not extend powers (3) If ECHR same thing, same meaning
Protocol 30 Opt Outs Art 1(1) Doesn’t extend right of CoJ to find national law inconsistent with Charter
Art 1(2) Must provide for rights themselves within national law
Art 2 - Only apply so far as rights are deemed to apply
