Human rights in Human rights in European CourtsEuropean Courts

Barbara HavelkovBarbara Havelkováá

Dubrovnik 2010Dubrovnik 2010

ContentContent

Human rights before European Courts Human rights before European Courts Human rights before the CJ EUHuman rights before the CJ EU Relationship between CJ EU and ECtHRRelationship between CJ EU and ECtHR

Human rights before more courts? Human rights before more courts? Regional-EU (Regional-EU (BosphorusBosphorus)) National-international (National-international (Solange I and IISolange I and II)) EU-international (EU-international (KadiKadi))

Court of JusticeCourt of Justice

How do human rights cases arise (who How do human rights cases arise (who can be in breach)?can be in breach)?

Challenges to EU actionChallenges to EU action Challenges to MSs actionChallenges to MSs action

Challenges to EU actionChallenges to EU action

Legislation (Legislation (Nold, Bosphorus Nold, Bosphorus – mostly – mostly unsuccessful; but unsuccessful; but KadiKadi))

Administrative actsAdministrative acts Institutions as an employerInstitutions as an employer Commission as competition authority Commission as competition authority

((HoechstHoechst))

Challenges to MSs actionChallenges to MSs action

Implementation or enforcement of EU law Implementation or enforcement of EU law (MSs as agents) (MSs as agents) Regulation (Regulation (WachaufWachauf)) Directive (Directive (LindqvistLindqvist))

Action within the scope of EU law (Action within the scope of EU law (ERT, ERT, Familiapress, CarpenterFamiliapress, Carpenter) ) It’s not ever expanding - there were rulings It’s not ever expanding - there were rulings

that issues fell outside the scope (that issues fell outside the scope (Kremzow, Kremzow, VajnaiVajnai))

Court of Justice 2Court of Justice 2

As what can they serve?As what can they serve? Standard of review of EU or MSs action (Standard of review of EU or MSs action (Kadi, Kadi,

Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, ERTInternationale Handelsgesellschaft, ERT)) Justification of action otherwise in breach of Justification of action otherwise in breach of

freedoms of movement (freedoms of movement (Schmidberger, Schmidberger, OmegaOmega))

Basis – interpretive guidance and beyond Basis – interpretive guidance and beyond ((Johnston, MangoldJohnston, Mangold))

Competence?Competence?• Opinion 2/94; Charter Art. 51(2)Opinion 2/94; Charter Art. 51(2)

LisbonLisbon

Art. 51: “The provision of this Charter are Art. 51: “The provision of this Charter are addressed… to the MSs only when addressed… to the MSs only when implementing Union law”implementing Union law”

Does that mean drafters wanted to limit to Does that mean drafters wanted to limit to scope of review?scope of review?

Would you?Would you? Explanatory memorandumExplanatory memorandum

EU – Council of EuropeEU – Council of Europe

AccessionAccession Opinion 2/94Opinion 2/94 Lisbon – Art. 6(2) TEULisbon – Art. 6(2) TEU

Why is it still desirable?Why is it still desirable? Bias toward market rightsBias toward market rights The CJ should concentrate on EU stuffThe CJ should concentrate on EU stuff The CJ is too deferential to MSsThe CJ is too deferential to MSs Possibility of conflict between the courtsPossibility of conflict between the courts Direct review of EU actsDirect review of EU acts

EU – Council of EuropeEU – Council of Europe

Can the ECtHR currently review EU’s acts?Can the ECtHR currently review EU’s acts? Respondent?Respondent?

Matthews, Emesa Sugar, Bosphorus Matthews, Emesa Sugar, Bosphorus (one MS)(one MS) Senator Lines Senator Lines (all MSs)(all MSs)

Types?Types? Room for implementation – single state (Room for implementation – single state (MatthewsMatthews)) No discretion (No discretion (BosphorusBosphorus)) An EU level act directly (An EU level act directly (Senator Lines, Emesa Senator Lines, Emesa

SugarSugar))

Strasbourg-LuxembourgStrasbourg-Luxembourg Possible jurisdictional overlaps?Possible jurisdictional overlaps? Sionaidh Douglas-Scott ‘A tale of Two Courts: Sionaidh Douglas-Scott ‘A tale of Two Courts:

Luxembourg, Strasbourg and the Growing European Luxembourg, Strasbourg and the Growing European Human Rights Acquis’ (2006) 43 CMLRev 629Human Rights Acquis’ (2006) 43 CMLRev 629

1.1. Strasbourg decides cases involving violations of the Strasbourg decides cases involving violations of the ECHR by Member States, in which there is no EU ECHR by Member States, in which there is no EU law component (no problem)law component (no problem)

2.2. The CJ decides cases involving breaches of human The CJ decides cases involving breaches of human rights by EU institutions (this might give an applicant rights by EU institutions (this might give an applicant a remedy they wouldn’t otherwise have – a remedy they wouldn’t otherwise have – KadiKadi))

3.3. The CJ decides cases involving breaches by The CJ decides cases involving breaches by Member States when implementing or within the Member States when implementing or within the scope EU law (overlap – scope EU law (overlap – ERTERT))

4.4. Strasbourg jurisdiction over actions involving the EU Strasbourg jurisdiction over actions involving the EU ((Matthews,Bosphorus,…Matthews,Bosphorus,…))

Strasbourg on LuxembourgStrasbourg on Luxembourg

RareRare Mainly deferential (discrimination in pensions, Mainly deferential (discrimination in pensions,

borrowing definitions of “public service”, borrowing definitions of “public service”, procedural)procedural)

Sometimes less soSometimes less so Sometimes it does not comment or avoids Sometimes it does not comment or avoids

decision (issue of business premises and the decision (issue of business premises and the right to privacy; the right to comment on AG’s right to privacy; the right to comment on AG’s opinion in opinion in Emesa SugarEmesa Sugar))

Luxembourg on StrasbourgLuxembourg on Strasbourg

Chronologically (first AGs then CJ)Chronologically (first AGs then CJ) Citations of ECHRCitations of ECHR Citations of ECtHR’s case law (FamiliaPress, Citations of ECtHR’s case law (FamiliaPress,

Carpenter, Akrich, Pupino)Carpenter, Akrich, Pupino) Mostly to the benefit of the applicantMostly to the benefit of the applicant Deference; following rather than just referingDeference; following rather than just refering

Sometimes after adjustments – business premises; Sometimes after adjustments – business premises; self-incriminationself-incrimination

• CJ CJ Hoechst and OrkemHoechst and Orkem• ECtHR ECtHR Niemietz and FunkeNiemietz and Funke• CJ CJ Roquette FrereRoquette Frere

ConclusionsConclusions

Transnational judicial dialogue about human Transnational judicial dialogue about human rightsrights

““Inchoate borrowings” (lack of comparative law Inchoate borrowings” (lack of comparative law methodology; lack of doctrine of the status of methodology; lack of doctrine of the status of ECtHR case-law before the CJEU)ECtHR case-law before the CJEU)

Do we want a final arbiter?Do we want a final arbiter? An example of legal pluralism An example of legal pluralism

• Contemplation - collective deliberation produces better Contemplation - collective deliberation produces better solutions than single solutions than single

• Rawlsian "overlapping consensus" Rawlsian "overlapping consensus" But possible inefficient for individualsBut possible inefficient for individuals

ECtHR – CJ EUECtHR – CJ EU

Bosphorus caseBosphorus case Predecessors (Predecessors (M & Co v. Germany, M & Co v. Germany,

MatthewsMatthews)) The ECtHR develops a doctrine of The ECtHR develops a doctrine of

‘presumption of compliance’‘presumption of compliance’

BosphorusBosphorus

155.  In the Court's view, State action taken in compliance 155.  In the Court's view, State action taken in compliance with such legal obligations is justified as long as the with such legal obligations is justified as long as the relevant organisation is relevant organisation is considered to protect considered to protect fundamental rightsfundamental rights, as regards both the , as regards both the substantive substantive guarantees guarantees offered and the offered and the mechanisms mechanisms controlling their controlling their observance, in a manner which can be considered at observance, in a manner which can be considered at least equivalent to that for which the Convention least equivalent to that for which the Convention provides (…). By “equivalent” the Court means provides (…). By “equivalent” the Court means ““comparablecomparable”; any requirement that the organisation's ”; any requirement that the organisation's protection be “identical” could run counterprotection be “identical” could run counter toto the interest the interest of international cooperation pursued (…). However, any of international cooperation pursued (…). However, any such finding of equivalence such finding of equivalence could not be final could not be final and would and would be susceptible to review in the light of any relevant be susceptible to review in the light of any relevant change in fundamental rights protection.change in fundamental rights protection.

Bosporus 2Bosporus 2

156.  If such equivalent protection 156.  If such equivalent protection is considered is considered to be to be provided by the organisation, the provided by the organisation, the presumption presumption will be will be that a State has not departed from the requirements of that a State has not departed from the requirements of the Convention when it does no more than implement the Convention when it does no more than implement legal obligations flowing from its membership of the legal obligations flowing from its membership of the organisation.organisation.

However, any such presumption can be However, any such presumption can be rebuttedrebutted if, in the if, in the circumstances of circumstances of a particular casea particular case, it is considered that , it is considered that the protection of Convention rights was the protection of Convention rights was manifestly manifestly deficientdeficient. In such cases, the interest of international . In such cases, the interest of international cooperation would be outweighed by the Convention's cooperation would be outweighed by the Convention's role as a “constitutional instrument of European public role as a “constitutional instrument of European public order” in the field of human rights (…)order” in the field of human rights (…)..

BVerfGE - CJEUBVerfGE - CJEU

1974 1974 Solange I. Solange I. (as long as…)(as long as…) 1979 1979 Vielleicht-BeschlussVielleicht-Beschluss (“The may-be (“The may-be

decision)decision) 1986 1986 Solange II. Solange II. (180 degree turn)(180 degree turn) 1993 1993 Maastricht Maastricht (clarification)(clarification) 1994 1994 Bananas Bananas (only application)(only application) 20052005 Arrest Warrant Arrest Warrant (did not turn on (did not turn on

fundamental rights review)fundamental rights review) 2009 Lisbon 2009 Lisbon (did not turn on fundamental rights (did not turn on fundamental rights

review)review)

Solange I.Solange I.

The BVerfGE retains control The BVerfGE retains control solange der Integrationsprozess der solange der Integrationsprozess der

Gemeinschaft nicht so weit fortgeschritten Gemeinschaft nicht so weit fortgeschritten ist, dass das Gemeinschaftsrecht auch ist, dass das Gemeinschaftsrecht auch einen von einem Parlament einen von einem Parlament beschlossenen und in Geltung stehenden beschlossenen und in Geltung stehenden Katalog von Grundrechten Katalog von Grundrechten enthält, der enthält, der dem Grundrechtskatalog der deutschen dem Grundrechtskatalog der deutschen Verfassung Verfassung bis ins Detail adäquat bis ins Detail adäquat ist“.ist“.

Solange II.Solange II.

Solange die EG, insbesondere die Rechtsprechung des Solange die EG, insbesondere die Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs der Gemeinschaften, einen Gerichtshofs der Gemeinschaften, einen wirksamen wirksamen Schutz der Grundrechte Schutz der Grundrechte gegenüber der Hoheitsgewalt gegenüber der Hoheitsgewalt der Gemeinschaften der Gemeinschaften generell generell gewährleisten, der dem gewährleisten, der dem vom Grundgesetz als unabdingbar gebotenen vom Grundgesetz als unabdingbar gebotenen Grundrechtsschutz Grundrechtsschutz im wesentlichen gleichzuachten im wesentlichen gleichzuachten ist, ist, zumal den zumal den Wesensgehalt der Grundrechte generell Wesensgehalt der Grundrechte generell verbürgtverbürgt, wird das Bundesverfassungsgericht seine , wird das Bundesverfassungsgericht seine Gerichtsbarkeit über die Anwendbarkeit von Gerichtsbarkeit über die Anwendbarkeit von abgeleitetem Gemeinschaftsrecht, das als abgeleitetem Gemeinschaftsrecht, das als Rechtsgrundlage für ein Verhalten deutscher Gerichte Rechtsgrundlage für ein Verhalten deutscher Gerichte oder Behörden [...] in Anspruch genommen wird, oder Behörden [...] in Anspruch genommen wird, nicht nicht mehr ausübenmehr ausüben und dieses Recht mithin nicht mehr am und dieses Recht mithin nicht mehr am Maßstab der Grundrechte des Grundgesetzes Maßstab der Grundrechte des Grundgesetzes überprüfen.überprüfen.

MaastrichtMaastricht

[D]as Bundesverfassungsgericht [übt] seine [D]as Bundesverfassungsgericht [übt] seine Rechtsprechung über die Anwendbarkeit von Rechtsprechung über die Anwendbarkeit von abgeleitetem Gemeinschaftsrecht in abgeleitetem Gemeinschaftsrecht in Deutschland in einem Kooperationsverhältnis Deutschland in einem Kooperationsverhältnis zum EuGH aus, zum EuGH aus, indem der Europäische indem der Europäische Gerichtshof den Grundrechtschutz in jedem Gerichtshof den Grundrechtschutz in jedem Einzelfall für das gesamte Gebiet der Einzelfall für das gesamte Gebiet der Europäischen Gemeinschaft garantiert, das Europäischen Gemeinschaft garantiert, das Bundesverfassungsgericht sich deshalb auf eine Bundesverfassungsgericht sich deshalb auf eine generelle Gewährleistung der unabdingbaren generelle Gewährleistung der unabdingbaren Grundrechtsstandards beschränken kann.Grundrechtsstandards beschränken kann.

BananenmarktverordnungentscheidBananenmarktverordnungentscheidung ung

Verfassungsbeschwerden und Vorlagen von Gerichten, die Verfassungsbeschwerden und Vorlagen von Gerichten, die eine Verletzung von Grundrechten des Grundgesetzes eine Verletzung von Grundrechten des Grundgesetzes durch sekundäres Gemeinschaftsrecht geltend machen, durch sekundäres Gemeinschaftsrecht geltend machen, sind von vornherein sind von vornherein unzulässig, wenn ihre Begründung unzulässig, wenn ihre Begründung nicht darlegtnicht darlegt, dass die europäische Rechtsentwicklung , dass die europäische Rechtsentwicklung einschließlich der Rechtsprechung des EuGH nach einschließlich der Rechtsprechung des EuGH nach Ergehen der Solange II-Entscheidung [...] Ergehen der Solange II-Entscheidung [...] unter den unter den erforderlichen Grundrechtsstandard abgesunken sei. erforderlichen Grundrechtsstandard abgesunken sei. Deshalb muss die Begründung der Vorlage oder einer Deshalb muss die Begründung der Vorlage oder einer Verfassungsbeschwerde im Einzelnen darlegen, dass Verfassungsbeschwerde im Einzelnen darlegen, dass der jeweils als unabdingbar gebotene der jeweils als unabdingbar gebotene Grundrechtsschutz Grundrechtsschutz generell nicht gewährleistet istgenerell nicht gewährleistet ist..

Control and trustControl and trust

What are the important issues in these judgments?What are the important issues in these judgments? Finding of deficiency (Finding of deficiency (Solange I.Solange I.)) Presumption – when does control kick in?Presumption – when does control kick in?

• Bosphorus – presumption of equivalent protection exists; it can be Bosphorus – presumption of equivalent protection exists; it can be rebutted in an individual case BUT a manifest deficiency is requiredrebutted in an individual case BUT a manifest deficiency is required

• BVerfGE – presumption of equivalence – “essential content” and BVerfGE – presumption of equivalence – “essential content” and “equal regard”; but can be rebutted by proof that the general level “equal regard”; but can be rebutted by proof that the general level sank below required standard (indispensable level)sank below required standard (indispensable level)

Individual protection vs. general protectionIndividual protection vs. general protection Seriousness of deficiency Seriousness of deficiency Required level (floor?)Required level (floor?) Increase in burden of proof for claimantsIncrease in burden of proof for claimants Requirement of substantive guarantee as well as enforcement Requirement of substantive guarantee as well as enforcement

mechanismmechanism Temporariness of any presumptionTemporariness of any presumption

Control and trust 2Control and trust 2

Direct review or indirect reviewDirect review or indirect review EU acts directly (EU acts directly (BananasBananas)) As implemented by a member state As implemented by a member state

((BosphorusBosphorus))

Three main questionsThree main questions

Forum (Who decides?)Forum (Who decides?) Standard (Against whose and what Standard (Against whose and what

standard?)standard?) Object (What do you review anyway?)Object (What do you review anyway?)

KadiKadi

Similar in that it concerns the relationship Similar in that it concerns the relationship between two legal orders (their relationship and between two legal orders (their relationship and hierarchy), questions of forum, standard and hierarchy), questions of forum, standard and object of inquiryobject of inquiry

Different in that there was no judicial structure Different in that there was no judicial structure available for the case (while all the above cases available for the case (while all the above cases had a supremacy/competence element; here it had a supremacy/competence element; here it comes to the fore, as an institutional counterpart comes to the fore, as an institutional counterpart in international law is missing)in international law is missing)

Kadi - General Court (CFI)Kadi - General Court (CFI)

EC had no autonomous discretion in implementing the EC had no autonomous discretion in implementing the UN SC ResolutionUN SC Resolution

A review of EC measure implementing SC Resolution A review of EC measure implementing SC Resolution would amount to its indirect review and is in principle would amount to its indirect review and is in principle precludedprecluded

Exception is a review of alleged breaches of Exception is a review of alleged breaches of ius cogens ius cogens of the UN SC Resolution (international standard)of the UN SC Resolution (international standard)

It accepts the gap in judicial protectionIt accepts the gap in judicial protection It reviewed It reviewed inhuman or degrading treatment, property inhuman or degrading treatment, property

rights and due process and found no breachrights and due process and found no breach It accepts the supremacy (primacy) of international law It accepts the supremacy (primacy) of international law

over EU lawover EU law

Kadi’s appeal argumenationKadi’s appeal argumenation

So long as the United Nations do not provide a So long as the United Nations do not provide a mechanism of independent judicial review that mechanism of independent judicial review that guarantees compliance with fundamental rights guarantees compliance with fundamental rights of decisions taken by the Security Council and of decisions taken by the Security Council and the Sanctions Committee, the Community the Sanctions Committee, the Community Courts should review measures adopted by the Courts should review measures adopted by the Community institutions with a view to Community institutions with a view to implementing those decisions for their implementing those decisions for their conformity with fundamental rights as conformity with fundamental rights as recognised in the Community legal order (citing recognised in the Community legal order (citing Bosphorus)Bosphorus)

(as summarised by AG Maduro)(as summarised by AG Maduro)

Kadi - AGKadi - AG

Concentrates on the regulation only Concentrates on the regulation only EC is an autonomous legal orderEC is an autonomous legal order ““in the final analysis, the Community Courts determine in the final analysis, the Community Courts determine

the effect of international obligations within the the effect of international obligations within the Community legal order by reference to conditions set by Community legal order by reference to conditions set by Community law”Community law”

The Court The Court “seeks, first and foremost, to preserve the “seeks, first and foremost, to preserve the constitutional framework created by the Treaty”constitutional framework created by the Treaty”

““Is there any basis in the Treaty for holding that the Is there any basis in the Treaty for holding that the contested regulation is exempt from the constitutional contested regulation is exempt from the constitutional constraints normally imposed by Community law, since it constraints normally imposed by Community law, since it implements a sanctions regime imposed by Security implements a sanctions regime imposed by Security Council resolutions?” Council resolutions?” NONO

Kadi – AG 2Kadi – AG 2

What should the intensity of review be What should the intensity of review be (standard)?(standard)? UK – “less stringent criteria”UK – “less stringent criteria” Maduro – disagrees (highlights the security Maduro – disagrees (highlights the security

vs. liberty debate; and the political vs. legal vs. liberty debate; and the political vs. legal debate)debate)

Suggests the CJ find a breach of the right Suggests the CJ find a breach of the right to be heard, the right to judicial review, to be heard, the right to judicial review, and the right to propertyand the right to property

Kadi - CJEUKadi - CJEU Direct review is impossibleDirect review is impossible Full indirect review:Full indirect review:[T]he Community is based on the rule of law, inasmuch as [T]he Community is based on the rule of law, inasmuch as

neither its Member States nor its institutions can avoid neither its Member States nor its institutions can avoid review of the conformity review of the conformity of their acts of their acts with the basic with the basic constitutional charter, the EC Treatyconstitutional charter, the EC Treaty, which established a , which established a complete system of legal remedies and procedures complete system of legal remedies and procedures designed to enable the Court of Justice to review the designed to enable the Court of Justice to review the legality of acts of the institutions . . . . It is also to be legality of acts of the institutions . . . . It is also to be recalled that an international agreement cannot affect recalled that an international agreement cannot affect the allocation of powers fixed by the Treaties or, the allocation of powers fixed by the Treaties or, consequently, the autonomy of the Community legal consequently, the autonomy of the Community legal system, observance of which is ensured by the Court by system, observance of which is ensured by the Court by virtue of the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on it by virtue of the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on it by Article 220 EC, jurisdiction that the Court has, moreover, Article 220 EC, jurisdiction that the Court has, moreover, already held to form part of the very foundations of the already held to form part of the very foundations of the Community…Community…

Kadi – CJEU 2Kadi – CJEU 2 Criticizes the “immunity from jurisdiction” a lack of EU Criticizes the “immunity from jurisdiction” a lack of EU

level review would causelevel review would cause326    It follows from the foregoing that the Community 326    It follows from the foregoing that the Community

judicature must, in accordance with the powers judicature must, in accordance with the powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty, ensure the review, in conferred on it by the EC Treaty, ensure the review, in principle the full review, of the lawfulness of all principle the full review, of the lawfulness of all Community acts in the light of the fundamental rights Community acts in the light of the fundamental rights forming an integral part of the general principles of forming an integral part of the general principles of Community law, including review of Community Community law, including review of Community measures which, like the contested regulation, are measures which, like the contested regulation, are designed to give effect to the resolutions adopted by the designed to give effect to the resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.United Nations.

Follows Maduro in result as well as reasoningFollows Maduro in result as well as reasoning

Three questionsThree questions

Forum (Who decides?) Forum (Who decides?) CFI - it considered its jurisdiction structurally impossible and CFI - it considered its jurisdiction structurally impossible and

considered lack of alternative unproblematicconsidered lack of alternative unproblematic AG & CJEU – EU level jurisdiction BUT only for EU level actsAG & CJEU – EU level jurisdiction BUT only for EU level acts

Standard (Against whose and what standard?)Standard (Against whose and what standard?) CFI – the standard should be international ius cogensCFI – the standard should be international ius cogens AG & CJEU – the standard is EU fundamental rights in full AG & CJEU – the standard is EU fundamental rights in full

intensityintensity Object (What do you review anyway?)Object (What do you review anyway?)

CFI – the Security Council resolutionCFI – the Security Council resolution AG & CJEU – only Community measuresAG & CJEU – only Community measures

Parallels between Bosphorus, Parallels between Bosphorus, Solange and Kadi?Solange and Kadi?

Yes, BUT the Kadi model is not based on Yes, BUT the Kadi model is not based on “presumptions”, because there is no “presumptions”, because there is no judicial protection to speak of at judicial protection to speak of at international level, it’s more a question of international level, it’s more a question of relationship between legal orders than of relationship between legal orders than of levels of protection guaranteed by courtslevels of protection guaranteed by courts