Activities of Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO related to 2009/2241(INI)
Plenary speeches (2)
Institutional aspects of accession by the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in Kampala, Uganda (debate)
Institutional aspects of accession by the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in Kampala, Uganda (debate)
Amendments (9)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas, in case law which has remained consistent since the 1970sjudgments in Case 11-70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH [1970] ECR and in Case 4-73 Nold [1974] ECR, the Court of Justice has held that fundamental rights form an integral part of the general legal principles which the Court enforces,
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas, in an opinion of 28 March 1996, the Court of Justice found that the European Community did not have the capacity to accede to the ECHR without a previous amendment to the Treaty because the EU lacked legal personality,
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 1 (new)
Paragraph 1 – indent 1 (new)
– accession constitutes a move forward in the process of European integration and involves one further step towards political Union,
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Observes that the ECHR system has been supplemented by a series of additional protocols concerning the protection of rights which are not covered by the ECHR and suggests that the Union should accede to all the protocols which at least partially concern matters where the Union possesses powers (Nos 1, 4, 7 and 12)ssess and reach a decision on accession to the protocols on a case by case basis;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – indent 2
Paragraph 5 – indent 2
– the right to attend, via the European Commission, with voting rights, meetings of the Committee of Ministers when it performs its task of monitoring the execution of judgments given by the European Court of Human Rights or when it decides on the desirability of seeking an opinion from the Court and the right to be represented on the Steering Committee for Human Rights (a subsidiary body of the Committee of Ministers),
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that the Member States should not, with respect to one another and in their mutual relations with the Union, be entitled to bring interstate applications concerning an alleged failure of compliance pursuant to Article 33 of the ECHR, as this would be contrary to the spirit of certain commitments arising from the Lisbon TreatyArticle 344 ECT;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that any application by a citizen of the Union concerning an act or faiIs consequently of the view that the principal added valure to act by an institution or body of the Union should be directed solely against the latteof the accession of the EU to the ECHR lies in recourse for aind that similarly any application concerning a measure by means of which a Member State implements the law of the Union should be directed solely against the Member State, without prejudice to the principle that, where the way in which responsibility for the act concerned is shared between the Union and the Member State is not clearly defined, an application may be brought simultaneously against the Union andividuals against acts by means of which the law of the Union is implemented by its institutions or the Member States;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Considers that for the purposes of complying with the requirement set out in Article 35 ECHR for domestic remedies to have been exhausted, the applicant shall have exhausted the judicial remedies of the State concerned including a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court in Luxembourg. The latter procedure shall be regarded as having been complied with where following a request to that end by the applicant the national court does not consider it appropriate for such a reference to be made;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Is aware that accession as such will not resolve the extremely serious problems facing the ECHR system, namely on the one hand the excessive workload due to an exponential increase in the number of individual applications and on the other hand the reform of the structure and functioning of the Court to cope with it; notes furthermore that, in the absence of a solution to these problems, the system is in danger of collapse and that the entry into force of Protocol No 14, which has so far been delayed by the non-ratification of one State party, will certainly help to reduce the number of uncompleted procedures but will not eliminate them;