Activities of Ramón JÁUREGUI ATONDO 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)
Reports (1)
REPORT on the institutional aspects of the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms PDF (212 KB) DOC (125 KB)
Amendments (21)
Amendment 1 #
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 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union provides that the European Union shall accede to the ECHR and whereas Protocol No 8 to the Lisbon Treaty lists a series of points concerning which provision must be made at the time of that accession; whereas these provisions do not merely constitute an option allowing the Union to accede but require the Union institutions to act accordinglythe limits set by the Lisbon Treaty and the Protocols thereto must be upheld at the time of accession and, more specifically, Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union and Protocol No 8 to the Lisbon Treaty; whereas these provisions do not merely constitute an option allowing the Union to accede but require the Union institutions to act accordingly, and whereas the agreement on the accession of the Union to the ECHR must reflect the need to retain the specific features of the Union and of Union law,
Amendment 3 #
– indent 1 of the draft report
– while the Union's system for the protection of fundamental rights will be supplemented and enhanced by the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into its primary law, its accession to the ECHR will send a strong signal concerning the coherence between the Union and 'wider Europe', constituted bythe countries belonging to the Council of Europe and its pan-European human rights system; this accession will also enhance the credibility of the Union in the eyes of third countries which it regularly calls upon in its bilateral reports to respect the ECHR,
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 3
Paragraph 1 – indent 3
– accessionlegislative and case law harmonisation in the field of human rights of the rule of law of the EU and the ECHR will contribute to the harmonious development of the case law of the two European courts in the field of human rights, particularly because of the increased need for dialogue, and cooperation,
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 4
Paragraph 1 – indent 4
– accession will not in any way call into question the principle of the autonomy of the Union's law, as the Court of Justice will remain the sole supreme court adjudicating on issues relating to EU law and the validity of the Union's acts, as the Court of Human Rights must be regarded not only as a superior authority but rather as a specialised court exercising external supervision over the Union's compliance with obligations under international law arising from its accession to the ECHR; the relationship between the two European courts shall not be hierarchical but rather a relationship of specialisation; thus the Court of Justice will have a status analogous to that currently enjoyed by the supreme courts of the Member States in relation to the Court of Human Rights;
Amendment 6 #
2. Recalls that, pursuant to Article 6 of the EU Treaty and Protocol No 8, accession does not entail any extension of the powers of the Union and in particular does not create a general human rights competence for the Union;
Amendment 7 #
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 suggestrecommends 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)Commission be mandated also to negotiate accession to all the protocols concerning rights corresponding to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (1, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 13), regardless of whether they have been ratified by the Member States of the Union;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – indent 2
Paragraph 5 – indent 2
– the right to attend, with voting rights via the European Commission, with voting rights on behalf of the EU, 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 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that the Member States should notundertake, at the time of accession to the ECHR, with respect to one another and in their mutual relations with the Union, be entitlednot 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 Treaty when the act or omission in dispute falls within the scope of Union law, as this would be contrary to Article 344 of the TFEU;
Amendment 10 #
7. Considers that any application by a citizenthe principal added value of the accession of the EU to the ECHR lies in recourse for individuals against acts by means of which the law of the Union is implemented by its institutions ofr the UniMember States and that consequently any application by a natural or legal person concerning an act or failure to act by an institution or body of the Union should be directed solely against the latter and 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 definre might be any doubt about the way in which responsibility is shared, an application may be brought simultaneously against the Union and the Member State;
Amendment 11 #
paragraph 8 of the draft report
8. Considers it appropriate that, in the interests of the proper administration of justice and without prejudice to Article 36(2) of the ECHR, in any case brought against a Member State before the European Court of Human Rights which may raise an issue concerning the law of the Union, the Union may, after being authorised by the Court, be permitted to appearintervene as a co-defendant in the case, and that in any case brought against the Union any Member State may, after being authorised by the Court, be permitted to appear as a defendant in the casesubject to the same conditions any Member State may be permitted to intervene as a co- defendant; this possibility must be defined in the provisions of the accession treaty in a manner which is both clear and sufficiently broad;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
G a. whereas the agreement on the accession of the Union to the ECHR must reflect the need to retain the specific features of the Union and of Union law,
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Considers that the adoption of the institution of co-defendant does not impede other indirect options provided by the ECHR (Article 36, I), such as the right of the Union to intervene as a third party in any application by an EU citizen;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas such an agreement should also deal with administrative and technical issues, such as the principle of a contribution from the Union to the ordinary budget of the Council of Europe intended for the functioning of the Europeanperating costs of the European Court of Human Rights; whereas in that context plans should be made to establish an autonomous budget for the Court of Human Rights, the details of which remain to be agreed with the Council of Europeo facilitate assessment of the various contributions,
Amendment 13 #
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 applicationrequests and on the other hand the reform of the structure and functioning of the Court to cope with it; notes 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 themEuropean Court of Human Rights recognises that it operates in a complex legal and political environment, and notes that the entry into force of Protocol No 14 on 1 June 2010 will certainly help to reduce the number of uncompleted procedures but will not eliminate them; stresses, in the context of the reform of the European Court of Human Rights, the importance of the Interlaken Declaration, with particular reference to paragraph 4 thereof, which rightly calls for a uniform and rigorous application of the criteria concerning admissibility and the Court's jurisdiction;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that accession by the Union to the ECHR signifies the recognition by the EU of the entire system of protection of human rights, as developed and codified in numerous documents and bodies of the Council of Europe; in this sense, accession by the Union to the ECHR constitutes an essential first step which should subsequently be complemented by accession by the Union to, inter alia, the European Social Charter, signed in Turin on 18 October 1961 and revised in Strasbourg on 3 May 1996, which would be consistent with the progress already enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in the social legislation of the Union;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that, pursuant to Article 2 of Protocol No 8 to the Lisbon Treaty, the agreement on the accession of the Union to the ECHR must ensure that accession will not affect the particular situation of the Member States in relation to the ECHR and its protocols in general and with regard to any derogations and reservations made by Member States in particular, and that such circumstances have no effect on the legalshould not influence the position oftaken by the Union in relation to the ECHR;
Amendment 26 #
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)t the time of its accession to the ECHR also accede to all the protocols which are relevant to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (1, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 13), regardless of whether they have been ratified by the Member States of the Union;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – indent 1
Paragraph 5 – indent 1
– the right to submit a list of three candidates for the post of judge, one of whom is elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on behalf of the Union and participates in the work of the Court on a footing of equality with the other judges; the European Parliament being involved either in drawing up the list of candidates in line with a procedure similar to that provided for in Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for candidates for the position of judge at the Court of Justice, or under a procedure similar to the hearings of candidates- designate of the European Commission,
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers it appropriate that, in the interests of the proper administration of justice and without prejudice to Article 36(2) of the ECHR, in any case brought against a Member State before the European Court of Human Rights which may raise an issue concerning the law of the Union, the Union may, after being authorised by the Court,brought against a Member State, the Union may be permitted to appearintervene as a co-defendant in the case, and that in any case brought against the Union any Member State may, after being authorised by the Court,subject to the same conditions any Member State may be permitted to appearintervene as a co- defendant in the case;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. notes that under the aegis of the Council of Europe a whole series of human rights Conventions to which the Union should accede have been concluded in addition to the ECHR, including the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 26 November 1987 and the two protocols thereto, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages of 5 November 1992, and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities of 1 February 1995;