Procedure completed
2009/2241(INI) Institutional aspects of accession by the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Lead committee dossier: AFCO/7/01808
Legal Basis RoP 052
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead | AFCO | JÁUREGUI ATONDO Ramón (S&D) | GIANNAKOU Marietta (PPE), FOX Ashley (ECR) |
| Opinion | AFET | PREDA Cristian Dan (PPE) | |
| Opinion | LIBE | GÁL Kinga (PPE) | |
| Opinion | PETI |
Legal Basis RoP 052
Subjects
Activites
-
2010/05/19
Results of vote in Parliament
- Results of vote in Parliament
-
T7-0184/2010
summary
The European Parliament adopted a resolution on the institutional aspects of the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.The resolution recalls that as a result of acceding to the ECHR, the Union will be integrated into its fundamental rights protection system and, in addition to the internal protection of these rights by the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, will have the benefit of an external protection body which is international in character.The resolution highlights the main arguments in favour of accession of the Union to the ECHR, which may be summarised as follows:accession constitutes a move forward in the process of European integration and involves one further step towards political Union 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 the 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;accession to the ECHR will afford citizens protection against the action of the Union similar to that which they already enjoy against action by all the Member States. This is all the more relevant because the Member States have transferred substantial powers to the Union;legislative 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 two European courts in the field of human rights, particularly because of the increased need for dialogue and cooperation, and thus will create an integral system, in which the two courts will function in synchrony;accession will also compensate to some extent for the fact that the scope of the Court of Justice of the European Union is somewhat constrained in the matters of foreign and security policy and police and security policy by providing useful external judicial supervision of all EU activities;accession will not in any way call into question the principle of the autonomy of the Union's law, as the Court of Justice of the European Union will remain the sole supreme court adjudicating on issues relating to EU law and the validity of the Union's acts, as the European 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). The Court of Justice of the European Union will have a status analogous to that currently enjoyed by the supreme courts of the Member States in relation to the ECHR.Parliament recalls that 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, and that the Member States’ traditions and constitutional identities must be respected. It also notes that the agreement on the accession of the Union to the ECHR must ensure that accession will not affect the particular internal 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 should not influence the position taken by the Union in relation to the ECHR. In addition, it 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 recommends that the Commission be mandated also to negotiate accession to all the protocols concerning rights corresponding to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, regardless of whether they have been ratified by the Member States of the Union.Parliament stresses that accession to the ECHR does not make the Union a member of the Council of Europe but that a degree of participation by the Union in the ECHR bodies is necessary in order to ensure proper integration of the Union into the ECHR system and that, therefore, the Union should have certain rights in this domain, particularly: (i) 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; (ii) 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 TFEU for candidates for the position of judge at the Court of Justice of the European Union; (iii) the right to attend 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 ECHR; (iv) the right of the European Parliament to appoint/send a certain number of representatives to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe when the latter elects judges to the ECHR.Principal added value of the accession of the EU to the ECHR: Parliament considers that this lies in recourse for individuals against acts by means of which the law of the Union is implemented by its institutions or the Member 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 there 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. Overall, Members stress that, following the accession, the ECHR will constitute the minimum standard of protection for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe and will be crucial, in particular, in cases where the protection granted by the EU is inferior to that provided under the ECHR. Extra-territorial applicability of the ECHR: Parliament considers that, as the European Court of Human Rights has acknowledged the extra-territorial applicability of the ECHR, the Union must aim to respect this obligation fully in its external relations and activities. It underlines that, after the accession, the competence of the European Court of Human Rights when judging matters coming under the ECHR may not be contested on the basis of the internal structure of EU law. It underlines also that the competence of the European Court of Human Rights must not be limited to European citizens or to the geographical area of the European Union (for example in the case of missions or delegations). It recalls that promotion of respect of human rights, a core value of the EU as enshrined in its founding treaty, constitutes common ground for its relations with third countries.Parliament considers that it would be unwise to formalise relations between the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights by establishing a preliminary ruling procedure before the latter or by creating a body or panel which would take decisions when one of the two courts intended to adopt an interpretation of the ECHR which differed from that adopted by the other. Members take the view, therefore, that accession will further enhance the confidence of citizens in the European Union and the EU’s credibility in talks on human rights with non-member States. They stress, furthermore, that the uniform and full application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights at EU level is equally essential to ensure the Union’s credibility in this dialogue.An additional defence mechanism: Parliament notes that EU accession to the ECHR will provide an additional mechanism for enforcing human rights, namely the possibility of lodging a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights in relation to an act, or a failure to act, by an EU institution or a Member State implementing EU law and falling within the remit of the ECHR. They stress, however, that this does not alter the present system of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union nor that of the European Court of Human Rights, and that the requirement that all domestic judicial remedies should have been exhausted will remain the condition for the admissibility of any application. It calls for applications and complaints to be dealt with in a reasonable period of time. Workload: aware of the fact 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 requests and on the other hand the reform of the structure and functioning of the Court to cope with it, Members note that, in the interests of seeking justice, preference should be given to accession arrangements that will have the least impact on the workload of the European Court of Human Rights. Accession procedure: Parliament draws attention to the fact that, in view of the constitutional importance of accession by the Union to the ECHR, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union lays down stringent conditions for this, the Council being required to adopt the decision concluding the agreement unanimously after approval has been given by the European Parliament, and the agreement entering into force only after its approval by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional rules.Strengthening cooperation: the accession will require enhanced cooperation between national courts, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights in protecting fundamental rights. Cooperation between the institutions of the European Union and the specialised bodies of the Council of Europe should be strengthened. Parliament points out that cooperation between the two European courts will further the development of a coherent case-law system in the field of human rights.Raising awareness: Parliament suggests that, in order to raise awareness of the added value of the accession to citizens, the Council of Europe and the EU should develop guidelines with clear explanations of all the implications and effects of accession. The Commission and Member States should provide EU citizens with information ensuring that they are fully aware of what the additional mechanism means and how to use it adequately.Parliament’s implication: Parliament stresses that, as accession to the ECHR affects not only the EU institutions, but also the Union’s citizens, the European Parliament must be consulted and involved throughout the negotiation process, and must be associated and immediately and fully informed at all stages of the negotiations.
- 2010/05/18 Debate in Parliament
- 2010/05/06 Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
-
2010/05/03
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
-
2010/01/21
Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
-
2009/12/17
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0144/2010
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T7-0184/2010
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 127 |
2009/2241(INI)
2010/02/26
AFET
23 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the prospect of the European Union’s accession to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), which offers an historic opportunity to c
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Welcomes elimination of double standards in the human rights policy of the Union as before accession EU was legally not bound to respect human rights, whereas after Accession there will be external judicial control of Union acts monitoring the compatibility of Union acts with the ECHR;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Welcomes, that as guaranteed in Article 1 of the Convention, any person who comes within the jurisdiction of the Union will be able to invoke the Convention against the Union's acts, and that in line with this all acts in the remit of foreign relations will potentially be subject to the Court's jurisdiction;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 c (new) 2c. Further welcomes, that Article 1 of the Convention would not only guarantee protection to the EU citizens and other individuals within the Union territory, but also to any individuals who come under jurisdiction of the Union also outside its territory;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Calls on the Council and Commission to ensure that Parliament is duly informed of the definition of the negotiating mandate for accession to the ECHR and that it is duly and regularly informed of progress in the accession negotiations, in accordance with Article 218 of the FEU Treaty;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Points out that, when an application is submitted under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the defendant must be identified in accordance with the provisions of European Union law and subject finally to legal review by the Court of Justice and that this must not prejudice citizens’ rights to make individual applications;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Insists that the negotiators take account of the impact of accession on the Convention system; considers it important, in the interest of those in both the Union and third countries who are seeking justice, to give preference to accession arrangements that will have least impact on the workload of the European Court of Human Rights;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Points out that the link with the Council of Europe and in particular questions regarding the European Union’s participation in the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly are a matter for the Statute of the Council of Europe
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Insists on Parliament’s right to democratic scrutiny being duly
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Takes the view that, for the benefit of citizens, democracy, human rights in Europe and the EU, and respect for and the safeguarding of human rights, cooperation between the European Union and the specialised bodies of the Council of Europe should be strengthened in order to help bring about greater consistency and greater complementarity in the sphere of human rights at pan-
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the prospect of the European Union’s accession to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), which offers an historic opportunity to create a common framework for human rights across the Continent and an additional external control system and to ensure the
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Takes the view that, for the benefit of citizens, cooperation between the institutions of the European Union and the specialised bodies of the Council of Europe should be strengthened in order to help bring about greater consistency and greater complementarity in the sphere of human rights at pan-European level.
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Insists, in view of the important role that the Treaty confers on the European Parliament as regards conclusion of the accession agreement, that Parliament is closely involved in the preliminary discussions and also in the conduct of negotiations on that text.
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9a (new) 9a. While supporting call for the Union to complement accession to the Convention by acceding also the European Social Charter, further calls for accession by the Union to the Council of Europe bodies such as the CPT on the prevention on torture, the ECRI on fighting racism and intolerance and the CEPEJ on the efficiency of justice;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 b (new) 9b. Considers that, as the European Court of Human Rights has acknowledged the extra-territorial applicability of the Convention, the Union must aim to respect this obligation fully in its external relations and activities;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Stresses that, as the accession of EU to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is an accession of a non-State Party to a legal instrument created for States, the accession of EU to the Convention should be completed without altering the features of the Convention and modifications to its judicial system should be kept minimal;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Calls for the Union to accede to the ECHR and its supplementary protocols, and to the Social Charter adopted in 1961 and the revised Social Charter; asks the Member States that have not yet done so to sign and ratify the various ECHR supplementary protocols as soon as possible, in view of their repeatedly voiced attachment to the values and principles underlying democracy and the rule of law in our Member States and the European Union;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Calls for the Commission to attend, as an observer, the proceedings of the Commissioner for Human Rights, the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) and the Social Charter Governmental Committee, the European Committee on Migration and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT); calls for the European Parliament to be informed of the deliberations of the Social Charter’s Consultative Assembly, and the proceedings, conclusions and decisions adopted by the above bodies;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Points out that accession will enhance
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Points out that accession will enhance the confidence of citizens in the European Union and the EU’s credibility in talks on human rights with non-Member States;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Points out the added value of the Five Protocols to the Convention by way of enforcing and protecting certain Rights and Freedoms within and outside the scope of Convention and Conferring upon the European Court of Human Rights Competence to give Advisory Opinions; is of the opinion that, when acceding of EU to the Convention, the Union should also accede to the Protocols of the Convention;
source: PE-439.296
2010/03/25
AFCO
61 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 1 – having regard to Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Article
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas the limits set by the Lisbon Treaty and the Protocols thereto are upheld at the time of accession and more specifically, 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 accordingly,
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution 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 Recital I I. whereas such an agreement should also
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Recital J a (new) Ja. whereas the ECHR has been developped not only through the additional Protocols, but also through other Conventions, Charters and Agreements, resulting into a continuously evolving system of protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution 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 15 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Stresses the main arguments in favour of accession of the Union to the ECHR, which may be summarised as follows:
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Stresses the main arguments in favour of accession of the Union to the ECHR, which may be summarised as follows: – 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 by 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 17 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – indent 1 – 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
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – indent 3 – accession 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 thus will create an integral system, in which the two courts will function in synchrony,
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – indent 3 a (new) – accession will also compensate to some extent for the fact that the scope of the Court of Justice is somewhat constrained in the matters of foreign and security policy and police and security policy by providing useful external judicial supervision of all EU activities,
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas, in case law which has remained consistent since the 1970s, the Court of Justice has held that fundamental rights form an integral part of the general legal principles
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Recalls that
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Article 2 2. Recalls that, pursuant to
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution 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 not affect the particular domestic 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
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution 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 a
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution 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 a
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution 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 3 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas, in case law which has remained consistent since the
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 – – 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
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 – indent 2 – the
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 – indent 3 – the right for the European Parliament to appoint/send a certain number of representatives, which should at least include participants from all groups of the European Parliament, to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe when the latter elects judges to the European Court of Human Rights;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Suggests that the panel established under Article 255 TFEU for the selection of members of the Court of Justice and General Court could also be used for the nomination of EU judges to the European Court of Human Rights;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Is of the opinion that the Member States should
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Considers that any application by a citizen of the Union 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,
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution 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 4 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the Court of Justice devotes particular attention to the development of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, as demonstrated by the growing number of judgments which refer to provisions of the ECHR, and need not itself develop this case law,
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7a (new) Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7b (new) 7b. it should be determined by internal rules in those cases in which the EU becomes a co-defendant.
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7c (new) 7c. The adoption of the institution of co- defendant should not impede other indirect options provided by the ECHR (Article 36, I) such as the right of the EU to intervene as a third party in cases of recourse by EU citizens against a state that is not a member of the EU.
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution 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,
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Considers it appropriate that, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, 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
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Is clearly aware of the fact that the European Court on Human Rights may find a violation in a case that has already been decided by the ECJ and stresses that this would in no way cast a doubt on ECJ's credibility as an ultimate umpire in the EU judicial system;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Notes that the ECHR has an important function in connection with the interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as rights guaranteed by the Charter which
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Notes that
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the Court of Justice devotes particular attention to the development of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, as demonstrated by the
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution 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; whereas the European Court on Human Rights recognises the fact that it operates in a complex legal and political environment; 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
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution 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 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
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Is aware that accession as such will not resolve the extremely serious problems facing the ECHR system, namely
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Considers it essential to maintain the independence of the European Court of Human Rights in terms of personnel and budgetary policy;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12a. Encourages the national parliaments of the EU Member States to clearly express their will and readiness to facilitate the accession process by involving their national courts and Ministries of Justice;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Notes that accession by the Union to the ECHR
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution 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;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13 a. is of the view that the right to freedom of expression must not be undermined by complaints and petitions aiming to criminalise legitimate political demands;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 b (new) 13 b. expresses its concern that the European Union, as a legal person, firstly is being subjected to a review of the conformity of its legal acts in respect of human rights by a higher court to which a Turkish magistrate also belongs, while Turkey itself largely disregards human rights;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 c (new) 13 c. expresses its disquiet that magistrates, who are not accountable to the electorate, are increasingly putting themselves in the place of the legislative and executive powers of the Member States by overruling democratically made decisions aimed at a restrictive immigration policy;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas in principle the European Court of Human Rights makes a 'presumption of compatibility' of the conduct of a Member State of the Union with the ECHR when the State is merely implementing
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution 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 9 #
Motion for a resolution 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
source: PE-440.010
2010/03/29
LIBE
29 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls on the Commission to examine the requirement to exhaust internal remedies in order to guarantee the admissibility of applications, in consultation with the ECJ and the European Court of Human Rights; stresses in this context the need to examine the issue of preliminary rulings under EU law; calls for the chosen solution to guarantee EU citizens the right to lodge individual petitions in accordance with the relevant ECHR provisions, and for the citizens’ applications and complaints to be dealt with in a reasonable period of time;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Calls on the parties to the negotiations on the Union’s accession to the ECHR to ensure that the amendments to the ECHR and its judicial system are limited to what is strictly necessary so as not to jeopardise the effectiveness and scope of the ECHR’s control;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 – introductory words 7. Points out that there are a number of legal, technical and institutional issues which are still outstanding and which will have to be addressed in the mandate to be adopted under Article 218 TFEU, as well as in the negotiations with the Council of Europe on accession to the ECHR.
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 – indent 1 –
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 – indent 1 - the fact that the scope of the accession should be precisely defined in the mandate; the EU should also accede, at the least, to all those Additional Protocols to the ECHR which
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 – indent 1 - the fact that the scope of the accession should be precisely defined in the mandate; the EU should also accede, at the least, to all those Additional Protocols to the ECHR which complement the rights enshrined in the ECHR
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 – indent 2 – the
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 – indent 2 - the need for the EU’s representation and participation in the Council of Europe’s bodies to be clarified; although with the accession to the ECHR the EU will not become a member of the Council of Europe, it should be represented on all those bodies
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 – indent 3 – the
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 – indent 4 - the need for the problems faced by the ECtHR to be dealt with; EU accession to the ECHR
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that, while all the Member States have already ratified the ECHR, the accession to this instrument of the EU as a legal entity
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 – indent 4 –
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Stresses that Article 1 of the ECHR guarantees that every person within EU jurisdiction will be able to invoke the ECHR against acts by the Union, including acts in the field of foreign relations, and will potentially be able to refer a matter to the European Court of Human Rights; stresses, too, that Article 1 of the ECHR guarantees protection not only for EU citizens and other individuals in Union territory, but also for all individuals within EU jurisdiction even outside its territory;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Underlines that, as the accession to the
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Underlines that, as the accession to the ECHR concerns not only the EU institutions, but also the Union’s citizens, the European Parliament
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Stresses that it is important to have an informal body in order to coordinate information sharing between the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Suggests that, in order to disseminate the added value of the accession to citizens, the Council of Europe and the EU should consider developing guidelines and advice and information programmes for the citizens with clear explanations of all the implications and effects that accession would bring;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Hopes in this regard that the Commission and Member States will conduct an information campaign for EU citizens to ensure that they are fully aware of how to exercise their new rights of petition in the field of human rights;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Welcomes the commitment shown by the current Spanish Presidency in treating the accession as a ‘matter of urgency’ and the positive and cooperative attitude of the Council of Europe in this respect. Finally, calls on the Belgian and Hungarian Presidencies to do their utmost to finalise the accession at the earliest suitable opportunity and in as simple and accessible a manner as possible so that EU citizens can benefit as soon as possible from the Union’s accession to the ECHR.
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Notes that, following the EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights it can occur that both the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as well as the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) have jurisdiction on certain cases and points out that the possibility to bring such a case to two Courts should not be allowed.
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Underlines that the accession will
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Underlines in this respect the universal dimension of the content of the ECHR and its Additional Protocols, and that of other related texts, notably the European Social Charter of 1961; recalls that most of these instruments may be signed and ratified by parties outside Europe;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Underlines also that the EU accession to the ECHR will imply a competence of the ECtHR on all aspects of EU law and legislation, in particular in the field of Justice and Home Affairs, including its external dimension;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes that EU accession to the ECHR will provide the Union’s citizens with an additional mechanism for enforcing
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes that EU accession to the ECHR will provide the Union’s citizens with an additional mechanism for enforcing their rights, namely the possibility of lodging a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in relation to an act or failure to act by an EU institution or a Member State implementing EU law and falling at the same time within the remit of the ECHR. Stresses, however, that this does not alter the present system of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ), and that the requirement that all domestic judicial remedies should have been exhausted will remain the condition for the eligibility of any application; underlines in this context that it will be necessary to ensure that Member States' courts refer cases to the ECJ when there is an arguable fundamental rights issue at hand;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes that EU accession to the ECHR will provide
source: PE-440.026
2010/04/15
AFCO
14 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution 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 10 #
7. Considers that
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
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution 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 13 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Is aware that accession as such will not resolve the extremely serious problems
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution 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 2 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas
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
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – indent 3 –
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution 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 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
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 – indent 2 – the right to attend
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Considers that the Member States should
source: PE-440.175
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2015-11-04Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| procedure/subject/0 |
Old
1.10 Fundamental rights in the Union, CharterNew
1.10 Fundamental rights in the EU, Charter |
2014-11-10Show (5) Changes
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|