We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Criticism of the European Court of Human Rights from PART I - INTRODUCTORY
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 December 2017
CRITICISM OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
This chapter is unique in that it is the only one in this volume which addresses counter-dynamics of a future Contracting Party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Council of Europe and the European Union (EU) have a long tradition of cooperation which draws on their shared values and there are many formal links between the two organisations.1 However, the EU has not yet acceded to the ECHR.
The accession of the EU to the ECHR has been on the European agenda for over thirty years. In its Opinion 2/94 delivered in 1996, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU, Luxembourg Court) had ruled that the European Community had no competence to accede to the ECHR as there was no adequate legal basis in the EU Treaties for accession. The Treaty of Lisbon answered the Court's demands by introducing a clear obligation for the EU to accede to the ECHR in Article 6(2) Treaty on European Union (TEU).
The accession negotiations between the Council of Europe and the European Commission started in July 2010, shortly after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. Three years later, a newly formed ‘47+1’ group, which comprised representatives of all Council of Europe Contracting Parties and of the European Commission, completed the negotiations by adopting a Draft Accession Agreement (DAA). However, in the report on the final negotiation meeting, the EU representative already indicated that several political and procedural hurdles were still to follow, most notably the CJEU's assessment of the compatibility of the draft agreement with the EU Treaties.
In its seminal Opinion 2/13 issued on 18 December 2014, the CJEU ruled that the DAA is not compatible with the EU Treaties. This conclusion contrasts with that of the European Commission, the Council, the European Parliament and the 24 Member States who submitted written observations. Moreover, Advocate General Kokott had suggested a conditional ‘yes’ to an accession under the DAA.
Against this backdrop, this chapter examines the attitude of the EU to the ECHR.
To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.
