Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:39:41.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice in the Light of the EU Accession to the ECHR—Is the Break-up Inevitable?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2017

Alexander Kornezov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Even though the decision to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) is a fait accompli, the terms under which the accession should take place are still very much open to debate. The present chapter focuses specifically on the possible tensions which may arise in the aftermath of the EU’s accession to the ECHR in four of the core elements of the EU area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ): recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, wrongful removal or retention of a child, the Common European Asylum System and the European Arrest Warrant. It then puts forward a number of solutions which could be included either in the accession agreement itself or in the post-accession case law of the ECtHR and which allow not only for the preservation of the coherence and integrity of the AFSJ but also for external judicial control on human rights matters in the AFSJ.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 15 , 2013 , pp. 227 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 See, eg, Opinion 2/94 [1996] ECR I-1759.

3 First draft agreement, CDDH-UE(2011)04; (first) revised draft agreement, CDDHUE(2011)06; (second) revised draft agreement, CDDH-UE(2011)10.

4 Council of the European Union, ‘Press Release, 3162nd Council Meeting (Justice and Home Affairs)’ (27 April 2012) 16.

5 Council of Europe, ‘Press Release—DC041: Milestone Reached in Negotiations on Accession of EU to the European Convention on Human Rights’ (5 April 2013).

6 See, eg, Jacqué, JP, ‘The Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’ (2011) 48 CML Rev 995 Google Scholar; Lock, T, ‘Walking on a Tightrope: The Draft ECHR Accession Agreement and the Autonomy of the EU Legal Order’ (2011) 48 CML Rev 1025 Google Scholar.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Conclusions of the Tampere European Council (15–16 October 1999) point 33.

10 For examples, see section III below.

11 A search in the Court’s database shows that more than 170 AFSJ cases were brought to the Court from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon until 1 June 2013.

12 Article 23a of the Statute of the Court and arts 107–114 of its Rules of Procedure.

13 See, eg, Cases C-396/11 Radu (ECJ, 29 January 2013) and C-399/11 Melloni (ECJ, 26 February 2013).

14 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [2001] OJ L12/1.

15 But recital 18 of the Regulation (ibid) mentions the rights of the defence.

16 Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 [2003] OJ L338/1.

17 Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national [2003] OJ L50/1.

18 Recital 33 of the Brussels IIbis Regulation (n 16) and recital 15 of the Dublin Regulation (ibid); art 21(3) of the latter also mentions fundamental rights, but in a different context.

19 Article 1(3) of Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States [2002] OJ L190/1.

20 Article 51(1) of the Charter.

21 Section III.C.

22 Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10 NS (ECJ, 21 December 2011) [78]–[80].

23 See, eg, Melloni (n 13).

24 The case law of the Court of Justice discussed in section III below confirms this.

25 Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers [2003] OJ L31/18 and Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status [2005] OJ L326/13.

26 See, to that effect, Case C-403/09 PPU Dětiček [2009] ECR I-12193 [53]-[60].

27 Case C-139/10 Prism Investment (ECJ, 13 October 2011) [31].

28 Articles 34, 35 and 45 of the Regulation (n 14).

29 Prism Investment (n 27) [33].

30 The other grounds for non-recognition are not directly relevant for the purposes of this chapter.

31 Case C-7/98 Krombach [2000] ECR I-1935.

32 Case C-420/07 Apostolides [2009] ECR I-3571.

33 Krombach (n 31) [21]–[26] and [37]; Apostolides (n 32) [55]–[59; Case C-414/92 Solo Kleinmotoren [1994] ECR I-2237 [20]; and Case C-38/98 Renault [2000] ECR I-2973 [26]–[30].

34 Apostolides (n 32) [60]; Renault (n 33) [33] and [34].

35 Case C-619/10 Trade Agency (ECJ, 6 September 2012).

36 Renault (n 33).

37 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim irketi v Ireland App No 45036/98 (ECtHR, 30 June 1995).

38 Council Regulation (EEC) No 990/93 of 26 April 1993 concerning trade between the European Economic Community and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) [1993] OJ L102/14.

39 Bosphorus (n 37) [165].

40 Conclusions of the Tampere European Council (15–16 October 1999) point 34.

41 See arts 22 and 23 of the Regulation (n 16).

42 See, eg, ibid arts 21, 24, 26, 28–31.

43 Ibid arts 8 and 10.

44 Case C-211/10 PPU Povse [2010] ECR I-6673 [44].

45 Article 60 of the Regulation (n 16).

46 See ibid arts 40(1)(b) and 42.

47 Povse (n 44) [73]. See also Case C-195/08 PPU Rinau [2008] ECR I-5271 [85], [88] and [89].

48 Detiček (n 26).

49 Povse (n 44).

50 Ibid [81].

51 Detiček (n 26) [49].

52 Rinau (n 47) [63] and [64].

53 Povse (n 44) [56].

54 Detiček (n 26) [53]. See also recital 33 of the Regulation.

55 Detiček (n 26) [60].

56 Šneersone and Kampanella v Italy App No 14737/09 (ECtHR, 12 July 2011).

57 See recital 1 of the Regulation (n 17).

58 See ibid art 10. See also arts 6–9, which lay down other criteria that take precedence over the first entry criterion.

59 See ibid art 18(7).

60 See ibid art 3(2).

61 NS (n 22).

62 Ibid [80].

63 Ibid [83].

64 Ibid [94].

65 MSS v Greece and Belgium App No 30696/09 (ECtHR, 21 January 2011).

66 In TI v UK App No 43844/98 (ECtHR, 7 March 2000), the ECtHR had held that removing the applicant to Germany did not absolve the UK of the responsibility to ensure that the deportation would not expose him to treatment contrary to art 3 ECHR.

67 See recitals 5 and 6.

68 Article 1(1) of the Council Framework Decision (n 19).

69 See ibid recital 10.

70 Case C-123/08 Wolzenburg [2009] ECR I-9621 [57].

71 Radu (n 13) [41], [95] and [97].

72 Ibid [33]–[36].

73 Melloni (n 13) [46] and [64].

74 Ibid [43] and [54].

75 Ibid [56]–[64].

76 Wolzenburg (n 70) [58] and [59].

77 Case C-66/08 Kozłowski [2008] ECR I-6041 [36].

78 Wolzenburg (n 70) [68].

79 Pianese v Italy and the Netherlands App No 14929/08 (ECtHR, 27 September 2011).

80 Soering v UK App No 14038/88 (ECtHR, 7 July 1989) § 91, Series A No 161.

81 Ibid [113].

82 The disconnection clause included in the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism 2005, CETS No 196 (art 26(3)), is worded as follows: ‘Parties which are members of the European Union shall, in their mutual relations, apply Community and European Union rules is as far as there are Community or European Union rules governing the particular subject concerned and applicable to the specific case, without prejudice to the object and purpose of the present Convention and without prejudice to its full application with other Parties.’

83 See, eg, Cremona, M, ‘Disconnection Clauses in EU Law and Practice’ in Hillion, C and Koutrakos, P (eds), Mixed Agreements Revisited: The EU and its Member States in the World (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2010) 160 Google Scholar.

84 Rosas, A, ‘Balancing Fundamental Rights in European Union Law’ (2012) III Evropeiski praven pregled 9, 22Google Scholar.

85 Bosphorus (n 37).

86 See, eg, the prohibition of torture under art 3 ECHR.

87 See, eg, national security, public safety, public order, health or morals, the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. See, eg, arts 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 ECHR.

88 Macdonald, RStJ, ‘The Margin of Appreciation’ in Macdonald, RStJ, Matcher, F and Petzold, H (eds), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff 1993) 83–85 Google Scholar; Lavender, N, ‘The Problem of the Margin of Appreciation’ (1997) 4 European Human Rights Law Review 382 Google Scholar.