Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:35:02.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The European Court of Justice: taking rights seriously?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Jason Coppel  and
Aidan O'Neill
Jason Coppel
Affiliation:
European University Institute, Florence
Aidan O'Neill
Affiliation:
European University Institute, Florence
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is easily assumed that the use of the language of fundamental rights protection by the European Court of Justice translates directly into an extension of the actual protection of those rights within the European Community. It is the purpose of this paper to question that assumption.

Whilst it would appear to be widely accepted that the initial motivation for the adoption of the terminology of fundamental rights by the European Court of Justice was a desire to defend the supremacy of Community law over national law, a close analysis of certain recent cases in the European Court shows that the court has begun to use rights talk in a different way.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , July 1992 , pp. 227 - 245
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1992

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

1. See particularly Stein, , ‘Lawyers, Judges and the Making of a Transnational Constitution’ (1981) AJIL 1, 14 Google Scholar; Mendelson, , ‘The Court of Justice and Human Rights’ (1981) Year-book Eur Law 125, 148 Google Scholar; Weiler, , ‘Eurocracy and Mistrust’ (1986) 61 Wash L Rev 1103 et seq Google Scholar; Rasmussen, , On Law and Policy in the European Court of Justice (1986) pp 393–405 Google Scholar; Hartley, , The Foundations of European Community Law (2nd edn, 1988) p 132 Google Scholar; Cappelletti, , The Judicial Process in Comparative Perspective (1989) p 394 Google Scholar; Collins, , European Law in the United Kingdom (4th edn, 1990), pp 70–3Google Scholar; Weiler, , Cassese, and Clapham, (eds), Human Rights and the European Community (1991) vol 11, pp 580-1.Google Scholar

2. For a summary of the relevant German case law see especially Brinkhorst, and Schermers, Judicial Remedies in the European Community (4th edn, 1987) pp 144–54Google Scholar. On a useful summary of the relevant Italian case law see Cocco, , ‘Una convivenza voluta ma sofferta: il rapporto tra diritto comunitario e diritto interno’ (1991) 1 Rivista Italiana di Diritto Publico Comunitario 649 Google Scholar.

3. See Friedrich Stork & Co v High Authority of the ECSC (1/58) [1959] ECR 17; Geitling v High Authority of the ECSC (36–8, 40/59) [1960] ECR 523; Sgarlata v Commission of the EC [40/64) [1965] ECR 215.

4. (29/69) [1969] ECR 419 at 425.

5. (11/70) [1970] ECR 1125 at 1134.

6. (4/73) [1974] ECR 491 at 507.

7. See in particular the cases cited in Toth, , ‘Human Rights’ in Encyclopaedia of European Community Law (1990) p 284 Google Scholar et seq.

8. (36/75) [1975] ECR 1219.

9. See, eg Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz (44/79) [1979] ECR 3727; National Panasonic v Commission (136/79) [1980] ECR 1979; Johnson v RUC (222/84) [1986] ECR 1651; ERT (260/89) [1991] ECR 2925; SPUC v Grogan (159/90), 4 October 1991, ECJ, reported in [1991] 3 CMLR 689.

10. See Single European Act 1986 (HMSO, Cmnd 9758).

11. See art F(2) of the Common Provisions of the Treaty on European Political Union 1992 which is in the following terms: ‘The [European] Union shall respect fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States as general principles of Community Law’.

12. Most recently in Weiler, Cassese and Clapham (eds), op cit, note 1, vol II, pp 580-1.

13. See judgment of 4 April 1987 of the German Federal Constitutional Court, Wuensche Handelsgesellschaft reported in [1987] 3 CMLR 225.

14. See Frontini v Ministero delle Finanze Case 183 of 27/12/73 reported in [1974] 2 CMLR 383–90. See also judgment number 232 of 21/4/89 of the Italian Constitutional Court and reported and commented upon by Angiolini, ‘Transformazione dei “principi fondamentali [1991] 1 Rivista italiana di diritto publico comunitario 21.”

15. Mancini, , ‘A Constitution for Europe’ (1989) 26 CML Rev 595, 611Google Scholar.

16. See for example Defrenne v Sabena (149/77) [1978] ECR 1365, and Demirel (12/86) [1987] ECR 3719.

17. (36/75) [1975] ECR 1219.

18. Para 32.

19. (118/75) [1976] ECR 1185, 1207.

20. Ibid, p 1208.

21. (5/88) [1989] ECR 2609.

22. Ibid, p 2639, para 19 [emphasis added].

23. The German court's decision is reported as Re the Kuechenhof Form (Case 1/2-E 62/85) in [1990] 2 CMLR 289. See also a parallel case in Britain R v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex p Bostock [1991] 1 CMLR 681 at 687.

24. (260/89) [1991] ECR 2925.

25. Ibid, para 41 [authors' translation]. Compare the difference in this formulation to that repeated in Hauer (44/79) [1979] ECR 3727 at 3745, para 15: ‘[T]he court is bound to draw inspiration from constitutional traditions common to the Member States, so that measures which are incompatible with the fundamental rights which are recognised by the Constitutions of those States are unacceptable in the Community’ [emphasis added].

26. Para 43 [authors' translation – emphasis added].

27. Para 45 [authors' translation].

28. Weiler, , ‘The European Court at a Crossroads: Community Rights and Member State Action’ in Liber Amicorum Pierra Pescatore (1987) at p 834 Google Scholar [emphasis added].

29. (159/90) 4 October 1991, ECJ, reported in [1991] 3 CMLR 689.

30. (60-1/84) [1985] ECR 2605, para 26 [emphasis added].

31. Pescatore ‘La Cour de Justice des Communautes Europeenes et la Convention europeene des Droits de l'Homme’ in Protecting Human Rights: The European Dimension (1988) pp 441,446 [authors' translation].

32. (12/86) [1987] ECR 3719, 3754, para 28 [emphasis added].

33. See note [24], para 42 [authors' translation – emphasis added].

34. See note [29], para 31 of the Opinion of the Advocate-General of 11 June 1991.

35. Ibid, para 30 of the Judgment of the court.

36. In ‘The Protection of Fundamental Rights in the Community Legal Order’ [1985] European L Rev 398, 407. On the matter of the supremacy of the Community Treaty provisions see the European Court Opinion (1/91) of 13 December 1991.

37. See also Schemers, , ‘The Scales of Balance: National Constitutional Court v Court of Justice’ [1990] 27 CML Rev 97.Google Scholar

38. See Clapham in, Weiler, , Cassese, , Clapham, (eds) Human Rights and the European Community (1991) vol 1, p 56 Google Scholar. See also Nicholas Grief ‘The Domestic Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights as mediated through Community law’ [1991] Public Law 555.

39. See note [21], 2639, para 18.

40. Ibid, 2639, para 19 [emphasis added].

41. See in this regard R v Kirk (63/83) [1984] ECR 2689 and Pinna v Caisse D'Allocations Familiales de la Savoie (No 1) (41/84) [1986] ECR 1, and (No 2) (359/87) [1990] 2 CMLR 561.

42. The earlier stages of the case in Ireland before the European Court reference are reported as SPUC v Grogan [1990] I CMLR 689.

43. Now art 40(3)(iii) of the Irish Constitution.

44. Nold (II), (4/73) [1974] ECR 491, 506, para 13.

45. (7/76) [1976] ECR 1213, 1237.

46. Hartley, op cit, note [1], 135.

47. See note [29], Opinion of the Advocate-General of 11 June 1991, para 25.

48. See note [29].

49. SPUC v Grogan [1990] 1 CMLR 689 at 704.

50. See note [29], judgment, para 20.

51. Ibid, para 18.

54. Ibid, para 21.

53. Ibid, para 24.

54. ‘Protocol Annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and to the Treaties Establishing the European Communities’ in Europe Documents 1750/1 of 13 December 1991.

55. In a judgment of 17 February 1992 (reported in full in the Irish Times of 18 February 1992) Costello J of the Dublin High Court granted an injunction at the instance of the Irish Attorney-General preventing a 14 year old Irish girl, who had become pregnant as a consequence of a rape, from travelling out with Ireland to secure an abortion. This decision was overturned by the Irish Supreme Court, which gave its reasons on 5 March 1992 (reported in full in the Irish Times of 6 March 1992). The Supreme court decided to lift the injunction because of a real and substantial risk of the girl committing suicide. The implications of the ruling in and for European Community law are unclear since the Supreme Court expressly declined to consider submissions made to them under European Community law, thereby avoiding the need for another art 177 reference to the European Court. Finlay CJ stated:

‘In this case the court has decided the questions at issue without reference to submissions … made under European law. No decision on any question of European law is therefore necessary to enable the court to give judgement.’

56. Procureur de la Républiquc v ADBHU (240/83) [1985] ECR 520,531 [emphasis added].

57. UNECTEF v Heylens (222/86) [1987] ECR 4098, 4117, para 14 [emphasis added].

58. See note [29], para 19 of the Advocate-General's Opinion.

59. See Lennart, (Judge of the European Court of First Instance), ‘Fundamental Rights to be included in a Community Catalogue’ [1991] European L Rev 367 Google Scholar.

60. See Hall, , ‘The European Convention on Human Rights and Public Policy Exceptions to the Free Movement of Workers under the EEC Treaty’ [1991] European L Rev 466 Google Scholar.

61. [1991] 2 WLR 588.

62. See in particular Torfaen Borough Council v B & Q plc (145/88) [1989] ECR 3851; W.H. Smith Do-it-AN Ltd and Payless DIY Ltd u Peterborough City Council [1990] 2 CMLR 577; Stoke-on-Trent City Council v B & Q plc [1991] 2 WLR 42.

63. See Wyatt, & Dashwood, , The Substantive Low of the EEC (2nd edn, 1987) p 69 Google Scholar.