¹ The text of the protocol can be found inter alia in ILM 1994, p. 943 et seq.

² As of February 1, 1995, these states are Bulgaria, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and the United Kingdom

³ For previous proposals, see e.g., the Proceedings of the colloque “Merger of the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights,” 8 HRLJ (1987) p. 1 et seq.

⁴ The competences of the Committee of Ministers to supervise the execution of the Court’s judgments under Art. 54 of the Convention will remain untouched, however.

⁵ In 1994 alone, 2927 applications were lodged with the Commission, 583 of which were declared admissible. During the same period, the Court has rendered fifty judgments

⁶ See Art. 19 of the Convention as amended by the 11th protocol.

⁷ See Art. 29 of the Convention as amended by the 11th protocol.

⁸ See Art. 30 of the Convention as amended by the 11th protocol

⁹ See Art. 43, para. 1, of the Convention as amended by the 11th protocol.

¹⁰ See Art. 43, para. 2, of the Convention as amended by the 11th protocol.

¹¹ But see the various proposals brought forward by the European Parliament, e.g., Official Journal EEC C No. 120/51 et seq. and the article by B. Beutler, “Die Erklärung des Europäischen Parlaments über Grundrechte und Grundfreiheiten,” vom 12. April 1989, Europäische Grundrechtezeitschrift 1989, p. 185 et seq.

¹² The first time, the Court mentioned human rights as forming part of the general principles of community law was the decision in the Stauder case, ECR 1969, p. 419 et seq. For a comprehensive collection of later decisions dealing with the issue see Rengeling, Grundrechtsschutz in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, 1993, passim.

¹³ This opinion was originally presented by P. Pescatore, “Der Schutz der Grundrechte in den Europäischen Gemeinschaften und seine Lücken,” in H. Mosler, R. Bernhardt, and M. Hilf, Grundrechtsschutz in Europa, 1977, p. 70-71.

¹⁴ But see A. Bleckmann, Die Bindung der Europaischen Gemeinschaft an die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, 1984, passim.

¹⁵ l5ECJ-Nold-ECR 1974, 491 et seq. (498).

¹⁶ ECJ-Hoechst-ECR 1989, p. 2859 et seq.

¹⁷ See also the preamble of the Maastricht Treaty which confirmed the attachment of the member states “to the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and of the rule of law.” The first time, the EEC treaty referred to the protection of human rights and the ECHR was the preamble of the Single European Act.

¹⁸ See also Art. 130, EC Treaty under which the development cooperation of the community “shall contribute to the general objective of developing and consolidating democracy and the rule of law, and to that of respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Furthermore under Art J.l one of the objectives of the common foreign and security policy shall be to foster the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. See finally Art. K.2, whereby the members states, when coordinating their asylum policies within the framework of the cooperation in the fields of justice and home affairs, have to comply with both the ECHR and the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. By now all recent cooperation or association agreements entered into by the Community contain clauses that enable the Community to suspend their obligations in case of massive human rights violations in the respective partner country.

¹⁹ See Art. 26, ECHR.

²⁰ In 1978, the Commission considered that an application could not be validly brought forward against the European Communities nor against the member states when an act of the Communities is under consideration. See Appl. No. 8030/77, unpublished decision of July 10, 1978. The German text of the decision can be found in Europäische Grundrechtezeitschrift 1979, p. 431 et seq.

²¹ In 1990, the European Commission on Human Rights considered that a complaint against a contracting party of the ECHR is inadmissible, where this state had only executed a decision of the Community organs. See European Commission of Human Rights, M & Co. against the Federal Republic of Germany, Appl. No. 13258/87 of February 9, 1990. The text of the decision can be found inter alia in Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentlkhes Recht und Volkerrecht 1990, 865 et seq.; see also T. Giegerich, “Luxemburg, Karlsruhe, Straßburg-Dreistufiger Grundrechtsschutz in Europa” Zeitschrift fur ausländisches öffentlkhes Recht und Völkerrecht 1990, p. 836 et seq.

²² As to the proposals of the Commission, see Bulletin of the European Communities Suppl. 2/79 and Council Communication SEC (90) 2087 final. As to the position of the EP, see most recently the proposal of January 18, 1994-A3-0421/93-; text to be found in Europäische Grundrechtezeitschrift 1994, p. 1991 et seq.

²³ Unpublished request of the Council of the European Union, dated April 25, 1994.

²⁴ See Art. 6, para. 2, of Annex IX of the Third UN Convention of the Law of the Sea, which foresees a possibility to delimit the responsibilities between the EC and its member states in the field of the law of the sea. A similar possibility could be envisaged in regard to the ECHR. See also Para. 2 of the Arbitration Appendix tc the European Convention on Transfrontier Television, which stipulates: “In the event of a dispute between two Parties one of which is a member State of the EEC, the latter itself being a party, the request for arbitration shall be addressed both to the member State and the community, which shall jointly notify the Secretary General, within one month of receipt of the request, whether the member State or the Community, or the member State and the Community jointly, shall be party to the dispute.…”

²⁵ ECJ, ECR 1991, 6079 et seq. (6106).

²⁶ Art. 3, Statute of the Council of Europe.

²⁷ See in particular the rather critical report on the Conformity of the Legal Order of the Russian Federation with Council of Europe Standards, prepared by R. Bernhardt, S. Trechsel, A. Weitzel and F. Ermacora, Par. Ass. DOC. AS/Bur/Russia (1994) 7 of 287, September 1994, also published in HRLJ 1994, p. 249 et seq.

²⁸ See in particular the Document adopted at the CSCE meeting in Moscow on October 3, 1991, where all participating states acknowledged that human rights no longer fall within the domestic jurisdiction of the respective state.

²⁹ See the declaration adopted at the Budapest summit of December 5 and 6, 1994, part I., para. 1 and 29

³⁰ The guided conciliation procedure, provided for in the Annex of the revised La Valetta dispute-settlement mechanism, might be considered the only exception in that regard; it does not, however, lead to a binding decision.