Tuesday 20 October 2009

Return of the Death Penalty: 

This issue has generated a great deal of interest among EU critics. 

European nations have abolished capital punishment, but the Lisbon Treaty brings it back through the back door by way of some small print -- not for crimes against individuals, such as homicide, but for insurrection and rioting against the state.

Karl A. Schachtschneider, Professor of Public Law at the University of Erlangen-Nürnberg in Germany, who has been actively opposing the new provisions, made some chilling observations in an interview with Zurich-based Current Concerns (some added emphasis).

Schachtschneider: “The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in its ‘explanations’ and ‘negative definitions’ accompanying the fundamental rights, allows a reintroduction of the death penalty in case of war or imminent war, but also the killing of humans to suppress insurgency or riot. This is in contradiction to the abolishment of the death penalty in Germany (Article 102 of the German Constitution), in Austria and elsewhere which results from the principle of dignity. …

Q: Can you imagine one reason why anything like this is passed?

K.S. Obviously, the governments expect riots. Skepticism towards the governments and the EU apparatus is growing and growing. The financial and economic crisis increases the pressure on the population.



The monthly journal for independent thought, ethical standards and moral responsibilityThe international journal for independent thought, ethical standards, moral responsibility,
and for the promotion and respect of public international law, human rights and humanitarian law
Current Concerns  >  2009  >  No 17, september 2009  >  Say No to the EU Death Penalty[printversion]

Say No to the EU Death 

Penalty

The Lisbon Treaty Allows Death 

Penalty and Killing of People by the State.

An interview with 

Professor Karl Albrecht 

Schachtschneider

Oliver Janich, “Focus-Money”: Professor Schachtschneider, according to your lawsuit 

against the 

EU Treaty of Lisbon at the Bundesverfassungsgericht 

(The German Federal Constitutional Court), 

the treaty allows the 

reintroduction of the 

death penalty and the killing of humanes. 

This sounds outrageous. 

What is the base of your argument?
Professor Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider: 

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

 in its “explanations” 

and “negative definitions” 

accompanying the 

fundamental rights, 

allows a reintroduction 

of the death penalty in 

case of war or imminent war,

 but also the killing of humans 

to suppress insurgency or riot. 

This is in contradiction to the abolishment of the death 

penalty in Germany 

(Article 102 of the German Constitution),

 in Austria and elsewhere 

which results from the 

principle of dignity.

But does not the Charter 

prohibit capital punishment?
The relevant text for this is not article 2, clause 2 of the 

Charter which prohibits 

condemning people to death 

or executing them, but the explanation of this article 

which was incorporated into 

the treaty, originating from the European Convention Human Rights of 1950.
According to article 6, 

clause 3 of the EU Treaty in the Lisbon Version, the rights, 

freedoms and principles of the charter are interpreted 

according to the general provisions 

of chapter VII of the Charter 

which defines the interpretation and application of this 

Charter and under due consideration of the 

“explanations” listed in the Charter 

giving the sources of these provisions.

Why so long-winded?
Well, just to conceal this fact. 

The parliamentarians only 

get the text of the treaty 

which is difficult enough to understand and much too long.

But is it now unambiguous 

that the killing of people is 

allowed if the Treaty takes 

effect?
Yes, the Charter of 

Fundamental Rights was 

declared in Nice in 2000. 

But since it was not 

ratified by all countries, 

it was not binding under international law. If the 

Treaty takes effect, 

the Charter will become 

binding as well.

But this clause is only 

part of the explanations…
They are binding under 

article 52 clause 3 and 7 

of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. 

You can read the 

corresponding explanation 

of the comment in the Official Journal of the European Union. 

There is no room for divergent interpretations. And: 

why should it be written 

there if it is not meant to 

be there?

But has not the German Constitutional Court 

rejected your interpretation by acknowledging the 

Lisbon Treaty?
Not at all. It has not 

commented on this question.

Is that the usual procedure?
It is actually the normal case. 

If the Constitutional Court does not want to tackle an issue,

 it simply does not comment 

on it.

Is this legally possible?
Legally this is more than questionable, but it is being 

done.

According to the explanation, 

death penalty can be introduced 

in case of war or danger of war. 

This is a very theoretical case.
Really? Are not we at war in 

Afghanistan? Who is defining war? 

What is danger of war? 

What about the Yugoslavia war?

But is not it normal that deserters are executed in war or in times of war?
Yes, in dictatorships.

It is even more frightening that in 

case of insurgency or riot, killings are possible without law 

and without any approval by a judge. 

Who is defining this?
Exactly. I think that Monday 

demonstrations in Leipzig 

[which led to the overthrow of the communist 

Regime in East Germany in 1989] 

can be defined as riot, like virtually 

any non-authorized demonstration. 

Or take the turmoil in Greece or the demonstrations recently in Cologne 

and Hamburg. 

All you need is a few punks 

[“Autonome”] throwing stones.

There are politicians and jurists 

who argue that the fundamental 

rights of a country 

can only be improved by the 

EU treaty, but not reduced.
The Charter of Fundamental 

Rights of the European Union does not contain any 

precedence or reservation of national fundamental rights or a principle of favorability with respect to these rights. 

Those who claim this prove their 

ignorance of the Union legislation.

How is this possible?
They argue with article 53 of the 

Charter of Fundamental Rights. 

But this article contains no such 

provision. 

It says: “Nothing in this Charter 

shall be interpreted as restricting or adversely affecting human rights and 

fundamental freedoms as recognized, 

in their respective fields of application, 

by Union law and international

 law and by international agreements 

to which the Union, the Community or 

all the Member States are party, 

including the European Convention 

for the Protection of Human Rights 

and Fundamental Freedoms, and by 

the Member States’ constitutions.” The crucial part is the clause “in their 

respective fields of application”. 

It means that the EU fundamental 

rights are decisive if the Union’s law is applicable and the national 

fundamental rights are decisive if 

national law is applicable. 

There is no case when both 

fundamental rights texts are decisive.

But could not the 

European Court of Justice declare 

that national law has precedence 

in this case?
This is something that the ECJ has 

never done. It always holds itself authorized. 

Besides, the prohibition of death 

penalty is no fundamental right. 

Hence, the argument that the 

fundamental rights can never be 

reduced does not apply here.

Another argument from the vicinity 

of the EU commission is that the 

article is there to allow 

the admission of states like Turkey.
But this is ridiculous. As a community, 

we have to say that we do not admit countries where 

people are killed, not vice versa.

Do the politicians know what they 

decide on?
Maybe not all of them. But definitely 

the CDU/CSU faction. 

I have distributed a five page 

summary of my lawsuit, so that the parliamentarians do not have to read 

too much.

 But the topic should also be known 

within the SPD because one of its parliamentarians, 

Professor Meyer, has tried to stop the ruling in Nice.

Can you imagine one reason why 

anything like this is passed?
Obviously, the governments expect 

riots. Skepticism towards the 

governments and the EU apparatus 

is growing and growing. The financial 

and economic crisis increases the 

pressure on the population.

So they want to be allowed to shoot 

them?
This is what it looks like.

What can we do against it?
I think that the EU Treaty permits resistance, because it undermines democracy.

What kind of resistance do you mean?
For example demonstrations and all 

forms of public dissent, 

the way of Gandhi.

…which then can be interpreted 

as a riot. This sounds like a dictatorship.
The word dictatorship is technically not correct. Since the Roman Republic, 

dictatorship is defined as a fixed-term emergency constitution. I would rather speak of despotism 

which can degenerate into tyranny. 

By the way: if in October the Irish 

approve of the Treaty of Lisbon, 

the abolishment of the death penalty is eliminated. •

Source: Focus-Money 35/2009, 

19 August 2009

Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

Scope and interpretation of rights 

and principles
(...)
3.   In so far as this Charter contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the 

Convention for the Protection of 

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the meaning and 

scope of those rights shall be the 

same as those laid down by the said Convention. 

This provision shall not prevent Union law providing more extensive protection.
(...)
7. The explanations drawn up as a way of providing guidance in the interpretation of this 

Charter shall be given due regard 

by the courts of the Union and of the Member States.

Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Right to life

1. Everyone has the right to life.
2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.

Source: Charter of Fundamental 

Rights of the European Union, 

14 December 2007,  

Official Journal C 303/1

Explanation on Article 2 – 

Right to life

1. Paragraph 1 of this Article is 

based on the first sentence of 

Article 2(1) of the ECHR, 

which reads as follows:
‘1. Everyone‘s right to life shall be protected by law (…)’.

2. The second sentence of the 

provision, which referred to the death penalty, 

was superseded by the entry into 

force of Article 1 of Protocol No 6 

to the ECHR, which reads as follows:
‘The death penalty shall be abolished. No-one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.’
Article 2(2) of the Charter is based on that provision.

3. The provisions of Article 2 of the Charter correspond to those of the 

above Articles of the 

ECHR and its Protocol. They have the same meaning and the same scope, 

in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter. 

Therefore, the ‘negative’ definitions appearing in the ECHR 

must be regarded as also forming 

part of the Charter:


(a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
‘Deprivation of life shall not be 

regarded as inflicted in contravention 

of this article when it results 

from the use of force which is no 

more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest 

or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’

(b) Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:
‘A State may make provision in its 

law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed 

in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied 

only in the 

instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions (…)’.

Source: Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, (2007/C 303/02)

The EU’s Satanic Plans: 

The Return of Death Penalty

The European Union has decided to reintroduce the death penalty for insurgents. 

Does this seem unbelievable to you? 

Have you heard nothing of it in the 

press? 

Then you better sit down first and 

take a deep breath. 
All of the members states of the 

European Union have abolished the 

death penalty. 

The worst punishment that the head 

of an insurgent has to face at this time 

is a jail sentence. 

However, the Lisbon Treaty now allows

 the death penalty as punishment for insurgents. 

Against the background of the financial crisis the European Union is expecting major revolts 

in many of the member countries – 

and is therefore pushing for the Lisbon Treaty to come into force 

as soon as possible. 
As a result of the Irish vote against the Lisbon Treaty in June of 2008 its enforcement was initially blocked. 

The Treaty seeks to extensively 

broaden the powers held by the 27 EU commissioners, to establish 

the office of a powerful EU president – which would practically transform the national laws of member states 

into historical relicts – and in some 

cases allow for capital punishment. 

In this context, once the EU reform 

treaty comes into force, the death 

penalty would be explicitly allowed, whenever necessary, 

for the purpose of “[lawfully] quelling 

a riot or insurrection.” 

The death penalty can also be 

sentenced in the EU in the future 

for deeds “committed in time of war or 

on immediate danger of war.” 

All this was published in small 

print in the the European Union’s 

official newsletter’s 

commentary on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which would 

come into force with the Lisbon Treaty. 

It seems that no one has taken 

notice of this particular passage, 

since Article 2 of the new

 Fundamental Rights Charter also 

states: 
“No one shall be condemned to the 

death penalty, or executed.

” That seemed explicit – only the small 

print includes these exceptions. 
The small print to the Treaty of Lisbon reads as follows: 
“(2) Deprivation of life shall not be 

regarded as inflicted in contravention 

of this article when it results from 

the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from 

unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest 

or to prevent excape of a person 

lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the 

purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
The above was quoted in the official European Union’s newsletter of 14 December 2007. 

In effect, the abolishment of the death penalty is immediately relativised and annuled by the small print 

in the commentary. 
In the case that the capital punishment becomes necessary according to 

paragraph

 c) to “quell a riot or insurrection”  

then the death sentence willl be 

possible in the EU in the future – 

despite its official prohibition.   

Did you know that? In April 2008 the German Bundestag  

voted with a 2/3 majority comprising of Christian Democrats, Social 

Democratis, the Liberal and Green 

parties,

for relinquishing German sovereignty in favour of the EU and the Lisbon Treaty 

and its provisions 

for reintroducing the death sentence for insurgents. 

During the debate, Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) praised the EU reform 

treaty as a “great project”.
Once the Lisbon Treaty comes into 

force, the EU government will become transformed into 

a powerful central government – 

like the former Soviet Union. 

Individual republics will then become meaningless and be forced to serve 

the well-being of the EU empire 

instead of its own interests. 

The Irish, who in contrast to Germany 

were able to vote in a referendum on 

the EU reform and on 

Ireland’s sovereignty, rejected the 

Treaty in June 2008, particularly also because of its implications of

reintroducing the death penalty. 

In the autumn of 2009 Ireland will 

have to vote on the Treaty a second 

time. 
In order for everything to function smoothly, on 18 March the 27 EU commissioners in Brussels 

secretely agreed to carry out a coup. 

This entailed breaking Irish law on several points. 

Before the vote and despite the current Irish law prohibiting political advertising, 

the EU carried out a political advertising campaign through the state media to influence the people’s vote 

toward favouring the Lisbon Treaty. 

This was financed by the EU citizen’s taxes. In order to ensure that the Irish vote go ‘right’ this time, 

the 27 EU states decided on 18 March in Brussels to buy votes: 

Bishops preaching in favour of relinquishing Irish soverei­ngty to the Treaty of Lisbon 

in their churches should receive money from EU sources. 

At the fore of all of this stood the EU parliament which even proclaimed that 

it wanted to see the Irish ‘No’ corrected as soon as possible, 

and that to this end Irish Bishops should even be put under immediate pressure. 

Many EU commissioners apparently considered this move too drastic – 

and agreed to secretely buy votes 

instead. 

Source: Udo Ulfkotte, Vorsicht Bürgerkrieg! 

p. 361–363, ISBN 978-3-938516-94-2
(Translation Current Concerns)