The relationship between the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights is an issue in European Union law and human rights law. The European Court of Justice rules on European Union (EU) law while the European Court of Human Rights rules on European Convention on Human Rights which covers the whole of Europe, not just the EU, but not the institutions of the European Union. The European Union (EU) is not a member of the Council of Europe[1] and the European Union takes the view that while it is bound by the European Convention it is not bound by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) gives the European Convention on Human Rights "special significance" as a "guiding principle" in its case law.[2] The European Court of Justice uses a set of general principles of law to guide its decision-making process. One such principle is respect for fundamental rights, seen in Article 6(2) of the Treaty Establishing the European Union (Maastricht Treaty): "The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law."[3] Within this framework, the European Court of Justice uses all treaties that the Member States of the European Union have sign or participated in as interpretive tools for the content and scope of "fundamental rights," while holding the European Convention on Human Rights as a document with "special significance."[4] As seen in Article 6(2) of the Maastricht Treaty, quoted above, the European Union is bound to respect fundamental rights principles. This means that the institutions of the European Union must not violate human rights, as defined by European Union law, and also that the Member States of the European Union must not violate European Union human rights principles when they implement Union legislation or act pursuant to Union law.[5] This obligation is in addition to the Member States' pre-existing obligations to follow the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in everything they do. In practice, this means that the Court of Justice weaves the Convention principles throughout its reasoning. For example, in the Baumbast case, the Court held that when a child has a right of residence in a Member State according to Union law, this also means that his parent(s) should also have a right of residence due to the principle of respect for family life enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[6] Prior to the entry into force on 1 June 2010 of Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the EU could not accede to the Convention, and the European Court of Human Rights' did not have jurisdiction to rule on case brought against the EU. However, the EcHR has been prepared to hold EU member states liable for human rights' violations committed within their jurisdictions, even when they were just complying with a mandatory provision of EU law. Protocol No. 14 of the ECHR entered into force on 1 June 2010. It allows the European Union to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights.[7] The EU's Treaty of Lisbon, in force since 1 December 2009, permits the EU to accede to said convention. The EU would thus be subject to its human rights law and external monitoring as its member states currently are. It is further proposed that the EU join as a member of the Council of Europe now it has attained a single legal personality in the Lisbon Treaty.[8][9]Relationship between the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights
Contents
[hide][edit]Position of the European Union
[edit]Position of the European Court of Human Rights
[edit]EU accession to ECHR
[edit]See also
[edit]References
Thursday, 10 February 2011
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Posts
