Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T16:19:39.933Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Between Discursive and Exclusive Autonomy – Opinion 2/13, the Protection of Fundamental Rights and the Autonomy of EU Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2015

Benedikt H. PIRKER  and
Stefan REITEMEYER
Benedikt H. PIRKER
Affiliation:
Institute for European Law, University of Fribourg
Stefan REITEMEYER
Affiliation:
Institute for European Law, University of Fribourg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

EU Opinion 2/13 on the accession of the EU to the ECHR was a landmark decision of the Court of Justice of the EU both for fundamental rights protection in the EU and the autonomy of the EU legal order. The present article argues that two approaches would have been possible, following either a discursive or an exclusive understanding of autonomy. As a thorough discussion of the Opinion shows, the Court chose the latter pathway, with detrimental consequences for the foreseeable future.

Keywords

fundamental rightsautonomy of EU lawEuropean Convention on Human RightsCommon Foreign and Security Policydispute settlementCourt of Justice of the European Union
Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 17 , December 2015 , pp. 168 - 188
Copyright
© Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 

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.)

Footnotes

*

The present article is based on a previous short comment by the authors in German on Opinion 2/13 published in Jusletter: BH Pirker and S Reitemeyer, ‘Zum Gutachten 2/13 des EuGH über den Beitritt der EU zur EMRK’ (23 March, 2015) Jusletterhttp://www.jusletter.ch [last accessed 8 July 2015]. The authors thank Markus Kern and Sian Affolter for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

References

1 Opinion 2/13 (ECHR Accession II), EU:C:2014:2454.

2 Final report to the CDDH, Council of Europe, 47+1(2013)008rev2.

3 Besselink, LFM, ‘Acceding to the ECHR Notwithstanding the Court of Justice Opinion 2/13’ (23 December 2014) Verfassungsblog Google Scholar http://www.verfassungsblog.de [last accessed 8 July 2015]; Douglas-Scott, S, ‘Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR: A Christmas Bombshell From the European Court of Justice’ (24 December 2014) UK Constitutional Law Blog Google Scholar http://ukconstitutionallaw.org [last accessed 8 July 2015]; Kuijper, PJ, ‘Reaction to Leonard Besselink’s ACELG Blog’ (6 January 2014)Google Scholar Amsterdam Centre for European Law And Governance http://acelg.blogactiv.eu [last accessed 8 July 2015]; T Lock, ‘Oops! We Did it Again – the CJEU’s Opinion on EU Accession to the ECHR’ (18 December 2014) Verfassungsblog http://www.verfassungsblog.de; O’Neill, A, ‘Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR: The CJEU as Humpty Dumpty’ (18 December 2014) EUtopia law Google Scholar http://eutopialaw.com [last accessed 8 July 2015]; Peers, S, ‘The CJEU and the EU’s Accession to the ECHR: A Clear and Present Danger to Human Rights Protection’ (18 December 2014) EU Law Analysis Google Scholar http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com [last accessed 8 July 2015]; Peers, S, ‘The EU’s Accession to the ECHR: The Dream Becomes a Nightmare’ (2015) 16 (1) German Law Journal 213 Google Scholar; Wendel, M, ‘Mehr Offenheit wagen! Eine kritische Annäherung an das Gutachten des EuGH zum EMRK-Beitritt’ (21 December 2014) Verfassungsblog Google Scholar http://www.verfassungsblog.de.

4 See Odermatt, J, ‘A Giant Step Backwards? Opinion 2/13 on the EU’s Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2015) 150 KU Leuven Working Paper, p 12 Google Scholar; Johansen, SO, ‘Opinion 2/13: A Bag of Coal From the CJEU’ (10 January 2015) Pluri Courts Blog Google Scholar http://blogg.uio.no/jus/smr/multirights/ [last accessed 8 July 2015].

5 Bachi, K, ‘EU Accession to the ECHR: In Defense of the ECJ (25 February 2015) Jean Monet Saar Google Scholar http://jean-monnet-saar.eu?p=745 [last accessed 8 July 2015]; Barnard, C, ‘Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR: Looking for the Silver Lining’ (16 December 2015) EU Law Analysis Google Scholar http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com; Duff, A, ‘The European Union is in Deep Trouble With its Top Court’ (7 January 2015)Google Scholar BlogActiv EU http://andrewduff.blogactiv.eu [last accessed 8 July 2015]; Duff, A, ‘EU Accession to the ECHR: Politicians to the Rescue?’ (14 March 2015) BlogActiv EU Google Scholar http://andrewduff.blogactiv.eu; Halberstam, D, ‘‘It’s the Autonomy, Stupid!’ A Modest Defense of Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR, and the Way Forward’ (2015) 16 (1) German Law Journal 106 Google Scholar; Haltern, U, ‘Die Quittung für Verfassungsneid’ (29 January 2015) Neue Zürcher Zeitung, p 21 Google Scholar, http://www.nzz.ch/meinung/debatte/die-quittung-fuer-verfassungsneid-1.18471041 [last accessed 8 July 2015]; Jaqué, JP, ‘Non à l’adhésion à la Convention Européenne des Droits de l’homme?’ (13 December 2014) Droit de l'Union européenne Google Scholar http://www.droit-union-europeenne.be [last accessed 8 July 2015]; Krenn, C, ‘Autonomy and Effectiveness as Common Concerns: A Path to ECHR Accession After Opinion 2/13’ (2015) 16 (1) German Law Journal 147 Google Scholar; Labayle, H, ‘La guerre des juges n’aura pas lieu. Tant mieux? Libres propos sur l’avis 2/13 de la Cour de justice relatif à l’adhésion de l’Union à la CEDH’ (22 December 2014)Google Scholar http://www.gdr-elsj.eu [last accessed 8 July 2015].

6 Van Gend en Loos v Administratie der Belastingen, C- 26/62, EU:C:1963:1.

7 Commission v Ireland, C-459/03, EU:C:2006:345.

8 Opinion 1/94 (GATS Agreement), EU:C:1994:384.

9 Opinion 1/09 (Unified Patent Litigation System), EU:C:2011:123.

10 Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, C-402/05 P, EU:C:2008:461.

11 Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Opinion 2/13 (ECHR Accession II), EU:C:2014:2475, para 1.

12 German Constitutional Court 2 BvL 52/71, (Solange I), BVerfGE 37, 271.

13 Opinion 2/94 (ECHR Accession I), EU:C:1996:140.

14 Ibid, para 35.

15 For a short overview see R Streinz and W Michl ‘Article 6 EUV’ in R Streinz (ed), Kommentar EUV/AEUV (CH Beck, 2012) para 7 et seq.

16 S Douglas-Scott, see note 3 above.

17 See note 11 above, para 280.

18 See eg De Búrca, G, ‘The European Court of Justice and the International Legal Order After Kadi’ (2010) 51 (1) Harvard International Law Journal 1 Google Scholar.

19 We borrow for this purpose from Eeckhout’s paradigm of integration of the laws, eg see on the principle of limited and shared jurisdiction of courts: Eeckhout, P, ‘Human Rights and the Autonomy of EU Law: Pluralism or Integration?’ (2013) 66 (1) Current Legal Problems 169, pp 184–185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 See also A O’Neill, see note 3 above, who interpreted the Court’s decision as a claim to be ‘Master of the Treaties’.

21 See Opinion 2/13 (ECHR Accession II), EU:C:2014:2454, para 73.

22 For both the European Parliament and the Council see note 21 above, para 108 et seq.

23 See note 11 above, para 280.

24 See note 21 above, para 108 et seq.

25 Leaving out the four Member States that did not intervene in the procedure.

26 ‘And any man who must say ‘I am the king’ is no true king at all.’ Martin, GRR, A Storm of Swords (Harper Voyager, 2000), Chapter 53Google Scholar.

27 It is doubtful that the USA would agree to restrictions on a joint judicial body within the TTIP that would protect the autonomy of the EU and leave the CJEU on top.

28 See Van Gend en Loos v Administratie der Belastingen, EU:C:1963:1.

29 See also Epiney, A ‘Die Bindung der Europäischen Union an das allgemeine Völkerrecht’ (2012) Beiheft 2 Europarecht, p 25 Google Scholar.

30 See note 21 above, para 182. Thereby following Opinion 1/76 (Inland Waterways) EU:C:1976:63; Opinion 1/91 (EEA Agreement) EU:C:1991:490; Opinion 1/00 (European Common Aviation Area) EU:C:2002:231; Commission v Ireland, C-459/03, EU:C:2006:345; Opinion 1/09 (Unified Patent Litigation System) EU:C:2011:123. See also Eeckhout, P, ‘Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR and Judicial Dialogue – Autonomy or Autarky?’ (2015) 01/15 Jean Monnet Working Paper, p 4 Google Scholar, doi:10.2139/ssrn.2605821.

31 See note 21 above, paras 183–184.

32 Stefano Melloni v Ministerio Fiscal, C-399/11, EU:C:2013:107.

33 See note 21 above, para 190.

34 Article 53 ECHR.

35 D Halberstam, see note 5 above, p 125.

36 T Lock, see note 3 above.

37 See also S Peers and S Prechal ‘Art. 52 – Scope of Guaranteed Rights’ in S Peers et al, The EU Charta of Fundamental Rights (Hart Publishing, 2014) para 52.123.

38 Michl, W, ‘Thou shalt have no other courts before me’ (23 December 2015) Verfassungsblog Google Scholar http://www.verfassungsblog.de [last accessed 8 July 2015].

39 Haegmann v Belgium, C-181/73, EU:C:1974:41, paras 2–6.

40 For a similar argument in CFSP matters, see D Halberstam, note 5 above, p 141.

41 Opinion 1/92 (European Economic Area), EU:C:1992:189, paras 31 and 42.

42 See note 21 above, para 191 et seq.

43 Ibid, para 194.

44 See Tarakhel v Switzerland (Application no. 29217/12) (2014).

45 NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department, C-411/10, EU:C:2011:865.

46 D Halberstam, see note 5 above, p 126.

47 See N.S., C-411/10, EU:C:2011:865, para 94; Abdullahi, C-394/12, EU:C:2013:813.

48 D Halberstam, see note 5 above, p 134; Douglas-Scott, S, ‘Opinion 2/13 and the ‘Elephant in the Room’: A Response to Daniel Halberstam’ (13 March 2015) Verfassungsblog Google Scholar http://www.verfassungsblog.de.

49 Currently not yet in force.

50 See note 21 above, para 196 et seq.

51 See note 39 above, para 2–6.

52 D Halberstam, see note 5 above, p 121.

53 Article 5 of Protocol 16 to the ECHR.

54 See note 11 above, para 140.

55 Ibid, para 141.

56 D Halberstam, see note 5 above, p 122.

57 CILFIT v Ministero della Sanità, C-283/81, EU:C:1982:335, para 13 et seq.

58 See note 21 above, para 201 et seq.

59 See note 21 above, paras 208 and 212.

60 See note 21 above, para 213.

61 D Halberstam, see note 5 above, p 119.

62 See note 11 above, para 115 et seq; Johansen, SO, ‘The Reinterpretation of TFEU Article 344 in Opinion 2/13 and Its Potential Consequences’, (2015) 16 (1) German Law Journal 169, p 176 Google Scholar.

63 See note 11 above, para 117.

64 For similar arguments see Lock, T, ‘Autonomy now?! A brief response to Daniel Halberstam’ (12 March 2015) Verfassungsblog Google Scholar http://www.verfassungsblog.de.

65 See also M Wendel, note 3 above.

66 See note 11 above, para 118.

67 See also D Halberstam, note 5 above, p 120.

68 See note 11 above, para 176.

69 See note 21 above, para 55 et seq.

70 Ibid, para 220.

71 Ibid, para 220 et seq.

72 Ibid, para 223 et seq.

73 T Lock, see note 3 above.

74 Coram iudice et in alto mari sumus in manu Dei.

75 Peters, A and Altwickler, T, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, 2nd ed (CH Beck, 2012), p 286 Google Scholar.

76 See note 21 above, para 227.

77 T Lock, see note 3 above.

78 See note 21 above, para 230 et seq.

79 Ibid, para 234.

80 Ibid, para 236 et seq.

81 The argument about an indirect duty to inform imposed on the Member States based on the duty of loyal cooperation was not taken up by the Court, see note 11 above, para 224 et seq.

82 M Wendel, see note 3 above.

83 See note 21 above, para 242 et seq.

84 Ibid, para 246.

85 M Wendel, see note 3 above.

86 See note 11 above, para 132 et seq.

87 It should be noted in this regard that the General Court has recently decided cases on actions in damages without addressing expressly the problem of a potential lack of jurisdiction, see General Court, Case T-384/11, Safa Nicu Sepahan v. Council, EU:T:2014:986; Case T-293/12, Syria International Islamic Bank PJSC v. Council, EU:T:2014:439. However, at the time of writing the CJEU has not yet pronounced itself on this question.

88 Opinion 1/09 (Unified Patent Litigation System), EU:C:2011:123.

89 See note 21 above, para 251 et seq.

90 See note 11 above, para 89.

91 T Lock, see note 3 above.

92 See note 11 above, para 101 et seq.

93 Ibid, para 102.

94 Ibid, para 193.

95 Ibid, para 194.

96 M Wendel, see note 3 above.

97 S Peers, ‘The CJEU and the EU’s Accession to the ECHR: A Clear and Present Danger to Human Rights Protection’, see note 3 above.

98 D Halberstam, see note 5 above, p 141.

99 D Halberstam, see note 5 above, p 137 et seq.

100 D Halberstam, see note 5 above, p 142 et seq.

101 D Halberstam, see note 5 above, p 143.

102 S Douglas-Scott, see note 3 above.

103 See note 11 above, para 279.

104 S Douglas-Scott, see note 3 above.

105 Ibid.

106 M Wendel, see note 3 above.

107 Brings, T, ‘Änderungen der EU-Verträge zugunsten des europäischen Grundrechtsschutzes?‘ (5 February 2015) Junge Wissenschaft Google Scholar http://www.juwiss.de/5-2015/ [last accessed 8 July 2015].

108 LFM Besselink, see note 3 above.

109 For both proposals see: Morijn, J, ‘After Opinion 2/13: how to move on in Strasbourg and Brussels?’ (5 January 2015) EUtopia Law Google Scholar http://eutopialaw.com [last accessed 8 July 2015].

110 SO Johansen, see note 62 above.

111 Bosphorus v Ireland (Application no. 45036/98) (2009).

112 See Lock, T, ‘Will the Empire Strike Back? Strasbourg’s Reaction to the CJEU’s Accession Opinion’ (30 January 2015) Verfassungsblog Google Scholar http://www.verfassungsblog.de; D Hart ‘Dogfight Continues: Strasbourg Not Happy with EU Court on Accession to ECHR’ (30 January 2015) UK Human Rights Blog http://ukhumanrightsblog.com [last accessed 8 July 2015].