¹ Case 2/13, Adhésion de l'Union à la CEDH (Dec. 18, 2014), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

² Draft revised agreement on the accession of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Jun. 10, 2013), http://romatrepress.uniroma3.it/ojs/index.php/Convenzioni/article/download/204/203.Google Scholar

³ Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, E.T.S. No. 005 [hereinafter ECHR].Google Scholar

⁴ See Storgaard, Louise Halleskov, EU Law Autonomy versus European Fundamental Rights Protection-Accession to the E-On Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR, 15 HUM. Rts. L. Rev. 491 (2015); CMLR Editorial Comments, The EU's Accession to the ECHR – a “NO” from the ECJ!, 52 CMLR 1 (2015).Google Scholar

⁵ See Lock, Tobias, Oops! We did it again—das Gutachten des EuGH zum EMRK-Beitritt der EU, Verfassungsblog (Apr. 13, 2015), http://www.jurablogs.com/go/oops-we-did-it-again-das-gutachten-des-eugh-zum-emrk-beitritt-der-eu; Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, Opinion 2/13 on EU accession to the ECHR: a Christmas bombshell from the European Court of Justice, Verfassungsblog (Apr. 13, 2015), http://www.verfassungsblog.de/en/opinion-213-eu-accession-echr-christmas-bombshell-european-court-justice/#VgKGjH3UXm4; Jean-Paul Jacqué, Non à l'adhésion à la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme?, Dr. U. E. (Apr. 13, 2015), http://www.droit-union-europeenne.be/412337458; Christian Tomuschat, Der Streit um die Auslegungshoheit: Die Autonomie der EU als Heiliger Gral. Das EuGH-Gutachten gegen den Beitritt der EU zur EMRK, 42 EuGRZ 133 (2015); Marten Breuer, &;Wasch mir den Pelz, aber mach mich nicht nass!&;. Das zweite Gutachten des EuGH zum EMRK-Beitritt der Europäischen Union, EuR 330 (2015); Jean-Paul Jacqué, Pride and/or Prejudice? Les lectures possibles de l'avis 2/13 de la Cour de Justice, 51 Cah. Dr. Eur. 19 (2015); Francesco Cherubini, The Relationship Between the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights in the View of the Accession, 16 German L.J. 1385 (2015); Daniel Halberstam, “It's the Autonomy, Stupid!” A Modest Defense of Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR, and the Way Forward, 16 German L. J. 105 (2015); Stian Øby Johansen, The Reinterpretation of TFEU Article 344 in Opinion 2/13 and Its Potential Consequences, 16 German L.J. 169 (2015); Adam Łtazowski, Wessel, Ramses A., When Caveats Turn into Locks: Opinion 2/13 on Accession of the European Union to the ECHR, 16 German L.J. 179 (2015); Christoph Krenn, Autonomy and Effectiveness as Common Concerns: A Path to ECHR Accession After Opinion 2/13, 16 German L.J. 147 (2015); CMLR Editorial Comments, supra note 4, at 1; Daniel Thym, Das EMRK-Gutachten des EuGH, 5 EuZW 180 (2015); Édouard Dubout, Une question de confiance: nature juridique de l'Union européenne et adhésion à la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme, 51 Cah. Dr. Eur. 75 (2015).Google Scholar

⁶ See Douglas-Scott, supra note 5.Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. citations at supra note 4; citations at supra 6; Steve Peers, The EU's Accession to the ECHR: The Dream Becomes a Nightmare, 16 German L.J. 213 (2015); Piet Eeckhout, Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR and Judicial Dialogue: Autonomy or Autarky?, 38 Fordham Int'l L.J. 955 (2015); Tobias Lock, The Future of the European Union's Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights after Opinion 2/13: Is it still possible and is it still desirable?, 11 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 239 (2015); Sarah Lambrecht, The Swing is in the Tail: CJEU Opinion 2/13 objects to draft agreement on accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights, 2 Eur. Hum. Rts L. Rev. 185 (2015).Google Scholar

⁸ By “the Treaties” I will understand the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as modified by the Treaty of Lisbon.Google Scholar

⁹ See Commission Statement: EU Framework for democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights, Speech of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans to the European Parliament (Feb. 12, 2015), http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-4402_en.htm.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Commission, The European, 2014 Report on the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 15 (2014), http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/charter/application/index_en.htm.Google Scholar

¹¹ See Commission, The European, 2015 Report on the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 13, 23 (2015), http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/charter/application/index_en.htm.Google Scholar

¹² See Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, The European Union and Human Rights after the Treaty of Lisbon, 11 Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 645, 661–62 (2011).Google Scholar

¹³ See The Court of Justice of the European Union, Discussion Document of the Court of Justice of the European Union on Certain Aspects of the Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, (May 5, 2010), http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2010-05/convention_en.pdf.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cf. CMLR Editorial Comments, supra note 4, at 13.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Treaty on the European Union (consolidated version), Feb. 7, 1992, 2016 O.J. (C 202) 13 [hereinafter TEU].Google Scholar

¹⁶ Cf. Peers, supra note 7, at 219.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Vassilios Skouris, Aspekte des Beitritts der Europäischen Union zur Europäischen Konvention für Menschenrechte, in Europäisches Recht zwischen Bewährung und Wandel. Festschrift für Scheuing, Dieter H. 212 (Peter Müller-Graff et al. eds., 2011).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cf. Andrea Huber, Der Beitritt der Europäischen Union zur Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention. Art. 6 Abs. 2 S. 1 EUV 33–34 (2008).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Cf. Peers, supra note 7, at 219.Google Scholar

²⁰ José Rafael Aìs Marìn, La adhesión de la Unión Europea al Convenio de Roma. El cumplimiento de las obligaciones derivadas del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos en el ordenamiento juridico de la UE, 44 Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo 236 (2013).Google Scholar

²¹ Adhésion, Case 2/13 at para. 179–90.Google Scholar

²² See Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (consolidated version), Dec. 7, 2000, 2016 O.J. (C 202) 389 [hereinafter CFR].Google Scholar

²³ See Case C-399/11, Stefano Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal (Feb. 26, 2013), http://curia.europa.eu.Google Scholar

²⁴ Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, Jun. 13, 2002, 2002 O.J. (L 190) 1.Google Scholar

²⁵ Melloni, Case C-399/11 at para. 60.Google Scholar

²⁶ Adhésion, Case 2/13 at para. 189.Google Scholar

²⁷ Cf. Ingolf Pernice, L'adhésion de l'Union européenne à la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme est suspendue. Remarques à propos de un avis surprenant de la Cour de Justice de l'Union européenne du 18 décembre 2014, 51 Cah. Dr. Eur. 59 (2015).Google Scholar

²⁸ See Spaventa, Eleanor, The Protection of Fundamental Rights in the European Union after Opinion 2/13, 22 MJECL 47 (2015).Google Scholar

²⁹ Charalambos Tsiliotis, Das Verhältnis zwischen den Europäischen Gerichtshofen in Luxemburg und Straßburg vor und nach dem Beitritt der Europäischen Union zur EMRK, in Der Beitritt der Europäischen Union zur EMRK/The Accession of the European Union to the ECHR/L'adhésion de l'Union Européenne à la CDDH 83 (Julia Iliopoulos-Strangas, Vasco Pereira da Silva & Michael Potacs eds., 2011); Rainer Arnold, Der Schutz der Grundrechte in Europa vor und nach dem Beitritt der Europäischen Union zur EMRK: Auswirkung auf Deutschland, in Id. at 188; Paul Gragl, The Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights 98 (2013); Walter Obwexer, Der Beitritt der EU zur EMRK: Rechtsgrundlagen, Rechtsfragen und Rechtsfolgen, 47 EuR 143 (2012); Paolo Mengozzi, Les caractéristiques spécifiques de l'Union européenne dans la perspective de son adhésion à la CDDH, 15 Il Diritto dell'Unione Europea 241 (2010).Google Scholar

³⁰ Lambrecht, supra note 7, at 186–87.Google Scholar

³¹ See Eeckhout, supra note 7, at 967; CMLR Editorial Comments, supra note 4, at 11; Halberstam, supra note 5, at 105. Jean-Paul Jacqué, however, approved the CJEU's stance in this regard, although with little substantive explanation of the threat posed by Article 53 ECHR. Jacqué, supra note 5.Google Scholar

³² See Halberstam, supra note 5, at 125.Google Scholar

³³ See There might be another way of understanding the Court's stance. The CJEU might fear a situation in which a national court could refer to Article 53 ECHR through the so-called horizontal clause from Article 52, paragraph 3 CFR and thus circumvent the safeguards from Melloni. The horizontal clause, however, applies only to rights stipulated by the Convention and not to all of its provisions. Consequently, such interpretation would not be admissible.Google Scholar

³⁴ See Pernice, supra note 27, at 60; Krenn, supra note 5, at 166.Google Scholar

³⁵ Such a proposal was, in fact, propounded in the literature. Cf. Maciej Taborowski, Poziom ochrony praw podstawowych wynikający z Karty Praw Podstawowych UE jako przeszkoda do przystąpienia Unii Europejskiej do Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człtowieka, 12 Europejski Przegląd Sądowy 33 (2015).Google Scholar

³⁶ See Lock, supra note 7, at 257.Google Scholar

³⁷ Adhésion, Case 2/13 at para. 191–95.Google Scholar

³⁸ See Eeckhout, supra note 7, at 968; CMLR Editorial Comments, supra note 4, at 8–9; Halberstam, supra note 5, at 126–30; Lambrecht, supra note 7, at 187.Google Scholar

³⁹ See Case C-411/10 & C-493/10, N. S. vs Secretary of State for the Home Department and M. E. et al. v. Refugee Applications Commissioner Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, 2011 E.C.R. I-13905, para. 119–20. See also Birkinshaw, Patrick, How European Union Developments in Human Rights' Protection are Changing and Will Change the Context of Human Rights' Protection within the United Kingdom, in Der Beitritt der Europäischen Union zur EMRK 256–64; Jean-Paul Jacqué, The Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union: A First Assessment of the Interpretation of the Charter's Horizontal Provisions, in The EU After Lisbon. Amending or Coping with the Existing Treaties? 153 (Lucia Serena Rossi & Federico Casolari eds., 2014).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See Canor, Iris, My Brother's Keeper? Horizontal Solange: An Ever Closer Distrust Among the Peoples of Europe, 50 CMLR 385, 395–99 (2013).Google Scholar

⁴¹ N.S., Case C-411/10 & C-493/10 at para. 86.Google Scholar

⁴² M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, 2011 I Eur. Ct. H.R. 255.Google Scholar

⁴³ Tarakhel v. Switzerland, App. No. 29217/12, (Nov. 4, 2014), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Potential clashes between the principle of mutual trust and obligations stemming from the ECHR are not limited to surrender and transfer cases, but also to recognition of civil rulings. In the recent Avotins v. Latvia case, the ECtHR remarked: “[W]here the courts of a State which is both a Contracting Party to the Convention and a Member State of the European Union are called upon to apply a mutual recognition mechanism established by EU law, they must give full effect to that mechanism where the protection of Convention rights cannot be considered manifestly deficient. Nevertheless, if a serious and substantiated complaint is raised before them to the effect that the protection of a Convention right has been manifestly deficient and that this situation cannot be remedied by European Union law, they cannot refrain from examining that complaint on the sole ground that they are applying EU law.” Avotiņš v. Latvia, App. No. 17502/07, para. 116 (May 23, 2016), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/. In this case, the potential difference of standards was masked by the application of the Bosphorus presumption. Parenthetically, the ECtHR in its judgment explicitly cited Opinion 2/13 in a manner which seems to belie its will of reaching a compromise.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Case C-404/15 & C-659/15, Aranyosi & Cărldărraru (Apr. 5, 2016), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See id., at para. 78.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See id., at para. 88.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See id., at para. 92.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See id., at para. 94.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ N.S., Case C-411/10 & C-493/10 at para. 94.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Cf. Tarakhel, App. No. 29217/12, at para. 93; M.S.S., 2011 I Eur. Ct. H.R. 255, at para. 365.Google Scholar

⁵² Cf. Tarakhel, App. No. 29217/12, at para. 104.Google Scholar

⁵³ Although a solution based on a reservation made by the EU on accession has been proposed in literature it cannot successfully realize the demands of the Court. Krenn, supra note 5, at 165. The concept of a reservation in international law applies only to obligations of the EU, not to obligations of the Member States. Even if such a reservation could affect the application by Member States of the Convention as part of EU law only, it is irrelevant in this context because—from the international law viewpoint, which governs the eventual responsibility of Member States—their obligations would remain untouched. Consequently, such a reservation wouldn't shield Member States from the ECtHR's declaring their responsibility according to principles formulated in Soering. Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Such a clause would have to be perceived only as a direct consequence of EU interests. It cannot be motivated by the presumption that the CJEU effectively has a better interpretation of relevant norms of the ECHR. Cf. Steve Peers, The CJEU and the EU's Accession to the ECHR: A Clear and Present Danger to Human Rights Protection, EU Law Analysis, (Apr. 17, 2015), https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-cjeu-and-eus-accession-to-echr.html.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See Peers, supra note 7, at 221.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See Lock, supra note 7, at 243.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See Soering v. The United Kingdom, A-161 Eur. Ct. H. R. 217 (1989).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See Lock, supra note 7, at 261.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Cf. Spaventa, supra note 28, at 51.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See Agnieszka Frąckowiak-Adamska, Akcesja Unii Europejskiej do Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człtowieka–ryzyko naruszenia zasady wzajemnego zaufania między państwami człtonkowskimi, 12 Europejski Przegląd Sądowy 39 (2015).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland, 2005-VI Eur. Ct. H. R. 107, at para. 156.Google Scholar

⁶² See Adhésion, Case 2/13 at para. 196–99.Google Scholar

⁶³ See Eeckhout, supra note 7, at 971.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See Lock, supra note 5.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See Lock, supra note 7, at 262–63.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Cf. Halberstam, supra note 5, at 121.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See id., at 122.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ See Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated version), Mar. 25, 1957, 2016 O.J. (C 202) 47 [hereinafter TFEU].Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Case 283/81, CILFIT v Ministero della Sanità, 1982 E.C.R. 3417, para. 16.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Just as in the case of the previous point of the Opinion, the CJEU seems to seize the opportunity created by the DAA to remove a general problem in relationship between the ECHR and EU law, not necessarily related to the accession itself.Google Scholar

⁷¹ See Lock, supra note 5.Google Scholar

⁷² See Jacqué, Pride and/or Prejudice?, supra note 5, at 25–27.Google Scholar

⁷³ See Krenn, supra note 5, at 156.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Lock, supra note 7, at 263; Jacqué, Pride and/or Prejudice?, supra note 5, at 26.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ The reaction of the CJEU might be surprising given that during preparatory works on Protocol No. 16 advisory opinions were mentioned as means to guarantee the principle of autonomy of EU law, because the CJEU might avail of requesting the ECtHR. Cf. The ECtHR Reflection Paper on the Proposal to Extend the Court's Advisory Jurisdiction para. 10 (Apr. 6, 2016), https://www.coe.int/t/dgi/brighton-conference/Documents/Court-Advisory-opinions_en.pdf.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See also Explanatory Report to Protocol No 16 para. 9 (Jul. 10, 2013), http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Protocol_16_explanatory_report_ENG.pdf.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ The ECtHR explicitly referred to this dialogue ECtHR as one of the goals of the Protocol. Cf. Opinion of the Court on Draft Protocol No. 16 to the Convention extending its competence to give advisory opinions on the interpretation of the Convention para. 4 (May 6, 2013), www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2013_Protocol_16_Court_Opinion_ENG.pdf.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See id., at para. 8.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See Picod, Fabrice, La Cour de justice a dit non à l'adhésion de l'Union européenne à la Convention EDH, 6–9 La semaine juridique – edition generale 233 (2015).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See Frédéric Krenc, La comparaison des systèmes de procédure communautaire avec ceux de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme, in Quelle justice pour l'Europe? La Charte Europeenne des Droits Fondamentaux et la Convention pour l'Avenir de l'Europe 82–83 (2004) (explaining the doctrine of acte clair/acte éclairé in the context of the ECHR).Google Scholar

⁸¹ Adhésion, Case 2/13 at para. 201–14.Google Scholar

⁸² See Capotorti, Francesco, À propos de l'adhésion éventuelle des Communautés à la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme, in DAS Europa der zweiten Generation. Gedächtnisschrift für Christoph Sasse 720 (Roland Bieber & Dietmar Nickel eds., 1981, vol. II); Gérard Cohen-Jonathan, La problématique de l'adhésion des communautés européennes à la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme, in Études de droit des Communautés européennes. Mélanges offerts à Pierre-Henri Teitgen 106 (1984); Hans-Christian Krüger & Jörg Polakiewicz, Propositions pour la création d'un système cohérent de protection des droits de l'homme en Europe. La Convention EDH et la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'UE, 13 Rev. Univ. Dr. H. 14 (2001); Florence Benoît-Rohmer, L'adhésion de l'Union à la CEDH, 12 Rev. Univ. Dr. H. 61 (2000); Rozakis, Christos L., The Future of the Protection of Human Rights in Europe: Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, in Der Beitritt der Europäischen Union zur EMRK 299; Olivier de Schutter, L'adhésion de l'Union européenne à la CEDH: feuille de route de la négociation, 83 Rev. Trim. Dr. H. 562 (2010); Laura Pavlidis, EU und EMRK. Rechtsfragen des Beitritts 51 (2012); Huber, supra note 18, at 147; Obwexer, supra note 29, at 121.Google Scholar

⁸³ See Lock, supra note 7, at 254.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Case C-459/03, Comm'n v. Ireland, 2006 E.C.R. I-04635, para. 80–135; see also Nikolaos Lavranos, Jurisdictional Competition. Selected Cases in International and European law 24–30 (2009); Johansen, supra note 5, at 174–75.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ See Halberstam, supra note 5, at 118; Johansen, supra note 5, at 176–77.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ See Halberstam, supra note 5, at 120.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Adhésion, Case 2/13 at para. 213.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ See id., at para. 213.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ See Lock, supra note 7, at 255–56.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Adhésion, Case 2/13 at para. 215–35.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Hereinafter as CRM. See Gragl, supra note 29, at 148–49; Johan Callewaert, The Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights 66 (2014); José Manuel Cortés Martin, Sur l'adhésion à la CEDH et la sauvegarde de l'autonomie de l'ordre juridique de l'Union dans l'identification du défendeur pertinent: le mécanisme du codéfendeur, 4 Rev. Dr. U.E. 640 (2011); Xavier Groussot, Tobias Lock, Laurent Pech, EU Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights: a Legal Assessment of the Draft Accession Agreement of 14th October 2011, 218 Eur. Iss. 4 (2011) (On the co-respondent mechanism).Google Scholar

⁹² For reasons of coherence, the order of this presentation diverges from the exact order of the Court's objections as presented in the body of Opinion 2/13. The objection presented here as the third one is the second in the CJEU's arrangement.Google Scholar

⁹³ See Lock, supra note 7, at 249–50.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See generally Principles of Shared Responsibility in International Law. An Appraisal of the State of the Art (André Nollkaemper & Ilias Plakokefalos eds., 2014) (on shared and joint responsibility in international law).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Parenthetically, it should be mentioned that the problem the Court referred to would arise also in situations in which the international obligations of the respondent and the co-respondent differ not because of a reservation, but because different Protocols to which they are parties.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ See Lock, supra note 5; Lock, supra note 7, at 247.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ See Gragl, supra note 29, at 168–70; Tobias Lock, EU Accession to the ECHR: Implications for Judicial Review in Strasbourg, 35 Eur. L. Rev. 787 (2010); Schutter, supra note 82, at 560; Julie Vondung, Die Architektur des europäischen Grundrechtschutzes nach dem Beitritt der EU zur EMRK 244 (2012); Pavlidis, supra note 82, at 122; Michael Potacs, Der Beitritt der Europäischen Gemeinschaft zur Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention aus gemeinschaftsrechtlicher Sicht, in Österreich und das Recht der Europäischen Union 86–87 (Waldemar Hummer & Michael Schweitzer eds., 1996); Susanne Stock, Der Beitritt der Europäischen Union zur Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention als Gemischtes Abkommen? 323 (2010) (On the apportionment of responsibility between the respondent and the co-respondent).Google Scholar

⁹⁸ For example, modeled after current Article 3(6) of the DAA.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ See Lock, supra note 7, at 248–49.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Protocol Relating to Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the Accession of the Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to the Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community (Dec. 13, 2007), 2007 O.J. (C 306) 1.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Adhésion, Opinion 2/13 at para. 236–248.Google Scholar

¹⁰² explanatory report to the DAA implicitly refers to the priority given to internal EU procedures: Even though this situation is expected to arise rarely, it was considered desirable that an internal EU procedure be put in place to ensure that the CJEU has the opportunity to assess the compatibility with the rights at issue defined in the Convention or in the protocols to which the European Union has acceded of the provision of EU law which has triggered the participation of the EU as a co-respondent. (emphasis added)Google Scholar

Draft explanatory report, supra note 2, para. 66.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Adhésion, Case 2/13 at para. 241.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ See Lock, supra note 7, at 252.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Establishing the PIP without the necessary link with the CRM wouldn't be senseless by any means. There might be cases in which applications were filed against the EU alone where the CJEU did not assess previously the compatibility with the ECHR of a norm of EU law in question and no remedy to the CJEU must have been exhausted according to Article 35 paragraph 1 ECHR—namely if no Treaty remedies were available to the applicant in a given case, either ratione materiae or ratione temporis. In these situations, the PIP would be useful even though the CRM cannot be launched.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ See European Court of Human Rights, Rules of Court 33 (Nov. 16, 2016), http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Rules_Court_ENG.pdf.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ See Draft explanatory report, supra note 2, para. 66.Google Scholar

Even though this situation is expected to arise rarely, it was considered desirable that an internal EU procedure be put in place to ensure that the CJEU has the opportunity to assess the compatibility with the rights at issue defined in the Convention or in the protocols to which the European Union has acceded of the provision of EU law which has triggered the participation of the EU as a co-respondent. Assessing the compatibility with the Convention shall mean to rule on the validity of a legal provision contained in acts of the EU institutions, bodies, offices, or agencies, or on the interpretation of a provision of the TEU, the TFEU, or of any other provision having the same legal value pursuant to those instruments.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Cf. The Court of Justice of the European Union, Discussion document of the Court of Justice of the European Union on certain aspects of the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms para. 12 (May 5, 2010), http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2010-05/convention_en.pdf; see also Breuer, supra note 5, at 345.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ In Neulinger & Shuruk, the ECtHR remarked: The Court reiterates at the outset that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to resolve problems of interpretation of domestic legislation. This also applies where domestic law refers to rules of general international law or to international agreements. The Court's role is confined to ascertaining whether those rules are applicable and whether their interpretation is compatible with the Convention.Google Scholar

Neulinger & Shuruk v. Switzerland, 2010-V Eur. Ct. H. R. 100; see also Françoise Tulkens, Pour et vers une organisation harmonieuse, 1 Rev. Trim. Dr. Eur. 29 (2011); de Schutter, supra note 82, at 551; Groussot, Lock, Pech, supra note 91, at 5.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ See Conforti, Benedetto, L'adhésion de l'Union européenne à la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme, in L'Europe des droits fondamentaux. Melanges en hommage a Albert Weitzel 22 (2013); Obwexer, supra note 29, at 144.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Cf. Christian Kohler, Luigi Malferrari, Um letzte und vorletzte Worte: Zum geplantem Zusammenwirken von EGMR und EuGH nach dem Beitritt der EU zur EMRK, 22 EuZW 850 (2011).Google Scholar

¹¹² Adhésion, Case 2/13 at para. 249–57.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Lambrecht, supra note 7, at 195.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Cf. Storgaard, supra note 4, at 498.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Case 1/09, Accord sur la création d'un système unifié de règlement des litiges en matière de brevets, 2011 E.C.R. I-01137, para. 78, 80, 89.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Łtazowski, Wessel, supra note 5, at 203.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Cf. also CMLR Editorial Comments, supra note 4, at 13.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ The phrase means “Better no one than only the EctHR.” Mattias Wendel, Der EMRK-Beitritt als Unionsrechtsverstoß. Zur völkerrechtlichen Öffnung der EU und ihren Grenzen, 13 NJW 926 (2015).Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ See Krenc, supra note 80, at 80–92.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Martin Kuijer, The Accession of the European Union to the ECHR: A Gift for the ECHR's 60 ^th Anniversary or an Unwelcome Intruder at the Party?, 3 Amsterdam L. F. 29 (2011); Jean-Paul Jacqué, The Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 48 CMLR 1005–06 (2011); Gragl, supra note 30, at 127; Pavlidis, supra note 83, at 65–66; Tobias Lock, End of an Epic? The Draft Agreement on the EU's Accession to the ECHR, 31 Y.E.L. 189 (2012).Google Scholar

¹²¹ Jacqué, supra note 121, at 1006.Google Scholar

¹²² This observation was already made by Martin Kuijer in regard to a possible EU reservation concerning the CFSP. Cf. Kuijer, supra note 121, at 29.Google Scholar

¹²³ See Douglas-Scott, supra note 5; Leonard F. M. Besselink, Acceding to the ECHR notwithstanding the Court of Justice Opinion 2/13, Verfassungsblog (Apr. 17, 2015), http://www.verfassungsblog.de/en/acceding-echr-notwithstanding-court-justice-opinion-213/#.VJq5SFIM-U.Google Scholar