Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-05-05-Speech-3-486"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100505.75.3-486"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, my colleague Olli Rehn has already expressed the position and the condolences of the Commission concerning the Greek disaster, so let me just look at how we can advance with our work because this will be of the utmost importance for completing the system of protection of fundamental rights within the Union, and the accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights, which is enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, is not an option. It is a destination, as the Presidency so well expressed it just now, but this accession is only one of the four elements of a very ambitious and comprehensive fundamental rights policy at the level of the European Union.
It is of particular importance to take account of the decentralised implementation of Union law by Member States. By that mechanism the Union will receive the right to join the proceedings as a co-respondent in cases brought against a Member State when Union law is at stake.
From an institutional point of view I would also like to stress the Commission’s position that representatives of the European Union should participate in the bodies of the Convention on an equal footing with the representatives of other contracting parties. That means, for instance, that a judge elected for each contracting party is one of the founding principles of the Convention. This principle ensures that each legal system is represented within the Court; it is also a reflection of the collective guarantee system established by the Convention in which each contracting party is required to participate, and that means that we need a permanent full judge elected by the Union who enjoys the same status and has the same duties as his peers and who intervenes potentially in all cases.
An ad hoc judge who intervenes only in cases brought against the Union or involving Union law would not be sufficient. As for the method of electing this judge, the normal procedure provided for in the Convention should also apply here. This means that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe elects such a judge from a list of three candidates presented by the European Union. We believe that an appropriate number of Members of the European Parliament should be allowed to participate in sessions of the Parliamentary Assembly when it elects the judges of the Strasbourg Court.
I would like to thank the rapporteurs of the AFCO and LIBE Committees, Mr Jáuregui and Mrs Gál, for their excellent cooperation on the file, and the hearing which was organised by the AFCO Committee on 18 March was really of great use. I am also happy that the Spanish Presidency of the Council gave high priority to this file. I am therefore confident that we will be able to start the negotiations on accession after the summer. I will ensure that the Commission, as the Union’s negotiator, will keep Parliament fully informed throughout the negotiation process.
Madam President, I do not believe that it is necessary on such a day to underline once more how important fundamental rights are for Europe and how important they are for all the acts we are proposing. I am sure the Union will not find it difficult to meet the standards of the Convention, but adhering to the Convention will certainly enhance the protection of fundamental rights in Europe, and by this I mean of each and every single human being who lives in Europe.
First of all, with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights is legally binding, and this legally binding charter is the most modern qualification of fundamental rights in the world in terms of political commitment for fundamental rights, of legibility and of legal certainty, and it entrenches all the rights found in the Convention. The meaning and scope of these rights are the same as those laid down by the Convention, but the Charter goes further. In it we find, for example, the so-called third generation of fundamental rights: data protection, guarantees on bioethics, on good and transparent administration. The level of protection provided by the Charter must always be at least as high as that of the Convention. In many cases it goes beyond.
Secondly, there is the promotion of fundamental rights as a priority of the Stockholm Programme, setting the strategic guidelines for developing an area of freedom, security and justice in Europe.
Thirdly, there is the creation of a new portfolio – justice, fundamental rights and citizenship – which shows how much importance the Commission attaches to strengthening the action of the Commission in this area.
Then, fourthly, the accession of the EU to the Convention. It will guarantee that any person claiming to be a victim of a violation of the Convention by an institution or by a body of the Union is able to bring a complaint against the Union before the Strasbourg Court under the same conditions as those applying to complaints brought against Member States. In political terms accession means that the European Union reaffirms the pivotal role played by the Convention’s system for the protection of human rights in Europe – in an enlarged Europe, not only in the European Union – but by acceding to this Convention the European Union puts its weight behind the Strasbourg system, and this is a system of external judicial control in the area of fundamental rights because now we are submitting our legal order fully and formally to that control. This, of course, will enhance the credibility both internally and externally of the EU’s very strong commitment to fundamental rights.
By mid-March the Commission had proposed a negotiation mandate to the Council. Protocol 8 of the Lisbon Treaty requires a certain number of substantive guarantees to be provided for in an agreement relating to accession because we have to preserve the specific characteristics of Union law and the Commission’s recommendation to the Council takes full account of these requirements. I just want to mention two of them.
It is clear that the Union’s competence and powers, as defined in the Treaties, may not be affected by the accession, and the provision in the accession agreement will have to make this very clear. Likewise, the accession of the European Union may not affect either the situation of individual Member States in relation to the European Court of Human Rights or the protocols there or the reservations. The negotiations should therefore ensure that the accession agreement creates obligations under the substantive provisions of the Conventions only with regard to acts and measures adopted by the institutions or by the bodies of the Union.
Now the Commission is seeking a smooth insertion of the European Union into the system of the Convention. The accession should therefore preserve the substantive and procedural features of that system. However, the accession must meet two requirements. First, as I said already, the specific characteristics of the law of the European Union have to be preserved; safeguarding the Court of Justice and its prerogatives following accession is an important issue. There are interesting proposals on the table which aim at involving the Court of Justice in situations where the compatibility of a legal act of the Union is at stake before the Strasbourg Court, without a preliminary reference having been made. These proposals can probably be designed in such a way as not to require a Treaty amendment and they deserve careful analysis and discussion in the Council working party. I know that the Spanish Presidency is doing everything in order to bring these discussions forward.
Second, it is important to deal with the specific situation of the Union as a distinct legal entity, vested with autonomous powers, which will become a contracting party side-by-side with the Member States to a mechanism which was not, initially, designed for this purpose – but it was designed for the Member States – and therefore a limited number of technical and procedural adaptations to the Conventions are necessary with regard to the specific nature of Union law. Among these is the so-called ‘co-respondent mechanism’."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples