caEpSM7U7H

The ECJ went further in Internationale Handelsgesellschaft. There it asserted that respect for fundamental rights forms an integral part of the general principles of law protected by the Court – such rights are inspired by the constitutional traditions common to the Member States. One point to note here is that the ECJ is not comparing EC law with national law but with the principles of international law which are embodied in varying degrees in the national constitutions of Member States. A failure to make the distinction between general principles of international law (even if embodied in national laws) which the Community legal order respects and national law proper could erode the doctrine of supremacy of Community law vis-a-vis national laws.

The International Handelsgesellschaft judgment can be taken as implying that only rights arising from traditions common to Member States can constitute part of EC law (a ‘minimalist’ approach). It may be argued that if the problem of conflict between Community law and national law is to be avoided in all Member States it is necessary for any human right upheld in the constitution of any Member State to be protected under EC law (a ‘maximalist’ approach). Where certain rights are protected to differing degrees and in different ways in Member States, the Court will look for some common underlying principle to uphold as part of Community law. Even if a particular right protected in a Member State is not universally protected, where there is an apparent conflict between that right and EC law, the Court will strive to interpret Community law so as to ensure that the substance of that right is not infringed.

The role of international human rights treaties

Following Internationale Handelsgesellschaft the scope for human rights protection was further extended in the case of J. Nold KG v Commission (case 4/73). In this case J. Nold KG, a coal wholesaler, was seeking to challenge a decision taken under the ECSC as being in breach of the company’s fundamental right to the free pursuit of business activity. While the Court did not find for the company on the merits of the case, it asserted its commitment to fundamental rights in the strongest terms. As well as stating that fundamental rights form an integral part of the general principles of law, the observance of which it ensures, it went on to say:

‘In safeguarding these rights, the Court is bound to draw inspiration from constitutional traditions common to the Member States, and it cannot therefore uphold measures which are incompatible with fundamental rights recognised and protected by the constitutions of those States.

Similarly, international treaties for the protection of human rights on which the Member States have collaborated or of which they are signatories, can supply guidelines which should be followed within the framework of Community law’.

20

The reasons for this inclusion of principles of certain international treaties as part of EC law are clearly the same as those upholding fundamental constitutional rights; it is the one certain way to guarantee the avoidance of conflict.

In this context, the most important international treaty concerned with the protection of human rights is the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (ECHR), to which all Member States are now signatories. The Court has on a number of occasions confirmed its adherence to the rights protected therein, an approach to which the other institutions gave their support (Joint Declaration, [1977] OJ C103/1). In R v Kirk (case 63/83), in the context of criminal proceedings against Kirk, the captain of a Danish fishing vessel, for fishing in British waters (a matter subsequently covered by EC regulations), the principle of non-retroactivity of penal measures, enshrined in Article 7 of the ECHR, was invoked by the Court and applied in Captain Kirk’s favour. The EC regulation, which would have legitimised the British rules under which Captain Kirk was charged, could not be applied to penalise him retrospectively.

Thus, it seems that any provision in the ECHR may be invoked, provided it is done in the context of a matter of EC law. In Mannesmannrohren-Werke AG v Commission (Case T-l 12/98), the CFI emphasized that although the ECHR has special significance in defining the scope of fundamental rights recognised by the Community, because it reflects the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, the Court has no jurisdiction to apply the ECHR itself. The CFI therefore rejected arguments based directly on Article 6 ECHR in relation to an application to annul a Commission decision, but allowed the application on other grounds.

Relationship between the EC/EU and the ECHR in the protection of human rights

All Member States of the EU have signed the ECHR, and in most Member States, the Convention has been incorporated into domestic law. (It was incorporated in the UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force in October 2000.) When it is so incorporated, the Convention’s provisions may be invoked before the domestic courts in order to challenge national rules or procedures which infringe the rights protected by the Convention. Even without the Convention being incorporated into domestic law, the Member States are bound by its terms and individuals, after they have exhausted national remedies, have a right of appeal under the Convention to the European Court of Human Rights. The ECJ has done a great deal to ensure the protection of human rights within the context of the application of Community law, whether by Community institutions or by Member States. But, as the ECHR has not so far been incorporated into Community law, its scope has been limited and the relationship between the ECHR and the Union legal system is somewhat unclear.

21

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

There has been a debate about whether the EC/EU should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. In 1999, the Cologne European Council set up a Convention, under the chairmanship of Roman Herzog (a former German Federal President), to produce a draft Union charter as an alternative mechanism to ensure the protection of fundamental rights. This was completed in time for the 2000 European Council meeting at Nice, where the European institutions solemnly proclaimed the charter (published at [2000] OJС364/1 – hereinafter EUCFR). At the present time, the EUCFR does not have legal effect. The Treaty of Lisbon, in Article 6(1) TEU provides that EUCFR ‘shall have the same legal value as the Treaties. The provisions of the Charter shall not extend in any way the competences of the Union as defined in the Treaties’.

Despite some contention about the status and impact of the Charter, the ECJ has already mentioned the EUCFR in a number of judgments by way of reference in confirming that the European legal order recognises particular fundamental rights, where the Court observed that ‘the right to property, is recognised to be a fundamental human right in the Community legal order, protected by the first subparagraph of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) and enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’ (para. 144, emphasis added). However, there has been no judgment to date in which the ECJ has based its judgment on the EUCFR.

Article 52(3) deals with the complex problem of overlap between the ECHR and the EUCFR. It specifies that those rights in the EUCFR which correspond with ECHR rights must be given the same meaning and scope as the ECHR rights. EU law may provide more generous protection, but not a lower level of protection than guaranteed under the ECHR and other international instruments (Article 53).

Currently, the EUCFR has only declaratory status and it remains to be seen whether it will become legally binding. If this were to happen, some thought would need to be given to the relationship between the ECHR and the EUCFR and the role of the ECJ in interpreting the fundamental rights contained in the EUCFR.

Task 1. Read the text and choose the best options to fill in the gaps.

Human Rights Day

On 10 December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has become a (1) … standard for defending and promoting human rights. Every year on 10 December, Human Rights Day marks the adoption of the Universal Declaration which states that

“Human beings are born with (2) rights and fundamental freedoms”.

22

In 2006, Human Rights Day focused on (3) … poverty as a matter of obligation, not of charity. Poverty is (4) … by human rights violations. The links between human rights and poverty should be obvious: people whose rights are

(5) … are more likely to be poor. Generally they find it harder or impossible to participate in the labour and have little or no access to (6) … services and resources. Meanwhile, the poor in many societies cannot enjoy their rights to education, health and housing simply (7) … they cannot afford them. And poverty affects all human rights: for example, low income can prevent people from accessing education, which in turn inhibits their participation in public life and their ability to influence the policies affecting them.

Governments and those in a position of authority must (8) … responsibility for dealing (9) … poverty. The realisation of human rights – including the fight against poverty – is a duty, not a mere aspiration.

Task 2. Answer the questions.

1. Do you have any rights? Complete the table with your answers.

2.What other rights would you like to have?

3.What would you do if you saw one of your classmates cheating?

4.Do you think it’s a good idea to give money to homeless people in the street? Why? / Why not?

5.Some teenagers won’t accept someone who looks different or who is of a different ethnic origin. How do you feel about this? How would you react?

6.What would you think of someone who dyes their hair blue just to look cool?

7.Do you always agree with what your teacher / parents tell you to do? Why? / Why not? Give an example.

8.Can you remember a story from the news which you’ve heard recently? What was it about? Why do you remember it? What did you feel about it?

23

Task 3. Read the report and check your guesses.

Derry young wronged over rights

April 21, 2004

As young people, we were shocked when we recently found out about our official rights as children through a UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Also as young journalists, we believe there is one right that is more important to us than others and that is the right to have our voice heard. Beyond this right, however, young people have almost 50 rights in total, according to the UN Convention.

After completing a number of interviews across the city we discovered that three out of ten children didn’t know anything about what rights they had and most had never even heard of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This made us ask the question, why? What we need are ways to enforce these rights and make sure that every child knows them. If we do this, then we believe children will feel better about themselves and so will treat one another better.

Instead of perhaps boring you with the full list of rights, we, as a group of young people in Derry, decided to compile a list of our ten top favourite rights. If you want to find out more, check out the website www.unicef.org

As a young person:

1.You have the right to live (obvious but important!).

2.You have the right to choose your own religion.

3.You have the right to an education.

4.You have the right to be with your parents if they are what’s best for you.

5.You have the right to be protected from abuse and neglect.

6.You have the right to express the views you have and your views to be listened to in anything that affects you (teachers take notice).

7.You have the right to a decent standard of living.

8.You have the right to choose your friends and hang out with them.

9.You have the right to be protected from all forms of cruelty, exploitation and torture.

10.The government must uphold your rights.

Task 4. Read the text again and guess the meaning of the words given in the box.

24

Task 5.

a) Explain in English the following expressions:

b) Read the dictionary Translate the phrases into Russian and complete the sentences below. Make necessary changes.

right – something that you are morally or legally allowed to do or have: have a / no right to do something, give someone a right to do something.

be in the right – to be morally or legally correct in what you do or believe.

be within your rights (to do something) – to have the moral or legal authority to do something.

responsibility – 1. a duty that you have to do because it is part of your job or position; 2. a moral duty to behave in a particular way.

responsibility to / towards, have a responsibility, a sense of responsibility, take responsibility for something, under your own responsibility – when you are doing something because you think it is right and you ready to take responsibility if something wrong happens as a result

Task 6. Give synonyms and synonymous expressions for the following.

To assign powers; an advisory role; to hold the Council Presidency; codecision procedure; co-operation procedure; ascent procedure; Common Foreign and Security Policy; universal suffrage; draft directive /regulation; consumer protection; to throw out proposed legislation; to adopt a motion of censure; subject to approval by the European Parliament; Guardian of the Treaties; offending party.

Task 7. Translate the following words and phrases into English.

Наделять полномочиями; решения, обязательные к исполнению; руководящий орган; выполнять законодательные полномочия совместно с Европарламентом; совместно нести ответственность за; осуществлять политический/демократический контроль; процедура выработки компромиссного решения; отклонить предложенный бюджет; отправить Комиссию в отставку; подать иск в Суд ЕС на страну; соблюдать право ЕС.

Task 8. Discuss with your partner the following questions.

1.How do the EU institutions differ from the EU bodies?

2.What is the composition of the Council of the European Union and the European Council?

3.Who presides over the EU Council?

25

4.What are the functions of the EU Council?

5.When are decisions taken unanimously / by a qualified majority / a simple majority vote?

6.What are the powers of the European Parliament?

Task 9. Complete the following text with the words and expressions form the box.

election campaign; support; polling day; ballot box; vote; predict; opinion poll; polling station; candidate

People sometimes try to (a) the result of an election weeks before it takes place. Several hundred people are asked which party they prefer, and their answers are used to guess the result of the coming election. This is called an (b). Meanwhile each party conducts its (c) with meetings, speeches, television commercials, and party members going from door to door encouraging people to (d) their party.

In Britain everyone over 18 is eligible to (e). The place where people go to vote in an election is called a (f) and the day of the election is often known as (g).

The voters put their votes in a (h) and later they are counted. The (i) with the most votes is then declared the winner.

SUPPLEMENTARY READING

TEXT 1

Career Scope, Autumn 2001

The SNP’s journey began in 1934 when the Scottish Party and the National Party of Scotland merged to the Scottish National Party. The SNP was founded on a commitment to restore Scottish independence.

The SNP’s first parliamentary seat was secured in the Motherwell and Wishaw by election in 1945, which saw Robert McIntyre winning over 50 per cent of the vote. The party’s next victory was in 1967, when Winnie Ewing stormed to success in a Hamilton by-election taking a huge swing of the vote from Scottish Labour. Her campaign slogan ‘Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on, was inspirational to party activists and members.

In 1974 the SNP won 11 Westminster seats, with a share of the poll rising beyond 30%. This result brought the issue of Scotland’s self-government to the fore, however it wasn’t until 1997 when plans for a Scottish Parliament were endorsed in a referendum.

The Scottish Parliamentary election of 2011 was a turning point in the history of Scottish politics and the Scottish Parliament. In a truly momentous elec-

26

tion win, the SNP won an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament with 69 seats – a feat made more significant by the fact that the electoral system was specifically designed to prevent any party gaining overall control of the parliament.

With a majority government, the SNP were able to legislate for an independence referendum, which took place on September 18th 2014. The referendum inspired an extraordinary level of enthusiasm and energy in Scotland, with many people getting involved and casting their vote for the very first time. The referendum also saw 16 and 17 year olds voting to have their say on Scotland’s future, and they were some of the most engaged and inspiring voices in the debate. The turnout of 84,5% set a new record for any election held in the UK since the introduction of universal suffrage in 1918.

Politics was transformed in Scotland by the referendum and in the immediate aftermath of the referendum the SNP saw a significant increase in membership. At 5 pm on Thursday 18th September 2014, we had 25,642 members – a year on from that day our membership stood at 112,208.

The weeks following the referendum and surge in SNP membership also saw Nicola Sturgeon become the new SNP leader and First Minister of Scotland. She pledged to be the most accessible First Minister ever, going on a sell-out tour of Scotland, holding regular Facebook question and answer session with members of the public, and holding meetings of the Scottish Cabinet outside Edinburgh every two months.

With hundreds of thousands of new members and a strong team of MP candidates from a wide variety of backgrounds, the SNP entered the 2015 general election campaign in excellent spirits. With Nicola Sturgeon’s inclusion in televised debates in London as well as in Scotland, the SNP’s anti-austerity, progressive platform garnered support from across the border and beyond.

The SNP recorded an historic landslide general election victory in Scotland in May 2015. SNP MPs are making Scotland’s voice heard at Westminster and standing up for the progressive policies.

TEXT 2

The Treaty of EU, Lisbon

The current institutional structure of the Communities was established for a system with a more limited membership; originally there were only six Member States. Since 1957 membership of the Communities (and then the Union) has more than quadrupled and significant policy areas, such as monetary union, have been added to the Community’s remit and there is also the impact of the introduction of the Union itself and the issues included in the other two ‘pillars’ (FSP and JHA). Prior to the ToA, it was generally accepted that the current institutional structure was unable to function effectively in the modern Union and that institutional problems would only be exacerbated by further enlargement.

27

Obviously, expanding the Community’s competence itself increases the number of tasks the Community institutions have to perform, but increased membership brings further problems. It may be more difficult to reach agreement within the institutions: not only is it more difficult to reach agreement between a greater number of representatives, but with eastward expansion the Member States reflecting a greater diversity of interests, traditions and languages. In addition to the sheer weight of numbers, there will be a risk of fragmentation as the Union becomes less cohesive. The current Member States were aware of this problem even before the ToA, resulting in a Protocol being annexed to the ToA regarding proposed institutional reform. Although this document envisaged a two-stage approach to reform, to commence negotiations with more than 10 candidate countries, it was decided to commence full-scale institutional reform foreseen by the second stage of the ToA Protocol. The result was the treaty of Nice. To what extent has it dealt with institutional problems identified prior to and immediately after the ToA?

In contrast to the TEU, Nice was not a treaty aimed at creating a momentus constitutional change to the EU structures. Instead, it aimed to revise the way the institutions worked, to prepare the Union for enlargement. On one level the treaty can be seen as successful: difficult points of principle, such as the composition of the Commission and the issue of qualified majority voting in Council, were agreed. Given the tension between the large and small nations, it is commendable that a balance between these different interests was found. On the other hand, one could argue that many changes to the internal workings of the institutions, such as the strengthening of the role of the President in the Commission, added little, if anything, to the revised working practices already in place following the reviews of 1999. Although points of principle have been agreed, many difficulties, such as the rotation of Commissioners, remain. Implementing these decisions may give rise to problems. Nice may have taken steps to prevent all the institutions turning into ‘deliberative assemblies’ but some issues relating to efficiency, such as the need for multiple translations, the six-monthly rotating presidency of the Council and democracy were not resolved.

The institutional provisions in the Treaty of Lisbon largely replicate those in the EU Constitution. Certain aspects of the new institutional regime are relatively uncontroversial. The increase in the power of the EP is clearly warranted, as is the decrease in the size of the Commission.

There is nonetheless greater room for differences of view concerning other institutional provisions. Those who favoured unified executive power built around the Commission President will be disappointed. So too will those who advocated a parliamentary regime. To be sure the power of the EP over legislative acts and non-legislative acts was increased. However state interests exercised through the Council and European Council were also reinforced through, for example, the creation of the longer-term Presidency of the European Coun-

28

cil, and the European Council’s retention of ultimate control over the choice of President of the Commission.

The reality is that the EU Constitution and Treaty of Lisbon embody a regime in which executive and legislative powers are shared between the European Council, Council, EP and Commission. The sharing of such power has been a principal theme of the Community, and in this respect the EU Constitution and Treaty of Lisbon represent continuity with the past, rather than, some radical new departure. Thus while the powers of the President of the European Council are increased, the Commission, and its President, are still central to the new constitutional scheme. It is, for example, the Commission that is given power to initiate annual and multi-annual programming with the aim of securing interinstitutional agreement, and the Commission President co-operates with the President of the European Council in ensuring the preparation and continuity of the work of the European Council.

What Political System Does Russia Belong To?

Each political system has its peculiarities. We live in the Russia Federation which adopted (приняла) its Constitution in 1993.

THE PRESIDENT

THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

THE PEOPLE

All men and women over 18

29