Sarah debates the EU's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights and enforcement of its judgements in the European Parliament (Slough Liberal Democrats)

Slough Liberal Democrats <johanney@hotmail.com>

Sarah debates the EU's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights and enforcement of its judgements in the European Parliament

July 16, 2010 3:00 PM
Originally published by Sarah Ludford MEP

Question by Joanna Senyszyn: The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has recently delivered several rulings regarding legal provisions in Poland which are in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Hitherto, the question of how ECHR rulings are implemented by EU Member States which are also members of the Council of Europe has been a matter for each individual Member State. Will the anticipated accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights alter this situation and, in particular, are there any plans to introduce EU mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of ECHR rulings by Member States of the European Union which are also members of the Council of Europe?

Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. − Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms will not affect the manner in which a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights against an EU Member State is executed by that Member State. That means that the accession agreement can only create obligations on the basis of the Convention and, where applicable, of any additional protocol of the Convention which the Union might ratify insofar as it concerns acts and measures adopted by the institutions, bodies, officers or agencies of the Union but not when it concerns acts and measures adopted by the Member States.

There are no plans to introduce any EU mechanism for monitoring the implementation of such rulings, since there is no legal basis for doing so. Indeed Protocol No 8 to the Lisbon Treaty states that accession will 'not affect the competences of the Union or the powers of its institutions' or 'the situation of Member States in relation to the European Convention'. This relates not only to the scope of the substantive obligations of Member States, but also to the manner in which a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights against an EU Member State is executed.

Sarah Ludford (ALDE). - Technically and legally I understand the Commissioner's response. Politically and in terms of real commitment to fundamental rights it makes no sense and it runs completely counter to Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty, which say the EU and its Member States will obey the Convention. Indeed a mechanism was put into Article 7 to try to make sure that Member States do not breach human rights, so how is what the Commission said compatible with the mechanism under Article 7?

We need a peer review system; we need monitoring mechanisms. I am afraid that answer shows why the Commission is so feeble about pursuing human rights breaches in the Member States.

Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. − The negotiations should ensure that the a priori internal control of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in accordance with primary law, is also applicable in cases where the conformity with a convention of an act of an institution, body, office, or agency of the Union is at stake in a case brought before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), but the Court of Justice of the European Union has not had the opportunity to rule on the compatibility of such an act with fundamental rights defined at the level of the Union.

Any such procedural means allowing the Court of Justice of the European Union to assess the compatibility of such acts with fundamental rights should be meant to safeguard the subsidiarity nature of the procedure before the ECtHR, and should not result in causing unreasonable delays in such a procedure.

(These are extracts of a debate that took place in the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 6 July 2010.)