13th Meeting of the Negotiation Group on EU accession

The CDDH ad hoc negotiation group (“46+1”)* on the EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights held its 13th meeting on 10-13 May 2022. In total, more than 80 delegates participated in this meeting, which took place in hybrid format. The handling of interstate applications (Art. 33 of the Convention) and of requests for an advisory opinion (Protocol no. 16 to the Convention) post-accession, the voting rights in the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe as well as the Common Foreign and Security Policy were among the topics discussed.

(*) The name of the group has been changed from “47+1” to “46+1” following the cessation of the membership of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe on 16 March 2022.

NO MORE COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS? About the looming fundamental rights patchwork in Europe and the chances for the current negotiations on EU-accession to the ECHR to help avoid it

The enclosed paper discusses the picture regarding the protection of fundamental rights in Europe today which increasingly looks like a patchwork, due to a lack of coordination at different levels. Developments reinforcing that picture include the emergence of different methodologies for the application of fundamental rights, Constitution-based challenges to European law by national Supreme Courts, codifications of existing case-law and the creation of so-called « hybrid » institutions.

The resulting complexity is a challenge for domestic courts, a threat to the confidence of citizens and detrimental to the fundamental rights themselves, their special role and authority being gradually eroded by a general relativism.

EU-accession could have an anti-patchwork effect and represent a chance for a general coordination of fundamental rights in Europe. Beyond making the Convention binding upon the EU, it would also have a pan-European (re)structuring effect by confirming the Convention as the minimum benchmark providing both the bedrock and the framework for all other national or European fundamental rights as well as for the necessary judicial dialogue on the latter.

Good progress has been achieved since the resumption of negotiations for EU-accession, justifying cautious optimism as to the possibility to find adequate solutions to the outstanding issues

“Non bis in idem” in dual proceedings: CJEU judgment in the bpost case

In the case of bpost (C-117/20, 22.3.2022) a Grand Chamber of the CJEU gave another ruling on the requirements of the non bis in idem principle (prohibition of double jeopardy), enshrined in Article 50 of the EU-Charter, when applied to dual proceedings concerning the same facts. In the present case, the company bpost was successively fined by two national authorities: first by the Belgian postal regulator, on account of discrimination against some of its clients, and subsequently by the Belgian competition authority, on grounds of abuse of a dominant position.

From a Convention point of view, the ruling is noteworthy in that it represents some evolution of the CJEU’s doctrine on the application of the non bis in idem principle to dual proceedings, i.e. a combination of administrative and/or criminal proceedings applied in respect of the same reprehensible conduct. To the extent that the administrative part of such dual proceedings is to be considered, by virtue of an autonomous interpretation, as criminal for the purposes of the Convention and/or the Charter, an issue about non bis in idem may indeed arise. Yet the methodological differences which existed between the Strasbourg and the Luxembourg approach in this field and resulted in different protection levels had given rise to some concerns (on this, see Do we still need Article 6(2) TEU?, at pp. 1707 et seq.).

In A and B v. Norway, the ECtHR upheld the ban on duplication of trial or punishment laid down in Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, but accepted that depending on the circumstances, some dual proceedings could be seen as complementing each other so as to form a single coherent whole not breaching that provision. This required that they be combined in an integrated manner, notably through a sufficiently close connection in substance and in time. By contrast, in Menci and two other cases decided on the same day, the CJEU accepted the possibility of a duality of criminal proceedings in certain circumstances, by considering such a duality as a limitation permitted under Article 52(1) of the EU-Charter.

This resulted in two different approaches to the same provision, based on criteria which partly overlap and partly differ from each another. While these different criteria did not necessarily appear mutually exclusive or incompatible, their coexistence nonetheless confronted the domestic courts, who may have to combine them, with a new source of complexity and legal uncertainty.

In the bpost case, while sticking to its own methodology based on Article 52(1) of the EU-Charter, the CJEU now took on board some of the Strasbourg criteria which it had previously ignored in Menci. It did so notably by referring to the notion of the “coherent whole” which, according to the ECtHR, the two sets of proceedings at stake must build in order for them to be complementary (A. and B., § 130) and by adding the requirement of a proximate timeframe to the relevant criteria for determining whether that is the case (§§ 51, 53 and 56). It now also relied on A. and B. in confirming its own case-law on the requirement that dual proceedings must be foreseeable and proportionate in their effects. Most significantly, the CJEU mentioned side by side, as the source of its relevant case-law, the Luxembourg judgment in Menci and the Strasbourg judgment in A. and B. (§§ 51 and 53), thereby suggesting that its case-law had a common basis. This is a significant move towards common standards, considerably facilitating the work of domestic courts.

Overall, there would therefore appear to be increasing convergence between Strasbourg and Luxembourg as regards the application of non bis in idem on dual proceedings, despite the remaining methodological differences. This, it is suggested, should hardly come as a surprise in light of the fact that, as recalled by the CJEU itself (§ 23), Article 50 of the EU-Charter, when applied within the same Member State, corresponds to Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention and should therefore, by virtue of Article 52(3) of the EU-Charter, be given the same meaning and scope.

Risk of breach of the right to a tribunal established by law following the execution of a European arrest warrant: judgment of the CJEU in the case of Openbaar Ministerie (Tribunal established by law)

In the case of Openbaar Ministerie (Tribunal established by law in the issuing Member State) (joined cases C-562/21 PPU and C-563/21 PPU, 22.2.2022) the CJEU gave another ruling on the execution of a European arrest warrant (EAW) in the face of a (risk of a) breach of the right to a fair trial (Article 47(2) of the EU-Charter) in Poland. This time, the question asked by the executing judicial authority, the Amsterdam District Court, was about the consequences to be drawn from generalised deficiencies relating to the independence of the judiciary in that country.

In terms of the interaction between EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights, the picture resulting from the CJEU’s ruling is a contrasted one. On the one hand, as regards the requirements flowing from the right to an independent tribunal, the CJEU underscored the common ground existing between its own case-law and that of the European Court of Human Rights (§§ 56-57).

As a consequence, and probably for the first time, the CJEU considered that the case-law of the ECtHR finding a breach of the Convention requirements in respect of a tribunal established by law, by reason of the procedure for the appointment of judges, could be taken into account by the executing judicial authority for the purpose of establishing the existence of systemic or generalised deficiencies in the issuing Member State (§ 79). In the same vein, the CJEU considered of equal relevance in this context the case-law of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal challenging the primacy of EU law and the binding nature of the Convention, as well as the binding force of judgments of the CJEU and of the ECtHR (§ 80). In other words, and indeed very interestingly, in the CJEU’s opinion violations of the Convention seem to be part of the picture to be considered when assessing the existence of systemic or generalised deficiencies within the meaning of EU-law.

On the other hand, however, differences remain in terms of the methodology applied to the fundamental rights concerned in a case like this, with the CJEU confirming and further elaborating on the two-step examination required for the assessment of whether (the risk of) a breach of fundamental rights can justify an exception to the obligation to execute a EAW (on this issue, see also Openbaar Ministerie (Independence of the issuing judicial authority and The EAW under the Convention).

In this connection, the CJEU elaborated at great length on the need for systemic or generalised deficiencies to be individualised, i.e. for their impact on the personal situation of the person concerned to be duly demonstrated by that same person. This should be done on the basis of a several criteria which are enumerated by the CJEU but which at the same time would appear, in their combination, to be of a rather complex handling (§§ 84 et seq.). At this point, one may therefore ask whether taken together, the overall amount and the nature of the evidence required does not represent a standard of proof which in the end is higher than the one applied by the ECtHR. If so, this would result in lesser protection for the person concerned. In support of this rather strict approach, the CJEU referred to the preservation of the effectiveness of the EAW system (§§ 47 and 63), the fundamental rights of the victims of the offences concerned (§ 60) as well as the fight against impunity (§ 62).

By contrast, the ECtHR does not consider systemic or generalised deficiencies in the country of destination to be a precondition for a real and individual risk of a breach of the Convention in that country to be established (see, concerning Article 3 of the Convention, Bivolaru and Moldovan). This would seem to be in line with the well-established principle according to which the Court’s role is not to decide in abstracto whether the law is compatible with the Convention, but rather to verify whether the manner in which the law was applied in the particular circumstances of a case complied with the Convention (see, among many others, Denis and Irvine v. Belgium, § 195).

Yet, it is also true that under Article 6 of the Convention, only a flagrant breach of the right to a fair trial in the country of destination can stand in the way of a deportation (see Soering v. United Kingdom, Stapleton v. Ireland). However,  it would not appear too difficult to consider an established lack of independence of a court to amount to such a flagrant breach.

In the end, as the case of Bivolaru and Moldovan shows, should a decision to execute a EAW be challenged before the ECtHR, the latter will focus on the individual circumstances of the person concerned. Under this approach, the absence of (proof of) systemic or generalised deficiencies cannot dispense the national authorities from nonetheless examining the personal risk incurred in the event of a deportation of that person. In other words, such deficiencies are no obligatory starting point or requirement under the Convention.

Seen from this perspective, the position of the CJEU comes down to considering that only such risks can be relevant for the protection of fundamental rights in an extradition context which originate in systemic or generalised deficiencies. Yet, while such deficiencies are often likely to have an impact on individual situations, this would not appear to justify the conclusion that they represent the only possible source of relevant individual risks. As the Strasbourg case-law shows, such risks can indeed also have their roots, for example, in specific circumstances or, as the CJEU itself suggests, in statements made in the context of a specific case (§ 97).

The European arrest warrant under the European Convention on Human Rights

The enclosed paper discusses the landmark judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Bivolaru and Moldovan v. France, which deals with the execution of a European arrest warrant and provides a good illustration of the effects of the Convention liability of EU Member States for their implementation of EU law. These effects touch on such notions as cooperation, trust, complementarity, autonomy and responsibility.

The two European courts have been cooperating towards some convergence of the standards applicable to the handling of EAWs. The Bosphorus presumption and its application in Bivolaru and Moldovan show the amount of trust placed by the Strasbourg Court in the EU protection of fundamental rights in this area. To the extent that their standards of protection coincide, the Luxembourg and Strasbourg jurisdictions are complementary. However, the two protection systems remain autonomous, notably as regards the methodology applied to fundamental rights. Ultimately, the EU Member States engage their Convention responsibility for the execution by their domestic courts of any EAWs.

The right to information and interpretation in criminal proceedings: judgment of the CJEU in the case of IS

In the case of IS (C-564/19, 23.11.2021), a Grand Chamber of the CJEU dealt with the preliminary ruling procedure under Article 267 TFEU and the rights and obligations flowing from that provision for the courts of the Member States. It also gave a detailed explanation of the requirements of Directive 2010/64 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and Directive 2012/13 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, which it interpreted in light of the Strasbourg case-law relating to these matters.

The case in the main proceedings concerned criminal proceedings in absentia brought in Hungary against a Swedish national born in Turkey, who was prosecuted for an infringement of the Hungarian legislation on firearms and ammunition; this followed an investigation during which he had been questioned by the police in the presence of a Swedish-language interpreter, but without the assistance of a lawyer, even though this was the interview at which he was informed that he was suspected of having committed offences under that national legislation.

On the issue of the rights of the accused, the CJEU first recalled that according to Article 52(3) of the EU-Charter, in so far as that Charter contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, the meaning and scope of those rights must be the same as those laid down by that Convention. Consequently, the CJEU must ensure that its interpretation of Article 48 of the Charter (presumption of innocence and rights of the defence) ensures a level of protection which does not disregard that guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention (fair trial), as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (§ 101). Interestingly and in contrast with most of its previous rulings on this subject, the CJEU did not mention here the autonomy of EU law as a limitation on the effects of Article 52(3). Whether that is intended or not remains to be seen.

On the issue of the interpretation and translation facilities offered to the accused, the CJEU ruled, with reference to the landmark judgment by the ECtHR in the case of Hermi v. Italy, that Article 5 of Directive 2010/64 requires Member States to take concrete measures in order to ensure that the quality of the interpretation and translations provided is sufficient to enable the suspect or accused person to understand the accusation against him or her and in order that that interpretation can be reviewed by the national courts.

With reference to Strasbourg case-law on the importance of proper information of an accused person for the fairness of his or her trial (Simeonovi v. Bulgaria, Pélissier and Sassi v. France and Sejdovic v. Italy), the CJEU furthermore interpreted Article 2(5) of Directive 2010/64 and Articles 4(5) and 6(1) of Directive 2012/13, read in the light of Article 48(2) of the Charter (rights of the defence), as requiring that if the interpretation provided was not of a sufficient quality to enable the accused person to understand the reasons for his arrest and the accusations against him, this would preclude the criminal proceedings from being continued in absentia.

Kolloquium Speyer, Sitzung vom 20. Januar 2022: Hassrede im Internet und Umweltschutz

Liebe Hörerinnen und Hörer,

Auf der Tagesordnung unserer letzten Sitzung in diesem Semester stehen zwei unterschiedliche aber gleich wichtige Themen.

Beim ersten Thema wird es um Hass und Hetze im Internet gehen und über die Frage, wie diese wirksam bekämpft werden können, ohne dabei die freie Meinungsäußerung einzuschränken. Eine Hörerin hat sich dankenswerterweise bereit erklärt, uns in ein Leiturteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte zu diesem Thema, im Fall Delfi / Estland, einzuführen.

Danach werden wir uns, anhand des Urteils im Fall Di Sarno und Andere / Italien, mit der Rechtsprechung des EGMR zu den staatlichen Aufgaben bei Umweltverschmutzungen vertraut machen.

Ich freue mich auf einen spannenden Austausch mit Ihnen darüber.

Prof. Dr. Johan Callewaert

Kolloquium Speyer, Sitzung vom 13. Januar 2022: die Unabhängigkeit der Gerichte

Liebe Hörerinnen und Hörer,

Unsere nächste Sitzung wird der Unabhängigkeit der Gerichte gewidmet sein, einem Thema, das im Zusammenhang mit dem Umbau der Justiz in einigen europäischen Staaten, darunter Polen, in den Mittelpunkt der Aufmerksamkeit gerückt ist.

Helfen wird uns dabei das recht lange aber lehrreiche Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte in der Rs. Dolinska-Ficek und Ozimek / Polen, das erst vor wenigen Wochen ergangen ist.

Ich freue mich auf einen interessanten Austausch mit Ihnen.

Prof. Dr. Johan Callewaert

Kolloquium Speyer, Sitzung vom 6. Januar 2022: die Wertegebundenheit der Demokratie

Liebe Hörerinnen und Hörer,

auf unserer ersten Sitzung im neuen Jahr werden wir uns mit den staatsrechtlichen Grundsätzen befassen, die der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte aus der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention ableitet. Sie kreisen alle um die Erkenntnis, dass eine echte Demokratie nicht werteneutral, sondern vielmehr wertegebunden sein soll. Was das konkret bedeutet, lehren uns nicht zuletzt die drei beigelegten Urteile, respektive ergangen in den Rechtssachen Refah Partisi / Türkei, Karacsony / Ungarn und Mugemangango / Belgien.

Ich freue mich auf einen stimulierenden Austausch mit Ihnen.

Prof. Dr. Johan Callewaert

12th Meeting of the Negotiation Group on EU accession

The CDDH ad hoc negotiation group (“47+1”) on EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights held its 12th  meeting from 7-10 December 2021. The meeting was held as a hybrid meeting (i.e. with delegates participating both in the meeting room and via video-conference). In total, more than 75 delegates participated.

The Group discussed in particular proposals related to the EU’s specific mechanism of the procedure before the European Court of Human Rights, the principle of mutual trust between the EU member states, as well as the situation of EU acts in the area of the Common Foreign and Security Policy that are excluded from the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

In this context, the Group tentatively agreed on operative provisions and corresponding paragraphs for the explanatory report concerning the triggering of the co-respondent mechanism and mutual trust (reproduced in Appendix IV and V of the meeting report respectively).