CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF EUROPEAN UNITED

Q. Discuss the charter of fundamental rights of Europe union?

The above question pertains to the charter of fundamental right of Europe union. In this
question, we would be discussing about the issues and laws of the charter of human rights.

The charter of fundamental rights of the Europe union (CFR) enshrines certain political, social
and economic right for EU citizen and residents into EU Law. It was drafted by the European
Convention and solemnly signed on 7 December 2000 by the Europe Parliament. The Europe
union must act and legislate consistently with the charter and the EU’s court will strike down
legislation adopted by the EU’s institution that contravenes it. The charter applies to the
institution of the Europe union and its member states when implementing EU law. The world is
constantly changing and with these changes including Europe, in 50 years a lot of
transformation has taken place. Its issues are many and they include globalization, Europe
climate changes and security threats.

The Lisbon treaty aims is to break barriers and to build the united forefront that is necessary to
cause positive change and modernize Europe. Modernization is necessary for the Europe union
to adapt to political, economical and social changes, which is necessary to keep up with the
expectation of Europe public. The treaty establishing the Europe Economic community (Treaty
of Rome) did not include any reference to fundamental or human rights. The EEC treaty was
written a few years after the failure of the European defense community treaty & the Europe
political community provision. The latter treaty had included right provision. However, the idea
that the purely economic end of the new EEC treaty would be unlikely to have any implications
for fundamental rights was soon to be tested.

Soon after the entry into force of the EEC treaty, the community established itself as major
political entity with policy ramifications. In 1964, the Europe court of justice handed down its
decision in case (Costa v ENEL) in which was held that union Law should take precedence over
conflicting national law. Another case example is of (Siragusa). This issue comes in the case
(Handelsgesellschaft) when a German court ruled that a piece of EEC legislation infringed the
German Law. However, the ECJ had in effect created a doctrine of un-written right which bound
the community institution. In 1999, the Europe council proposed that a body composed of
representatives of the heads of state and Government and of the president of the commission
as well as of members of the Europe parliament and national parliament should be informed to
draft a fundamental rights charter.
A Modified charter formed part of the defunct Europe constitution. Later when the treaty
failed. The replacement the Lisbon treaty 2007 likewise gave force to the charter albeit by
reforming it as an independent document either than by incorporating it into the treaty itself.

The Fundamental rights charter has the some legal value as the Europe union treaties. The
charter referred to in the treaty is an amended version of 2000 document that was declared by
the same three-installations.

Moreover, Article 51 (1) of the Charter addresses the European Union institution, the bodies
established under EU law and when implementing EU laws the EU member state (Fransson). To
add more, both Article 6 of the amended treaty of Europe union and Article 51 (2) of the
charter restrain the charter from extending the competences. Furthermore, individual will not
be able to take a member state to council for failing to uphold the rights in the charter UN-less
the member state in question was implementing EU Law. As per the case of (P v S and Cornwall
County Council).

The charter is not the first attempt to place human right principles at the case of Europe union
Law. All EU member states are required to be signatories to the council of Europe’s Europe
convention of human right so that many principles from the convention such as right to fair trail
were taken as the baseline for the Europe court of justice even before formal charter. In the
case of (Johston V Royal Ulster Constabulary) it was held that a right to fair trial was one of the
general principles of EU Law in case of (Kremzow v Austria) the ECJ had to decide whether or
not a MS was obliged to apply that principle in relation to a wrongful convention for murder. It
was argued that this case come within scope of EU Law on the grounds that his wrongful
conviction and sentence had breached his right to free movement within the EU. The ECJ
responded by saying that since the law under which Kremzow had been convicted were not
enacted to secure compliance with EU Law, his predicament fell outside the scope of EU Law.

The wording in (Kremzow v Austria) referring to the field of application of EU law differs from
the working in the charter which refers to the implementation of ELL Law, however, the
amended explanatory memorandum issued alongside the charter in 2007 describes the
wording used in charter and reflecting ECJ precedent.

During the following year, the charter’s proclamation the ECTJ dealt with 23 cases relating to
fundamental rights and although they were not bound by the charter the AG’s mode reference
to it in 14 of the cases. It has been suggested that the Advocates General of the court of justice
are also in support of the The charter has also been used by the ECHR where the Vice –President, judge
Costa used the charter in this separate but concurrent opinion in charter. In the case of (Netherlands v
Europe Parliament) the charter was directly referred to determine the fundamental status of
the right to human dignity and the right to free and informed consent of the individual
concerned in the fields of medicine and biology. Another case example is of (Viking Line Abp),
(Google Spain), and (Omega).

The Advocates General were not alone is supporting the case for legal force. In 2002 the court
of first instance joined in support of giving the charter legal force in the case of (Max Mobil
service GmBH v Commission) it made reference to Article 41 and 47 thus demonstrating their
willingness to use the charter as a source for legal reasoning. This charter was also been used
by the ECHR where the Vice President, Judge Costa used the charter in this separate but
concurrent opinion in Hatton and others v The United Kingdom. Costa referred to the
provision on the protection of environment (Art 37) and (Art 36) in order to show that the case
Law of ECHR had not been alone in becoming increasingly aware of the importance of
environment issues. A case example is of (Bauer and Bronner). In negotiations leading up to the
signing of the Lisbon treaty, Poland & UK secured a protocol to the treaty relating to the
application of the charter of the fundamental rights in their respective countries.

The protocol in Article 1 (1) states that the charter does not extend the ability of the court of
justice of the Europe Union or any court or tribunal of Poland or of UK to find that the Laws,
regulations or administrative provision, practices or actions of Poland or of the UK are
inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms. Article 1 (2)
than says that the title IV of charter which contains economic and social rights does not create
justifiable rights, unless Poland and the UK have provided for such right in their national Laws.
An case example is of (Malloni). Both countries to which the protocol currently applies had
different reason for negotiating the protocol. The UK originally oppose a legally binding charter
over concerns that it would result in a stream of British citizens going to the Europe court of
Justice in attempts to enforce their charter right in UK and in increased costs for business.
While the British accepted, the legally binding rights charter during legally bundling right
charter during the negotiation of the failed European constitution.

There is considerable debate concerning the legal effect of the protocol. One view shared by
Jan is that the protocol is on opt-out that excludes to the application of the charter to Poland
and UK. Another shared by Ingolf that the protocol is either only an interpretative protocol,
which will have limited or no legal consequence. In case of (NS v Home Secreatory) the ECJ
ruled that Art 1 of protocol explains Article 51 of charter with regard to the scope thereof and
does not intend to exempt the Republic of Poland or UK from the obligation to comply with the
provisions of the charter or to present a court of one of these MS from ensuring compliance
with those provisions. Under clause 5 (4) of Europe union (withdrawal) bill, the charter of
fundamental rights will not be retained in UK adder it exists from the EU (Test-Achats ASBL).
Campaign groups such as Liberty & Amnesty inconsistent with the Great Repeal Bills, aims of
Legal certainty and the Government’s promise of retaining all EU law on the date of
Withdrawal.

The Lisbon treaty now replace the ‘’ the treaty of Europe union (TFEU) and the treaty of
functionary of the union (TFEU)

In conclusion, the Lisbon Treaty has given citizen rights against the EU once their human rights
have been violated. Tobias supported this in his article that was written in 2010. The voice of
the EU is not only stronger but it also makes decision-making process more efficient and
coherent. Finally, it makes EU supreme in all aspects. However, after the Brexit EU law will not
be applicable in the UK after 31 December 2020.