A historical development of these Fundamental Rights The European union Charter of Fundamental Rights sets out In a single document a range of essential civil, political and social rights protected In the EX.. The Charter consists of rights and freedoms divided into six sections: Dignity, Freedom, Solidarity, Equality, Citizens’ rights and Justice. The European Parliament, Commission and Council officially announced the Charter in Nice in December 2000, and at the time had no legal effect.
Within the E the rights of all colleens were established at varying times, ways and forms. The E therefore sought to clarify these fundamental rights applicable to the E in a more accessible form and bring them together into a single document. The Charter is the first E document to unite and proclaim all the fundamental rights and values citizens of the EX. Should be permitted. It does not create new rights but instead gathers the current rights that were formerly found in an assortment of legislative sources such as In national E laws and International conventions from he Council of Europe.
The Charter applies to the ELI Institutions and bodies created under secondary legislation that must abide by the rights and observe the principles professed by the Charter. Only when EX. Member States act within the scope of EX. Law, is the Charter applicable. After the coming into force of the Amsterdam Treaty the European Council on the 3rd and 4th of June 1999 assembled in Cologne to discuss and consider major issues for the future.
The European Council concluded that at the See’s current point of development the fundamental rights applicable at onion level should be consolidated In a Charter ‘In order to make their overriding importance and relevance more visible to the union’s citizens. ‘ Following the Cologne Presidency conclusions, the European Council in Tampere, Finland October 1999 assigned to a Convention built of 15 representatives of heads of state or government, 16 Members of the European Parliament, 30 members of national parliaments and a representative of the President of the European Commission, the role of drafting up the Charter.
The European Commission first publicized Its communication on the rafted Charter on the 13th September 2000. Although the Commission recommended several amendments to the Charter, overall it supported the preliminary draft. The Commission published its second communication on October 11 2000, embracing a pragmatic approach. Several days later the European Council held a meeting In Barbarity whereby the contents of the drafted EX. Charter of Commission and Parliament.
Once the European Commission and Parliament had officially adopted the text, a ‘solemn declaration’ was set to be proclaimed by the European Council in Nice on the 8-9 of December 2000. Yet pressure remained for the text to be provided a Treaty basis, thus becoming legally binding. Subsequent to the summit in Barbarity, the French President Jacques Circa stated in the press conference that the issue of the texts legal status remained undetermined. Following the meeting in Barbarity the European Parliament handed their agreement on 14 November 2000 and the Commission on 6 December 2000.
The Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission gathered in Nice on 7, 8 and 9 December 2000, initiating proceedings with an exchange of views regarding the main issues for discussion. On behalf of their institutions the presidents of the European Parliament, Commission and Council signed and welcomed the combined declaration of the Charter. The Council wanted the Charter to be distributed broadly amongst citizens of the European Union.
Following the Nice summit, the Charter receiving legal status was initially strongly opposed by British government, an element of their argument being that for the text to become a legal one it would need to be modified as it had been written as a political document. Although few amendments were made the Charter was later added to the Constitutional Treaty and accepted by the I-J however this created political problems. The following year (December 2001) the European Council assembled in Leaked to address many of the central matters the EX. Faced, including the Charters status.
In the Leaked declaration the European Council convened a Convention on the Future of Europe, which emulated the body that had originally drafted the Charter. They were assigned the task to examine and develop potential responses regarding whether or not the Charter of Fundamental Rights ought to be included in the basic Treaty , and if the European Union should accede to the European Convention of Human Rights (CRECHE). The Convention was also given the responsibility of seeing how the Charter may be built-in and implications of such incorporation.
Whether or not the Charter should be incorporated was firmly reserved to the Conventions plenary. Although hesitant the conventions final report selected that the amalgamation be put forward for consideration, which would generate a legally binding Charter, bestowing it with Constitutional status. Conversely the approach of incorporation came under much scrutiny with Sir Francis Jacobs describing the Treaty as Wholly unwieldy and louses’. He added that the materialistic of the Charter through the Treaty is dissatisfactory, and would probably deliver less than pledged.
Several of theses critiques encompassed criticisms of the contents of the Charter and not the method of inclusion. The method of integration was an approach that not only entailed substantive provisions but also a prolonged preamble, barely a representation of commendable drafting. The European Convention On 10 July 2003 finalized drafting the Treaty which established a Constitution for Europe. The draft was put forward to he President of the European Council, which involved the European Convention integrating the EX. Charter of Fundamental Rights as part II of the three part document.
Shortly after on the 18 July 2003, the official hand over of the drafted Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was presented to the Italian Presidency discuss the drafted Treaty in furtherance for it to be approved by all Member States. The Presidency of the European Council was held by Italy from 1 July to 31 December 2003. Thorough deliberation was undergone however they failed to make a final decision on the Draft Constitutional Treaty. The Intergovernmental Conferences (GIG) editorial and legal adjustments to the draft Treaty at the end of 2003, detected four areas where the draft Constitution remained legally incorrect.
For legal certitude and clearness the EX. Charter had added to it particular articles regarding the Charters general provisions and several paragraphs to the Preamble. Following the Italian presidencies unsuccessful attempt to draw on an agreement regarding the draft Constitutional Treaty, the Irish presidency took charge of the discussions and took over presidency of the European Council on 1 January 2004 until 30 June 2004. Further discussions took place by the GIG Meeting of Heads of State or Government on 17 and 18 June 2004 and additional modifications were made to the draft Constitutional Treaty and to the EX. Charter.
On 17 and 18 June 2004, an agreement was finally reached on a provisional draft Constitutional Treaty that would establish a Constitution for Europe which had incorporated the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Following the unified agreement by the Heads of State to establish a Constitution for Europe through the Treaty, the European Union announced a manual for the citizens f the EX.. For the citizens it was essential that they be notified and elucidated on its contents, to allow them to comprehend and to convey their views and opinions regarding the new Treaty and the EX. Liberally.
Subsequent to the agreed draft all Member States were required to affirm the draft to enter it into force, thus becoming legally effective. However the ratification process came to a standstill with the rejection of the proposed Constitutional Treaty by the people of France and the Netherlands. Following this rejection the Member States gathered to consider a ewe Treaty, discarding the ambitious intentions of the prior Constitutional Treaty. The views of the Member States differed.
Several felt that a number of the political issues they encountered whilst attempting to ratify the Constitutional Treaty were due to the incorporation of the Charter. In The United kingdom the Charter was heavily criticized as including some obligations, prominently social issues, that could potentially adversely effect the economy or would be unfeasible to correctly apply, in particular the ‘principles’. On the contrary, the 18 Member States that had ratified he Treaty prior to its desertion were strongly dedicated to keeping it.
For them it comprised evidence that the European Union was not solely concerned with the economic region of its activities, it was one of the most symbolic and imperative changes. Thus for various Member States the abandonment of the Charter was simply unacceptable. As a compromise it was settled that the Charter would be included by means of a cross reference in Article 6 of the amended EX. Treaty, but the text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights would not become an integral part.
Art. 6(1) of the Treaty on the European Union (TEE) States: “the Union recognizes the sights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights… Which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties”. Additionally for clarification it was agreed to repeat article 51 of the Charter, that ‘The provision of the Charter shall not extend the competences of the Union as defined in the Treaties. In Declaration no. L adequately clarified.
Notably one of the most controversial issues however, was whilst negotiating the Treaty of Lisbon both the British and Polish government raised concerns regarding their countries domestic law and sought after an agreement by he Member States too Protocol. The charters position caused further confusion with the I-J and Poland gaining a supposed ‘opt-out’ as often suggested, though it is merely a clarification of the provision already formed by the Charter itself regarding its scope of application, contained in Article 51 of the Charter.
It seeks to function as a legally binding text that aims to prevent the incorrect interpretation of the Charter that would produce further rights to those the Polish or British law already provide. The Charter states the Court of Justice cannot find laws made in Poland or the I-J to e incompatible or inconsistent with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and cannot be involved or question the United Kingdom or Poland when making social or economic laws.
This was applied in R (INS) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and it was concluded that the Protocol may not be used as a general ‘opt-out’ from the Charter. On 12 December 2007 the revised Charter was ‘solemnly proclaimed’ and signed by the Presidents of the European Parliament, Council and the European Commission. The following day the Lisbon Treaty was signed by the Member States representatives. With the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009 the Charter became legally enforceable on EX. Institutions and national Courts.
The Charter has in turn formed legal certainty through making fundamental rights more visible and strengthens the protection of fundamental rights in light of changes in society, social progress and scientific and technological developments. Where cases involve the application of EX. Law, the Charter can be used to aid them as the Court of Justice of the European Union and the national Courts must now take the Charter into consideration.
Providing the Charter with the same legal status as the Treaties, the Member States and institutions have alas formed a detailed bill of rights for the European Union. For the individuals who viewed the Charter as an instrument to enhance the Constitutional and political legitimacy, this legal status in itself was beyond satisfactory. In the interim it is likely that the Charter will be applied in an array of cases, and if applied prudently it has the potential to become a successful instrument for the progression of fairness, civil liberties and democratic values in the Union.
