EU charter: its nature, innovative character and horizontal effect
Keywords:human rights, European Union standards, European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, Court of Justice of European Union, horizontal effect doctrine, European Court of Human Rights, Private Law Approach
The author offers a description of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights as innovative dynamic instrument which is necessary and useful in the process of modelling the future of the protection of fundamental rights by the Union. He concludes that the Charter will influence the whole acquis communautaire. The extent of this impact is still somewhat unpredictable. Much depends on the political direction Europe is taking and the boldness of European judges in both Member States and the CJEU. Potentially, it can be used as a powerful tool to strengthen EU influence in the social sphere (strikes, collective bargaining, working conditions, etc.).
The article also substantiates that the Charter applies to the activities of the EU institutions, but the extent to which it also applies to Member States, when implementing EU law, is unclear. The distinction will be a difficult one, taking into account the fact that most areas are regulated by both the EU and national legislation and it is sometimes complicated to distinguish one from another. The question of the EU turning into a rights-based union then has to do with the status of principles and values, namely, «are some of them turned into basic rights – protecting human rights and democratic procedures unconditionally?» Therefore, whether the Charter will open a new era in the development of the EU from limited economic cooperation to a full political, economic, and social union remains unclear. Future practice and, undoubtedly, emerging case law of the CJEU will provide more answers.
Alexy R. (2010). Rights, balancing and proportionality. The construction of constitutional rights. Law & ethics human rights. The Berkeley Electronic Press, Berkeley. 2. Bellamy R., Schonlau J. (2012). The normality of constitutional politics: an analysis of the drafting of the EU charter of fundamental rights. In: Corradetti C (ed). Philosophical dimensions of human rights. Some contemporary views. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 231–252. 3. Besselink L.F.M. (2012). The protection of fundamental rights post-Lisbon the interaction between the EU charter of fundamental rights, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and National Constitutions. Report of 25th FIDE congress. 4. Blackstock J. (2012). The EU charter of fundamental rights. Scope and competence, Eutopia Law. http://eutopialaw.com/2012/04/18/the-eu-charter-of-fundamental-rights-scope-and-competance-2/ Brems E (2005). Conflicting human rights: an exploration in the context of the right to a fair trial in the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Hum Rights Q 27:294–326. 5. De Sousa P.C. Horizontal expressions of vertical desires – horizontal effect and the scope of the EU Fundamental Freedoms. http://www.academia.edu/2167103/Horizontal_Expressions_of_ Vertical_Desires_-_Horizontal_Effect_and_the_Scope_of_the_EU_Fundamental_Freedoms. 6. De Witte B. (2009). The crumbling public/private divide: horizontality in European anti- discrimination law. Citizenship Stud 13(5):515–525. 7. Eriksson A. (2009). European Court of Justice: broadening the scope of European non-discrimination law. Int J Constitut Law 7(4):731–753. 8. Ferreres Comella V. (2009). Constitutional courts and democratic values: a European perspective. Yale University Press, New Haven. 9. Fossum J.E. (2004). In: Closa C, Fossum JE (eds). Deliberative constitutional politics in the EU. Centre for European Studies, Oslo. 10. Groussot X., Pech L., Petursson GT (2011). The scope of application of EU fundamental rights on member states’ action: in search of certainty in EU adjudication. Eric Stein Working Paper No. 1/2011. 11. Kanger L. (2007). Euroopa Liidu õiguse kohaldamine Eesti halduskohtute praktikas: põllumajandustoetuste ja üleliigse laovaru tasu kaasuste näitel. Estonian Supreme Court, Legal Information Department. 12. Kerikmäe T. (2010). Estonia as an EU state: lack of proactive constitutional dialogue. In: Topidi K, Morawa AHE (eds). Constitutional evolution in Central and Eastern Europe expansion and integration in the EU. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Farnham, pp. 11–42. 13. Kerikmäe T., Käsper K. (2008). European charter of fundamental rights. Lexis Nexis Expert Commentaries. http://w3.nexis.com/sources/scripts/info.pl?326754. 14. Kerikmäe T., Nyman-Metcalf K. (2012a). Less is more or more is more? Revisiting universality of human rights. Int Comp Law Rev 12(1):35–51. 15. Kerikmäe T., Nyman-Metcalf K. (2012b). The European Union and Sovereignty: the sum is more than its parts? Temas de Integração, Junho, pp. 5–16. 16. Kerikmäe T., Nyman-Metcalf K., Roots L., Meiorg M., Popov A. (2012). Estonian report: protection of fundamental rights post-Lisbon: the interaction between the EU charter of fundamental rights, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and National Constitutions. In: Laffranque J (ed) Reports of the XXV FIDE congress Tallinn 2012. Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, Tartu, pp. 389–422. 17. Kokott J. (2010). The basic law at 60 – from 1949 to 2009: the basic law and supranational integration. German Law J 11:99–114 18. Krzeminska-Vamvaka J. (2009). Horizontal effect of fundamental rights and freedoms – much ado about nothing? German, Polish and EU theories compared after Viking Line. Jean Monnet Working Paper No. 11/2009. 19. Kull I. (2007). Unfair contracts of suretyship – a question about the horizontal effect of fundamental rights or about the application of contract law principles. Juridica International: Law Review of the University of Tartu, Estonia I 2007. 20. Lõhmus U. (2007). Kuidas liikmesriigi kohtusüsteem tagab Euroopa Liidu õiguse tõhusa toime. Juridica (3) 21. Maruste R. (2004). Konstitutsionalism ning põhiõiguste ja -vabaduste kaitse. Juura, Tallinn. 22. Schermers H.G. (2001). Drafting a charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. In: Kellermann AE, de Zwaan JW, Czuczai J (eds). EU enlargement: the constitutional impact at EU and national level. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. 23. Schor M. (2010). New thinking about National High Courts. Tulsa Law Rev 45(4) (University of Tulsa). 24. Šipilov V. (2010). Põhiõiguste kolmikmõju ja Euroopa Liidu õiguse horisontaalne kohaldatavus.Master Thesis. 25. Tzevelekos V. (2010). In search of alternative solutions: can the State of origin be held internation- ally responsible for investors human rights abuses that are not attributable to it? Brooklyn J Int Law 35:155–231. 26. Van den Berghe F. (2010). The EU and issues of human rights protection: same solutions to more acute problems? Eur Law J 16(2):112–157. 27. Wiesbrock A. (2010). Case Note – Case C-555/07, Kücükdeveci v. Swedex, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 January 2010. German Law J 11:539–550. 28. Eesti Vabariigi Põhiseadus. Kommenteeritud väljaanne. Juura (Tallinn 2008). 29. Report of the Expert Group on Fundamental Rights, the European Commission, «Affirming Fundamental Rights in the European Union: Time to Act», Brussels (February 1999). 30. The EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights, Commentary of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 31. European Court of Justice 32. Case C-112/00 Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v Republik Österreich (12 June 2003). 33. Case C-144/04. 34. Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-193/10 N.S. and Opinion of AG Trstenjak (22 September 2011). 35. Supreme Court of Estonia 36. Estonian Supreme Court Case No. 3-4-1-1-03 (17 February 2003).
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2017 Tanel Kerikmäe
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.