Applying The Eu Charter Of Rights To Fellow Member States' Internal Marketplace Derogations
November 28, 2018
Edit
Today’s judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) inward Pfleger confirmed an of import number equally regards the compass of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights – but also raised just about implicit questions almost its added value inward such cases.
The instance concerned Austrian restrictions on gambling machines. In fact, the CJEU has decided really many cases relating to national restrictions on gambling, an number which is non regulated yesteryear detailed European Union legislation but which is nonetheless inward regulation champaign of report to European Union internal marketplace law. Here, the parties challenging the enforcement of the Austrian police describe raised questions concerning the compliance of that police describe amongst the European Union Charter, inward especial equally regards Articles fifteen to 17 of the Charter (concerning liberty to behave an occupation, to run a business in addition to the correct to property) in addition to Article 50 (the prohibition on double jeopardy).
Does the Charter apply?
Article 51 of the Charter limits the compass of its application to European Union bodies, in addition to to the Member United States of America ‘only’ when they are ‘implementing’ European Union law. At get-go sight, this dominion narrows the established compass of the previous CJEU instance police describe on the compass of human rights protection, which (going dorsum to the 1991 judgment of ERT) had ever held that whatever national derogations from European Union gratis create rights had to comply amongst human rights obligations equally full general principles of European Union law. On a strict interpretation, such national derogations could non easily live on seen equally measures ‘implementing’ European Union law, in addition to many academics thus wondered whether the Charter was narrower inward compass than the full general principles.
However, concluding year’s judgment inward Fransson confirmed that the compass of the Charter was just the same equally the compass of the full general principles. Logically, it followed that national derogations from gratis create rules are inside the compass of the Charter, but the Pfleger instance was the get-go chance that the Court has had to confirm this.
Comparing internal marketplace rules in addition to the Charter
Despite the importance of this instance from a human rights perspective, the principal number inward the Pfleger judgment is the compliance of the national rules amongst European Union internal marketplace law. The CJEU, no dubiousness exhausted amongst the amount of litigation on this issue, only reiterates its prior instance law, in addition to asks the national courtroom to utilize it to the facts. Also, the CJEU does nation that if the national restrictions on gambling create non accept whatever existent link to combating criminal offense or social problems, but are only a way of increasing taxation revenue, in addition to so this cannot live on justified – but it relies on the national court’s findings inward this regard.
What does the Charter add together to this? On the facts of this case, non really much. According to the CJEU, if the national police describe restricted internal marketplace freedoms, in addition to so it also restricted the economical rights inward Articles 15-17 of the Charter. Equally, if it could non live on justified nether the internal marketplace rules, in addition to so it could non live on justified equally a limitation on Charter rights pursuant to Article 52 of the Charter either.
It should live on noted that the Court did not dominion that an analysis of the internal marketplace rules inward the Treaty would always Pb to the same lawsuit equally the Charter analysis. The ruling expressly concerned ‘circumstances such equally those at number inward the principal proceedings’. So it is possible to imagine, for instance, that equally regards a dissimilar aspect of the gratis create of services to a greater extent than straight connected to human rights than gambling – broadcasting, for instance – a national restriction mightiness live on proportionate from the indicate of watch of the internal marketplace but a questionable restriction of liberty of expression. At the really least, a dissever application of the internal marketplace in addition to human rights rules would certainly live on called for where (for instance) the content of communications is beingness restricted.
The Court did non touching on the dissever inquiry of whether the enforcement (as distinct from the substance) of the national rules needed to live on judged from a human rights perspective, noting exclusively that if the national rules breached the Treaty rules on internal marketplace freedoms, they could non live on enforced anyway. The Advocate-General’s opinion, inward contrast, assumed that if the national rules were substantively inward compliance amongst internal marketplace police describe in addition to the Charter, the details of their enforcement could withal live on tested for compliance amongst the Charter.
Implications of the judgment
While this judgment exclusively concerned national derogations from internal marketplace Treaty freedoms, at that topographic point is no argue to scream back that its touching on is limited to such cases. There is a lot of European Union legislation on dissimilar issues which allows Member United States of America to derogate inward diverse ways from its rules, in addition to at that topographic point is no argue to scream back that the internal marketplace Treaty provisions are inward just about way special equally regards the compass of application of the Charter.
In particular, equally discussed already on this blog, the national derogations from the e-privacy Directive, equally regards information retentiveness in addition to other forms of interception of telecommunications, are champaign of report to the Charter, fifty-fifty next the annulment of the information retentiveness Directive. The Court has already examined such national derogations inward the context of civil proceedings, in addition to logically should create so equally regards criminal proceedings too.
Barnard & Peers: chapter 9, chapter 16
