Roadkill: The Eu Charter Of Rights Afterwards The Conservative Party’S Changes To Uk Human Rights Police Describe

Steve Peers

Most drivers, at ane fourth dimension or another, direct keep felt an unpleasant bump every bit their machine ran over an unfortunate small-scale brute which had chosen exactly the incorrect fourth dimension to scoot across the road. Some drivers are devastated, spell others are mildly upset or indifferent. But a few are exhilarated at the thought that they direct keep eliminated an irritating obstruction inwards the means of their unseemly rush to achieve their destination.

The latter mental attitude aptly sums upwardly the Conservative party’s mental attitude to the purpose of European Union law inwards their proposals to reform Great Britain human rights law, unveiled today.

I direct keep already blogged on the problems amongst this proposal at a domestic level, but at that topographic point are problems every bit regards its human relationship amongst European Union law too.  

First of all, nosotros should locomote clear what today’s proposal does not do. There is a widespread perception that it suggests that the Great Britain withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). But it doesn’t suggest this, at to the lowest degree non yet. The supposition inwards the document is that the Great Britain volition stay a political party to this Convention, although it raises the possibility that the Great Britain volition withdraw from it if the Council of Europe raises likewise many objections to today’s plans. This may only locomote a concession to those who cry upwardly that these proposals practice non brand it plenty (!) inwards eviscerating human rights protection inwards Great Britain law. So spell I blogged this summertime on what would occur to the UK’s European Union membership if it withdrew from the ECHR, that query does non yet arise.

Nor does today’s proposal suggest that the Great Britain should disapply the EU’s Charter of Rights inwards its domestic law. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 House of Commons commission suggested that before this year. The thought is utterly bonkers, for the reasons I blogged on at the time. But again, it isn’t similar a shot relevant.

What today’s document does practice is suggest to weaken the domestic organization of human rights protection, decouple it from the ECHR organization as well as innovate novel rules which weaken noun protection of human rights for whatever grouping of people which the drafters of the proposal deem sufficiently despicable. How does that relate to European Union law?

The cardinal questions hither are: are the novel proposals compatible amongst European Union law? If not, to what extent? And what are the consequences?

At the outset, nosotros should greenback that the European Union Charter of Rights as well as the rights protected past times the ECHR don’t ever overlap. So today’s proposals could non practice whatever conflict where (a) the Charter applies, but the ECHR does non (as regards social rights, for instance), or (b) the ECHR applies, but the Charter does non – because the Charter only applies where at that topographic point is a link to European Union law, every bit the CJEU start out inwards the judgment inwards Fransson. There’s only a possible conflict where both the Charter as well as the ECHR apply to an issue.

What form of cases would these be? I suggest 3 examples, although this isn’t an exhaustive list. First of all, whatever limitations on the correct to a fair trial granted to criminal suspects which resulted from today’s proposals could conflict amongst the European Union legislation on their rights  to interpretation as well as translation, as well as their rights to information nearly proceedings, which the Great Britain has opted inwards to. (There are other European Union measures as well as proposals inwards this area, but the Great Britain hasn’t opted inwards to them).

Secondly, whatever requirement that telecommunication service providers retain information for handing over to law enforcement authorities falls inside the orbit of European Union law, since that would constitute a derogation from the dominion inwards the EU’s telecom privacy Directive. Derogations from European Union law autumn inside the orbit of the Charter, every bit the CJEU latterly ruled inwards Pfleger; I direct keep discussed this betoken (as regards national information memory laws) inwards special earlier on this blog. 

This is relevant non just to the ‘DRIP’ Act passed past times the Great Britain Parliament before this twelvemonth (as I pointed out at the time), but also to whatever requirement that telecommunication providers retain as well as mitt over the content of communications, next the Home Secretary’s latest plans unveiled this week. On the other hand, interception of communications direct past times the constabulary or safety services would non autumn inside the orbit of European Union law, since at that topographic point are no European Union measures dealing amongst such issues inwards a purely domestic context.

Thirdly, the Conservative political party would similar to strip ‘illegal’ immigrants as well as unusual criminals of the possibility of invoking at to the lowest degree unopen to (if non all) human rights. Due to the UK’s opt-outs from European Union jurist as well as dwelling theater affairs law, non all European Union measures dealing amongst immigration issues apply to the UK. But depending on how these demonised groups are defined, this could termination inwards a conflict amongst European Union rules on the gratuitous movement of European Union citizens as well as their identify unit of measurement members, or amongst European Union legislation on asylum (the Great Britain is however jump past times the kickoff stage of this legislation, as well as has also opted inwards to parts of the mo stage of it).

In most of these cases, nosotros can’t locomote surely that the novel plans would conflict amongst European Union law until nosotros encounter the exact text of the proposals (coming afterwards this year). However, it’s already clear, inwards my view, that the DRIP Act conflicts amongst the European Union Charter inwards part.

What happens inwards the lawsuit of a conflict? There are 2 issues here. First of all, the European Union Charter refers to the ECHR every bit regards those Charter rights which ‘correspond’ to ECHR rights, such every bit the correct to a somebody as well as identify unit of measurement life as well as the prohibition on torture. It says that the relevant Charter rights direct keep the same ‘meaning as well as scope’ every bit their ECHR equivalents. The explanations to the Charter brand clear that the instance law of the European Court of Human Rights also applies inwards this context.

Secondly, the Treaties furnish for the European Union itself to transcend a political party to the ECHR. Negotiations on the treaty to this effect are consummate (the Conservative policy document is only incorrect when it states that they are ‘ongoing’). However, the signature as well as ratification of this treaty is held upwardly spell the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) considers the query of whether this procedure is compatible amongst European Union law. Its judgment is expected soon. The European Union must also adopt internal rules governing this issue.

Today’s policy document recognises that at that topographic point mightiness locomote a conflict betwixt European Union law as well as the Conservative party’s plans. It states that the document’s seat volition locomote ‘reflected inwards the rules that volition principle the EU’s interaction amongst the [Human Rights] Court’. It also threatens a veto over the ratification of the EU’s accession treaty to the ECHR if ‘the UK’s novel human rights framework is [not] respected’.

More generally, the document concludes that human rights issues mightiness locomote an number forming component of the overall renegotiation of the UK’s purpose inwards the European Union which the Conservative political party supports. If at that topographic point is anything inwards European Union law which ‘encroaches upon our novel human rights framework’, as well as so the renegotiation volition direct keep to address it.

Obviously these human rights plans volition non come upwardly to fruition unless the Conservative political party forms a bulk government, since the Labour as well as Liberal Democrat parties strongly oppose them. If that does happen, though, what are the systemic implications for European Union law?

First of all, it seems possible that they volition complicate the procedure of the EU’s accession to the ECHR. This volition locomote clearer ane time the draft Great Britain Bill is unveiled, the CJEU has ruled on the ECHR accession issue, as well as the Commission proposes the internal rules which volition principle the EU/ECHR relationship. There would locomote no conflict if those internal rules provide, or the CJEU requires, that the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights volition have, after the EU’s accession to the Convention, every bit weak an comport on on European Union law (and Member States’ actions inside its scope) every bit the Conservative political party suggests should locomote the instance for the UK. Time volition tell whether this is the case.

Secondly, as well as to a greater extent than immediately, it seems unlikely that the Conservative plans are compatible amongst the Charter every bit interpreted inwards calorie-free of the ECHR, as well as the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, past times the CJEU.  The CJEU’s instance law for many years has insisted that European Union law must locomote interpreted non only inwards calorie-free of the Convention but inwards calorie-free of the other Court’s instance law. But these are exactly the 2 elements of the UK’s Human Rights Act which the Conservative strategy newspaper most strongly opposes.

So the novel proposals would only locomote compatible amongst European Union law if they incorporate a full general savings clause, making the novel ‘British Bill of Rights’ alone dependent area to the special purpose for European Union law inwards the Great Britain every bit start out inwards the European Communities Act.  Conservative Eurosceptics are no to a greater extent than probable to suggest this than the proverbial turkeys are probable to vote for Christmas.

Indeed, the strategy document implicitly foresees every bit much, when it suggests that human rights protection volition probable locomote on the negotiation tabular array inwards the lawsuit of Great Britain renegotiation of its European Union membership. The occupation amongst this is that human rights protection is a full general legal dominion that forms component of the constitutional foundations of European Union law.

So it is non tardily to furnish a full general exemption from human rights protection (as the failed endeavor to practice so for the Great Britain already, the infamous Protocol xxx attached to the Treaty of Lisbon, confirms). Nor is it really probable that other Member U.S. of A. would locomote cracking to let it if it were. It follows that today’s strategy document, if the Conservative political party wins a bulk as well as takes the document seriously ane time inwards office, is probable to increase the gamble of a failed renegotiation and, therefore, the UK’s larn out from the EU.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 2, chapter 9

Share this post