Would The Uk’S Withdrawal From The Echr Pb To Withdrawal From The Eu?

Steve Peers

Having long pledged to repeal the Human Rights Act altogether should they obtain a bulk of seats inward the House of Commons, some Conservative Party figures cause got latterly suggested that they back upwards the UK’s possible withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), or at to the lowest degree some form of national parliamentary override of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) inward domestic constabulary (on the details of these plans, run across the discussion by Mark Elliott). Indeed, at that spot is a widespread sentiment that i purpose of the recent cabinet reshuffle was to pave the agency to this end, inward exceptional yesteryear removing the quondam Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve, who apparently described the plans equally a  ‘car crash’ (see farther this analysis by Adam Wagner). 

It is sometimes suggested that some or all such changes would necessarily outcome inward the UK having to withdraw from the European Union. Is this the case?

Withdrawal from the ECHR

Of course, it is solely possible to sign upwards to the ECHR without existence a Member State of the EU: some nineteen countries are inward this position. But at that spot is no limited dominion the other agency closed to (see farther the analysis inward this House of Commons briefing paper). Certainly when the Communities (as they initially were) were initially founded, at that spot was no such expectation. Indeed, French Republic was non a political party to the ECHR until the 1970s. 

However, the role of human rights inward European Union constabulary has evolved considerably since then, commencement of all with the fleshing out of the role of human rights equally occupation of the ‘general principles of European Union law’, so with the adoption of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights (binding since 2009) in addition to most latterly with the evolution of plans for the European Union itself to move a political party to the ECHR. Furthermore, inward all the most recent enlargements of the EU, the existing Member United States of America expected the hereafter Member United States of America to sign upwards non only to the ECHR, but all of its Protocols, in addition to many other human rights treaties besides. The European Union is also a rigid advocate of human rights treaties worldwide.

The exercise relating to novel Member United States of America is underpinned yesteryear Article 49 TEU, which states that European Union membership is opened upwards only to United States of America which honour the EU’s ‘values’. Those values are defined inward Article 2 TEU equally including ‘respect for human rights’, but at that spot is no limited advert of ECHR ratification. In calorie-free of the recent exercise equally regards European Union accession, at that spot is undoubtedly an established political principle that European Union Member United States of America cause got to endure parties to the ECHR when they bring together the EU. Logically at that spot must endure a corollary regulation that they remain ECHR parties after they move European Union Member States, no thing when they bring together the EU. But is this a legal rule?

Article vii TEU provides that Member United States of America tin endure suspended from European Union membership if at that spot is a ‘serious in addition to persistent breach’ of the values laid upwards out inward Article 2. There is no ability for the European Union to fully expel a Member State, but possibly a province whose European Union membership was suspended would endure (even) to a greater extent than willing to consider  the pick of unilateral withdrawal from the EU, which is provided for inward Article 50 TEU.

Short of the ‘red card’ of suspending European Union membership, at that spot is also a possible ‘yellow card’ inward Article 7(1) TEU. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 Member State tin endure warned yesteryear the European Union that at that spot is a ‘clear opportunity of a serious breach’ of the values laid upwards out inward Article 2 TEU. Neither the ruby-red menu nor the xanthous menu provided for inward Article vii has ever been handed to a Member State, in addition to the full general supposition is that they would only endure used inward extreme situations similar a military machine coup. The ‘red card’ would only endure issued if all other Member United States of America voted for this, in addition to it could e'er endure argued that the mutual constabulary and/or a British Bill of Rights (if at that spot were one, next ECHR withdrawal) would preclude egregious human rights breaches from happening inward the UK.

There is no limited advert of the ECHR inward Articles 2, vii or 49 TEU. However, at that spot are several limited mentions inward Article six TEU, which sets out the basic framework for internal human rights protection inside the European Union legal order.  First of all, Article 6(3) states that human rights ‘as guaranteed by’ the ECHR are full general principles of European Union law, although the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has made clear latterly (see the Fransson judgment, for instance), that this does non hateful that the ECHR binds the European Union equally such, at to the lowest degree until the European Union truly signs upwards to that Convention. However, the instance constabulary on the full general principles oft refers to the ECHR, in addition to the CJEU has stated for years that it must ‘take account’ of the ECtHR’s judgments inward that context.

Secondly, according to Article 6(2), the European Union ‘shall’ accede to the ECHR. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 draft treaty to that halt has been drawn up, in addition to is existence reviewed yesteryear the CJEU; its judgment is expected after this year. If that ruling is positive, so the treaty would endure opened for signature shortly thereafter. It volition demand the unanimous back upwards of all Member United States of America (thus including the UK) to endure approved, equally good equally blessing at the national level. It could endure argued that Member United States of America are nether a legal obligation to approve this accession treaty, inward guild to facilitate the obligation of the European Union to accede to the ECHR. At the really least, it would endure awkward if the UK ceased to endure a political party to the ECHR equally a political party but had to approve the European Union becoming one.

Thirdly, Article 6(1) provides that the European Union Charter has the same legal trial equally the Treaties. While it is sometimes asserted that the UK has an opt-out from the Charter, due to an ambiguous Protocol on this number (which also applies to Poland), this is simply non correct. In the NS judgment, the CJEU made clear that the UK was withal dependent area to the Charter inward the same agency equally other Member States. (It is arguably withal possible that, due to the Protocol, the UK mightiness non endure fully jump yesteryear the Charter rules on social rights, but those rights do non to a greater extent than often than non look inward the ECHR).

The Charter contains many of the same rights equally the ECHR, in addition to refers to it several times. In particular, Article 52(3) of the Charter states that the Charter rights which ‘correspond’ to ECHR rights cause got the ‘same pregnant in addition to scope’, in addition to this has been referred to several times yesteryear the CJEU. While a House of Commons commission latterly suggested that UK legislation should endeavor to override the Charter (see my criticism of this bad thought here), the authorities recently replied that it has a ‘duty to implement all European Union constabulary that applies to it’, apparently implicitly ruling out the thought of a alter to national constabulary inward this respect. 

Taken equally a whole, it is thus right to maintain inward heed – equally Joshua Rozenberg has pointed out – that inward many respects European Union constabulary offers a stronger flat of legal protection for human rights than the ECHR. However, this is only relevant to the extent that the 2 areas of constabulary cross over, ie a dispute falls inside the ambit of both European Union constabulary (otherwise the Charter doesn’t apply at all) in addition to the rights laid upwards out inward the ECHR.

So, patch at that spot is no formal requirement that a electrical flow European Union Member State rest a political party to the ECHR, in addition to it would non endure slow to enforce such a requirement if it existed, at that spot is a really closed human relationship betwixt the ECHR in addition to European Union law. The UK’s attempts to rid itself of the ECHR would endure frustrated yesteryear the continued partial application of that Convention inside the UK, wherever a dispute touched upon both European Union constabulary in addition to ECHR rights. This would endure exacerbated if the European Union signs upwards to the Convention inward the nigh future, but the EU’s attempts to this halt volition inward plough endure frustrated if the UK authorities or parliament refuses to approve the relevant treaty. Indeed, that treaty is drafted on the supposition that all of the Member United States of America rest ECHR parties amongst the European Union itself, in addition to at that spot would endure complex questions to answer inward the trial that whatsoever cases arose concerning the UK, the ECHR in addition to European Union constabulary in i trial it were inward force.

Taking all of these factors together, it is arguable that at that spot is an implicit de jure legal requirement for all European Union Member United States of America to endure political party to the ECHR, otherwise the European Union could non send out its tasks effectively. Possibly the CJEU volition clarify this number inward passing, inward its upcoming judgment on the EU’s accession treaty to the ECHR. At the really least, at that spot would de facto endure enormous complications resulting from this scenario.

Amendment of domestic constabulary

It is much harder to combat that only reducing the behaviour upon of the ECtHR inward UK domestic constabulary is incompatible with European Union membership. After all, the UK in addition to Republic of Ireland did non give domestic legal trial to the ECHR until the final decade or so. (For an interesting give-and-take of the issues closed to parliamentary supremacy in addition to human rights protection, run across Gavin Phillipson in addition to Mark Elliott).

There will, of course, withal endure complications if this road is taken. Every fourth dimension that at that spot is a link betwixt European Union constabulary in addition to the ECHR rights inward the UK, it would endure possible to enforce the ECHR rules yesteryear the European Union constabulary route, fifty-fifty if the UK parliament had legislated to ignore the ECtHR’s rulings. If the UK parliament so tried to legislate contrary to European Union constabulary to avoid this, at that spot would endure a straight off conflict betwixt the UK’s constitutional foundations in addition to its obligations equally a Member State of the EU.

Conclusions

It would of class endure legally consistent for the UK to withdraw from both the European Union in addition to the ECHR, if that is what is intended. Some (like Eurosceptic MEP Dan Hannan) are open most their intentions inward this respect. But at that spot may endure some who advocate withdrawing from the ECHR but non the European Union equally such. Frankly, that spot constitutes either a cynical endeavor to trigger an European Union withdrawal yesteryear the dorsum door (a form of contrary Trojan Horse), or a negligent approach to this issue.  

Finally, i sentiment is that the protection of human rights is undesirable, at to the lowest degree for the United Kingdom. For example, this declaration is set yesteryear Dan Hannan, who asks the interrogation “What cause got human rights ever done for the UK?” Indeed, he asks that interrogation iii times, so he plainly thinks it is a skilful one. But inward fact, it is i of the stupidest questions inward human history.

The purpose of human rights protection is clearly non to advance the interests of states, but rather to constrain those states from mistreating individuals.  In particular, the ECHR (among many other things) guarantees a fair trial, protects against torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment, prevents arbitrary detention in addition to ensures liberty of spoken language in addition to privacy. While Hannan suggests that the UK could solve all those problems yesteryear itself, the fact is that it didn’t. Every private who has won a instance against the UK inward the ECtHR had to assay commencement (under the ECHR’s ‘exhaustion of domestic remedies’ rule) to obtain a remedy in the UK courts, but failed.

And although it is truthful that the UK (and another ECHR signatories) does non breach the Convention equally often equally another States, its continued participation inward the organization is valuable non only equally regards protection of British citizens in addition to residents, but equally a contribution to supporting human rights protection across the balance of Europe, in addition to indeed worldwide. The withdrawal of a large European Union Member State from the world’s most sophisticated organization for the protection of human rights would endure jump to bargain a important blow to that system.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 2, chapter 9

Share this post