CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS General overview , history and evolution

1. CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTSGeneral overview, history and evolution

2. The Charter of FundamentalRights • Why a Charter of FundamentalRights of the European Union. • The KolnEuropeanCouncil and the Simitis Report (1999). • The 3 goals of the codification: • Certainty and visibility of fundamentalrights • Legitimation of the Court of Justice. The unclear nature of the reference to “common constitutionaltraditionsand to the ECHR" • Equalisation of first- and second-generation rights and of socio-economicrightsand “second-generation rights“ • Art. 6 of the Treaty: the rights of the Charter have the samevalueas the Treaties (EU primarylegislation)

3. Nature of the Charter • Non-universaltool for the protection of fundamentalrights: itdoesnotextend the Union’scompetences or objectives. • The sources of the Charter (usuallylisted in the officialExplanations). For socio-economicrights: the ILO Conventionsifundersigned by allmemberStates, the twoEuropeanSocial Charters, the case-law of the Court of Justice, the rules of the Treaties. • A tool for individual and collectiveprotection, aswellas to direct the Union’spolicies (monitoring of the enforcement of the Charter, ‘impact’ evaluation, reference to the Charter in the Introductionsto the Union’sbindinglegalinstruments (e.g. directive no. 14/2002) • Parameter for the ‘constitutional’ legitimation of the Union’sacts. • Judgments of the Court of Justice: 1.3.2011 - AssociationbelgedesConsummateurs (C-236/09); 22.11.2011 Scarlet Extended S.A.(C-70/2010). Annulment or interpretation(in conformity with the Charter of Directives).

4. The tools for the enforcement of the Charter • Art. 7 of the Treaty. Agency for FundamentalRights. • Proceedings for annulment. The referencefor a preliminaryruling. • Infringementproceeding. Compensation for damages. • Interpretation in conformity by the ordinary court; disapplication of the nationalrule. ‘Free’ reference to the Charter’srules in nationaldecisions. Reference to the Charter of the nationalConstitutionalCourtsand of the Court of Strasbourg. • Judgment of the EuropeanCourt of Strasbourg in case Demirand Baykaravs. Turkey,12.11.2008 (no. 34503/2007)

5. Field of Application of the Charter • Art. 51: para. 1 • European Union Law and itsimplementation in national law. Explanations. • Commission’sstrategy. Communication of 2010 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0573:FIN:EN:PDF • A link issufficientbetweenEuropan law and the factsbefore the Court. • Orientation of the Court of Justice. • Franssonjudgment(GrandChamber) of 26.10.2013 (C-617/2010); Siragusajudgment of 6.3.2014 (C-206/2013) • Questionability, in the light of the Charter, of the recoverymeasuresadopted in the countriesreceivingEuropean funds. • Pringlejudgment (GrandChamber) of 27 November2012 (C-370/2012), Sindicatodosbancariosdo Norteorder of 7.3.2013 (C-128/2012); Court of Strasbourg, 8 October 2013, Da Conceiçao Mateus e Santos Januario

6. The relationshipbetween the EU Charter of Rights and the othertools for the protection of fundamentalrights • Articles52 and 53 of the Charter (horizontalclauses) • Interpretative link between the Charter and the case-law of the Court of Strasbourg: art. 52 para. 3. Civil and criminal law scope. The ECHR hasnotbeen ‘communitised’. Autonomy of the EU law. • Art. 53. principle of more favourable treatment. Meaning in the social context. • Judgment of the Court of Justice(GrandChamber) in Kamberay, 12.4.2012 (C-571/2010); effectivenessof the CEHR in nationallegislations; the issue of national law. • Scattolonjudgment of 6.9.2011 (GrandChamber), C-108/2010. • Thereis no precedent on the prohibitionagainstretroactivity of civil law. • Compliance with nationalConstitutions. • Melloni judgment of 12.12.2013 (GrandChamber) (C-361/2013)

7. Effects of the Charter • Full applicability (in principle) on bodies and agencies of the EU and of MemberStates (for the latter, under art. 51). • Problem of the self-executing nature of the rules. Ithasneverbeenraised for bodies of the Union or States. Itis the Court of Justice’sresponsibility to set the boundaries of fundamentalrights. • Art. 52, para. 1. The essentialcontent of the rights. • Applicability in relations between private subjects. Open issue. • Judgment of the Court of Justice (GrandChamber) in Associationde médiationsociale, 15.1.2014. Clear, precise and unconditionedprovisions for the directapplication of the Charter to be invoked in relations between private subjects. Integration of law with the provisions of directivesonlyif the latter can be inferred from the Charter’sprovision. Possibility of damagecompensation. The distinctionbetweenrights and principleshasneverbeentackled (Art. 52, para. 5) • The prohibition of discriminationisdirectlyapplicable in the relationshipsbetween private subjects. Judgment of the Court (GrandChamber) in Kükukdevici, 19 January 2010 (case C-555/07)

8. Directions for expanding the Charter’seffectiveness • Non-discrimination. Wide-scopingdirectives, ‘quasi-general’ competence of the Union. • Court of Justice, Kükukdevici, 19 January 2010, case C-555/07, etc. • Judgment of the EU Court of Justice in case Hayvs. Créditagricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et desDeux-Sèvres, (C-227/12), 12 December 2013 • Art. 47 of the Charter (right to a fair trial). Judgment of the Court of Justice in Fußof 12 October2010, case C-243/09and GavieiroGavieiroof 22 December 2010, casesC-444/09 and C-456/09 • Judicialcooperation in civil law matters • Judgment of the Court of Justice in JMcB, 5 October 2010, case C-400/10 PPU