employee
Russian Federation
This paper is devoted to the legal analysis of CJEU Opinion 2/13 on European Union accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. The article examines the CJEU’s approach to the interpretation of Art. 267 and 344 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — in the light of Protocol No. 16 to the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the previous case law of the Court of Justice (Mox Plant and Melki and Abdeli). The conclusions are drawn as to the manner in which Opinion 2/13 develops EU legal order autonomy doctrine and how it affects the future perspectives of EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. Firstly, while interpreting the content and purpose of Art. 344 TFEU, the CJEU gives a positive answer to the question as to whether the ECHR compliance system falls within the ambit of this Treaty provision. Secondly, the Court of Justice takes an extremely protective approach in giving its interpretation to the role of preliminary rulings procedure guaranteed by Art. 267 TFEU for the unity and efficiency of European law, making even the legal protection of individuals secondary to these purposes. It is quite probable that the accession will be delayed for an indefinite period of time — due to the likely impossibility of reaching a consensus on a new version of the Draft accession agreement with all members of the Council of Europe (such as Russia, Ukraine and Turkey) in the very near future. At the same time, European Union accession to the European Convention on Human Rights remains a legal duty in accordance with Art. 6 Treaty on the European Union (TEU), Declaration No. 2 on Article 6 (2) TEU and Protocol No. 8 to the Lisbon Treaty.
EU accession to the ECHR, EU legal order autonomy doctrine, Opinion 2/13, Art. 267 TFEU, Art. 344 TFEU, Protocol No. 16 ECHR.
1. Allan Rosas, “Constitutionalising the EU Judicial System: Essays in Honour of Pernilla Lindh” (Pascal Cardonnel, Allan Rosas, Nils Wahl ed., Bloomsbury Publishing, 2012) 106.
2. Christina Eckes, “EU Accession to the ECHR: Between Autonomy and Adaptation” (2013) 76 The Modern Law Review (Issue 2) 254-285.
3. Elisa Morgera, “The External Environmental Policy of the European Union: EU and International Law Perspectives” (Cambridge
4. University Press, 2012) 303.
5. Giuseppe Martinico, “Four Points on the Court of Justice of the EU. Perspectives on Federalism” (2014) 6 Perspectives on Federalism (Issue 3) 102-125 114.
6. Jean-Paul Jacqué, ‘The Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” (2011) 48 Common Market Law Review 95-1023 995 1001.
7. Jörg Polakiewicz, “EU Law and the ECHR: Will EU Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights Square the Circle?” (SSRN, September 26, 2013) <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2331497>; 12.
8. José Martín Pérez de Nanclares, “The accession of the European Union to the ECHR: More than just a legal issue” (2013) IDEIR working paper No. 15 <https://www.ucm.es/data/cont/docs/595-2013-11-07-the%20accesion.pdf>;.
9. Leonard Besselink, “Acceding to the ECHR notwithstanding the Court of Justice Opinion 2/13” (Verfassungsblog, 23 December 2014), <http://www.verfassungsblog.de/en/acceding-echr-notwithstanding-court-justice-opinion-213/#.VVyCTizDQ-Q>;.
10. Paul Gragl, “A giant leap for European Human Rights? The Final Agreement on the European Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights“ (2014) 51 Common Market Law Review (Issue 1) 13-58 16.
11. Paul Gragl, “Human Rights Law in Europe: The Influence, Overlaps and Contradictions of the EU and the ECHR” (Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, Theodore Konstadinides, Tobias Lock ed., Routledge Research in Human Rights Law) 37.
12. Roberto Baratta, “Accession of the EU to the ECHR: The rationale for the ECJ’s prior involvement mechanism” (2013) 50 Common Market Law Review (Issue 5) 1305-1332 1311.
13. Stian Oby Johansen, “Some thoughts on the CJEU hearing on the Draft EU - ECHR Accession Agreement. Part 1 of 2” (Øbykanalen, 6 May 2014) <https://obykanalen.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/some-thoughts-on-the-ecj-hearing-on-the-draft-eu-echr-accessionagreement-part-1-of-2>;.
14. Stian Oby Johansen. “Some thoughts on the ECJ hearing on the Draft EU-ECHR Accession Agreement. Part 2 of 2” (Øby-kanalen, 7 May 2014) <https://obykanalen.wordpress.com/2014/05/07/some-thoughts-on-the-ecj-hearing-on-the-draft-eu-echr-accessionagreement-part-2-of-2>;.
15. Theodore Konstadinides and Noreen O’Meara, “EU Security and Justice Law: After Lisbon and Stockholm” (Diego Acosta Arcarazo, Cian Murphy ed, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014) 82.
16. Thomas Streinz, “Forum Shopping between Luxembourg and Strasbourg?” (Verfassungsblog, 17 June 2014) <http://www.verfassungsblog.de/en/forum-shopping-zwischen-luxemburg-und-strassburg/#.VP-wY3yG-NY>;.
17. Tobias Lock, “The ECJ and the ECtHR: The Future Relationship between the Two European Courts” (2009) 8 Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 375-398 376.
18. Tobias Lock, “Walking on a tightrope: the draft ECHR agreement and the autonomy of the EU legal order” (2011) 48 Common Market Law Review (Issue 4) 1025-1054 1025.
