The Treaty of Nice: Arming the Courts to Defend a European Bill of Rights?

Q2 Social Sciences Law and Contemporary Problems Pub Date : 2002-03-22 DOI:10.2307/1192243
L. Heffernan
{"title":"The Treaty of Nice: Arming the Courts to Defend a European Bill of Rights?","authors":"L. Heffernan","doi":"10.2307/1192243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I INTRODUCTION A. Background In December 2000, the European heads of government, meeting in Nice, took several momentous steps in the constitutional development of the European Union (\"E.U.\"). Chief among them was the creation of a Charter of Fundamental Rights, a strikingly broad catalogue of individual rights and freedoms drawn from both the civil and political, and economic and social rights traditions. (1) Consensus on the Charter's substantive guarantee was overshadowed by contention over its status in the E.U. legal order. In a compromise emblematic of European decision-making, the member states (2) adopted the Charter but left open the crucial issue of enforcement. Thus, for the time being, the Charter is no more than a non-binding declaration that copperfastens the E.U.'s existing commitment to human rights, as expressed in various treaty provisions and legislative measures, (3) and, above all, in the vibrant unenumerated rights tradition of the European Court of Justice. (4) Potentially, the Nice Summit will mark a major milepos t on the road to a European bill of rights. Assuming the member states ultimately enact remedial measures, including judicial protection, the transition may prove no less influential than the adoption of the Bill of Rights in the United States. In the immediate term, however, the Nice Summit will be remembered for a separate order of business, namely, the latest major revision to the various instruments comprising the Constitution of the Union. (5) The Treaty of Nice, (6) which will enter into force following ratification by each of the member states, (7) is designed to prepare the principal branches of government for enlargement to the east, which, according to current projections, could extend the membership from fifteen to twenty-seven states or more. In keeping with prior practice, the task of negotiating and finalizing the necessary amendments was entrusted to an intergovernmental conference (\"IGC 2000\") made up of representatives of the member states. IGC 2000's central focus was reform of the political institutions, notably the Commission and the Council. (8) The European Community courts were a less conspicuous but ultimately no less important item on the agenda. (9) Projected changes to the judicial branch were inspired not only by the prospect of enlargement, but also by an urgent need to remedy overburdened dockets and inefficiencies in the administration of justice. In Luxembourg, the seat of the Community courts, the problem of docket control is by no means new. For several years, the Court of Justice has been waging a losing battle to keep pace with the organic growth of Community litigation. A Court of First Instance (\"CFI\"), created in 1989, has played its part in alleviating caseload pressures. (10) The benefit of this additional Community forum has been offset by several factors: the exponential growth of Community legislation, the accession of new member states, and the extension of Community competence to fields such as the environment, intel lectual property, and social policy. These days, the CFI, no less than the Court, is working at the limits of its capacity. Both courts are afflicted with burgeoning caseloads and the manifold side effects of congestion, including an increase in the length of proceedings. (11) Consequently, the Treaty of Nice is not only the latest chapter in constitution-building but also the Community's most ambitious docket-control initiative. Curiously, the E.U. institutions, national governments, and academic scholars view these reforms--the creation of a Charter of Fundamental Rights and docket-control measures for the Community courts--as two independently significant but essentially unrelated events. In fact, the Charter's prospects are intrinsically linked to the docket-control initiative, as the defense of a bill of rights rests ultimately in judicial hands, a truism demonstrated time and again by the United States Supreme Court. …","PeriodicalId":39484,"journal":{"name":"Law and Contemporary Problems","volume":"7 1","pages":"189-222"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Contemporary Problems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1192243","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

I INTRODUCTION A. Background In December 2000, the European heads of government, meeting in Nice, took several momentous steps in the constitutional development of the European Union ("E.U."). Chief among them was the creation of a Charter of Fundamental Rights, a strikingly broad catalogue of individual rights and freedoms drawn from both the civil and political, and economic and social rights traditions. (1) Consensus on the Charter's substantive guarantee was overshadowed by contention over its status in the E.U. legal order. In a compromise emblematic of European decision-making, the member states (2) adopted the Charter but left open the crucial issue of enforcement. Thus, for the time being, the Charter is no more than a non-binding declaration that copperfastens the E.U.'s existing commitment to human rights, as expressed in various treaty provisions and legislative measures, (3) and, above all, in the vibrant unenumerated rights tradition of the European Court of Justice. (4) Potentially, the Nice Summit will mark a major milepos t on the road to a European bill of rights. Assuming the member states ultimately enact remedial measures, including judicial protection, the transition may prove no less influential than the adoption of the Bill of Rights in the United States. In the immediate term, however, the Nice Summit will be remembered for a separate order of business, namely, the latest major revision to the various instruments comprising the Constitution of the Union. (5) The Treaty of Nice, (6) which will enter into force following ratification by each of the member states, (7) is designed to prepare the principal branches of government for enlargement to the east, which, according to current projections, could extend the membership from fifteen to twenty-seven states or more. In keeping with prior practice, the task of negotiating and finalizing the necessary amendments was entrusted to an intergovernmental conference ("IGC 2000") made up of representatives of the member states. IGC 2000's central focus was reform of the political institutions, notably the Commission and the Council. (8) The European Community courts were a less conspicuous but ultimately no less important item on the agenda. (9) Projected changes to the judicial branch were inspired not only by the prospect of enlargement, but also by an urgent need to remedy overburdened dockets and inefficiencies in the administration of justice. In Luxembourg, the seat of the Community courts, the problem of docket control is by no means new. For several years, the Court of Justice has been waging a losing battle to keep pace with the organic growth of Community litigation. A Court of First Instance ("CFI"), created in 1989, has played its part in alleviating caseload pressures. (10) The benefit of this additional Community forum has been offset by several factors: the exponential growth of Community legislation, the accession of new member states, and the extension of Community competence to fields such as the environment, intel lectual property, and social policy. These days, the CFI, no less than the Court, is working at the limits of its capacity. Both courts are afflicted with burgeoning caseloads and the manifold side effects of congestion, including an increase in the length of proceedings. (11) Consequently, the Treaty of Nice is not only the latest chapter in constitution-building but also the Community's most ambitious docket-control initiative. Curiously, the E.U. institutions, national governments, and academic scholars view these reforms--the creation of a Charter of Fundamental Rights and docket-control measures for the Community courts--as two independently significant but essentially unrelated events. In fact, the Charter's prospects are intrinsically linked to the docket-control initiative, as the defense of a bill of rights rests ultimately in judicial hands, a truism demonstrated time and again by the United States Supreme Court. …
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
《尼斯条约》:武装法院捍卫欧洲人权法案?
2000年12月,欧洲各国政府首脑在尼斯举行会议,在欧盟(“欧盟”)的宪法发展方面采取了几项重大步骤。其中最主要的是制定了《基本权利宪章》,从公民权利、政治权利、经济权利和社会权利传统中汲取了极为广泛的个人权利和自由。关于《宪章》实质保障的共识,因其在欧盟法律秩序中的地位问题而蒙上了阴影。在一次象征着欧洲决策的妥协中,成员国采纳了《宪章》,但在执行的关键问题上仍未解决。因此,就目前而言,《宪章》不过是一份不具约束力的宣言,只是为了加强欧盟的合作在各种条约条款和立法措施中所表达的对人权的现有承诺,(3)以及最重要的是,在欧洲法院充满活力的未列举权利传统中。尼斯峰会有可能成为欧洲人权法案道路上的重要里程碑。假设会员国最终颁布补救措施,包括司法保护,这种过渡的影响可能不亚于美国通过《权利法案》。然而,就近期而言,尼斯首脑会议将被人们记住的是一项单独的业务命令,即对构成本联盟《宪法》的各项文书进行的最新重大修订。《尼斯条约》将在每个成员国批准后生效,其目的是为政府的主要部门向东扩大做准备,根据目前的预测,这将使成员国从15个扩大到27个或更多。按照以往惯例,谈判和最后确定必要修正案的任务被委托给由成员国代表组成的政府间会议(“IGC 2000”)。政府间委员会2000年的中心重点是政治机构改革,特别是委员会和理事会。(8)欧洲共同体法院在议程上不那么引人注目,但最终同样重要。(9)预计对司法部门进行的改革不仅是由于扩大的前景,而且也是由于迫切需要纠正负担过重的案卷和司法行政方面效率低下的问题。在共同体法院所在地卢森堡,案单控制问题绝不是什么新问题。几年来,法院一直在进行一场失败的战斗,以跟上社区诉讼的有机增长。1989年成立的原讼法庭在减轻案件负担方面发挥了作用。(10)这个额外的共同体论坛的好处被几个因素抵消了:共同体立法的指数级增长,新成员国的加入,以及共同体能力向环境、知识产权和社会政策等领域的扩展。这些天来,原讼法庭和最高法院一样,都在尽其所能地工作。这两个法院都受到案件数量激增和拥挤带来的各种副作用的困扰,包括诉讼时间的延长。(11)因此,《尼斯条约》不仅是建立宪法的最新篇章,而且是共同体最雄心勃勃的摘要管制倡议。奇怪的是,欧盟机构、各国政府和学术学者认为这些改革——《基本权利宪章》的制定和欧盟法院的诉讼控制措施——是两个独立的重要事件,但本质上是不相关的。事实上,《宪章》的前景与摘要管制倡议有着内在的联系,因为对权利法案的辩护最终掌握在司法手中,这是美国最高法院一次又一次证明的真理。...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Law and Contemporary Problems
Law and Contemporary Problems Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: Law and Contemporary Problems was founded in 1933 and is the oldest journal published at Duke Law School. It is a quarterly, interdisciplinary, faculty-edited publication of Duke Law School. L&CP recognizes that many fields in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities can enhance the development and understanding of law. It is our purpose to seek out these areas of overlap and to publish balanced symposia that enlighten not just legal readers, but readers from these other disciplines as well. L&CP uses a symposium format, generally publishing one symposium per issue on a topic of contemporary concern. Authors and articles are selected to ensure that each issue collectively creates a unified presentation of the contemporary problem under consideration. L&CP hosts an annual conference at Duke Law School featuring the authors of one of the year’s four symposia.
期刊最新文献
The Influence of Re-Selection on Independent Decision Making in State Supreme Courts Voting Rights and the “Statutory Constitution” Challenging Gender in Single-Sex Spaces: Lessons from a Feminist Softball League Treaties and Human Rights: The Role of Long-Term Trends Correcting Federalism Mistakes in Statutory Interpretation: The Supreme Court and the Federal Arbitration Act
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1