When is the ECHR going to start watching the EU?

20 June 2012 by

In my post of today about checks on EU legality, I made the point that no institution formally monitors the EU apart from EU institutions. Moves are afoot to change that, though not in a form that diehard Eurosceptics are likely to relish. Article 6 of the Lisbon Treaty of European Union says that the EU shall accede to the ECHR. As and when that occurs, the European Court of Human Rights will assume a formal role in adjudicating upon the legality of EU measures. The details of accession could not be settled by the purely EU Treaty of Lisbon, hence the ongoing negotiations.

 However, things have been happening very recently. Yesterday, 19 June, a joint informal body of members of the European Parliament and Council of Europe parliamentarians welcomed the prospect of talks resuming on EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, and, last week, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe decided to pursue negotiations with the European Union with a view to finalising the legal instruments setting out the way in which the EU would accede to the ECHR.

Barbara Lochbihler MEP is Chair of the European Parliament Sub-Committee on Human Rights. Kerstin Lundgren is former Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe rapporteur on the impact of the Lisbon Treaty on the Council of Europe. As they put it, high-level negotiations ground to a shuddering halt in the Autumn of 2011 after the completion of most of the technical work on accession, but immediately upon commencement of political discussions. So, agreement had already been reached on arrangements to ensure the European Parliament’s participation in the sittings of the Parliamentary Assembly when the Assembly elects judges to the European Court of Human Rights.

There have been recent urgings that national governments such as the UK and France do not stand in the way of accession, but this rather begs the question as to whether the details of accession have indeed been thrashed out. As David Cameron pointed out in January 2012, this is the first time that an organisation has acceded to the ECHR – and no ordinary organisation at that, with 27 EU members acceding to a Convention subscribed to by 47 Council of Europe members. The EU on the other hand is signatory to a whole host of Conventions, but given the intimacy of this embrace between the two supranational organisations the accession does require careful thought. It is plainly important to get things right, whether on a formal or practical level. Whether the average litigant fancies asking a domestic court for a reference to the Luxembourg Court to seek annulment of a measure, which is then refused by Luxembourg but thereafter entertained by Strasbourg, is one thing. And I am looking forward to the subsidiarity arguments which may arise: whose subsidiarity, that of the EU, or the litigant or member state affected by the EU decision? But, rather more constructively, the fact that Strasbourg is watching may help to constrain the rather more minimalist interpretations by the European institutions as to their obligations on transparency.

So, accession is well worth keeping an eye on, and, if it be the case, not running scared from. Good old-fashioned English constitutionalists are entirely comfortable with checks and balances, and one check on an over-weening EU institution might be an ECHR. Though whether the more strident press (and less subtle backbenchers) will appreciate such a Bagehotian dispensation of European bodies is perhaps more in doubt.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:


  1. John D says:

    The interesting question here must surely revolve around mechanisms of enforcement of decisions. As I understand it, the ECJ/CJEU can have its decisions enforced by EU institutuions (presumably the European Commission has powers to fine intransigent member-states) whereas the ECtHR relies upon moral pressure to guide member-signatories in the “right” direction.
    In terms of power relations, the ECJ/CJEU must presumably be seen as the court with greatest powers out of the two? Of course, the EU institutions could allow themselves to be guided by ECtHR judgements, I suppose, which would mean having to make changes to the various EU treaties – though how this would go down in the “popular” press is anyone’s guess – er, perhaps not !!

  2. You are absolutely right to ask, and it is not easy to give a one-line answer.

    The formal structure would be that the ECtHR would receive cases which had gone to the ECJ (aka CJEU) and where the challenge to an EU measure had failed there, and the EU would be the addressee of the resulting judgment. But that formal result does not mean that the ECtHR would necessarily be regarded as the more authoritative court; compare the UKSC and the ECtHR at the moment. But remember that even now you can take a claim arising under EU law against a member state to the ECtHR, and EU law already contains and applies the principles of the ECHR. So you can and sometimes do get the ECtHR saying one thing and the ECJ saying another about the same ECHR principle (rights of privacy/Art.8 attaching to business premises I seem to recall)

    In a line, the big difference would simply be that the judgement was X v. EU, rather than X v. UK.

  3. John D says:

    How does the EU’s European Court of Justice fit into this scenario? Is there a possibility of conflict between the ECJ and the ECtHR? How would such a conflict be resolved? Can the judgments of one court be considered superior to the other court? If so, which one is superior?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: