# EUR-Lex - 52013DC0271 - EN

*|*

# 52013DC0271

**REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2012 Report on the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights /* COM/2013/0271 final */**

			*

			*

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

2012 Report on the Application of the EU
Charter of Fundamental Rights

1.           Introduction

In its Strategy for the effective
implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the European Union (‘the
Charter’), the Commission announced that it will report each year on the concrete steps undertaken for the effective implementation of
the Charter[1]. Through these reports, the Commission meets the longstanding and legitimate
expectations of placing fundamental rights at the heart of EU policies, which
have been voiced in particular by the European Parliament[2]. A
systematic implementation of the Charter calls not only for rigorous legal
scrutiny, but equally for political scrutiny to ascertain the impact of all EU
initiatives on fundamental rights.

This annual report is the basis for the
necessary dialogue between all the EU institutions and Member States on the
implementation of the Charter. It therefore forms part of the process of
political dialogue and scrutiny to ensure that the
Charter remains a reference point, to integrate fundamental rights into all EU legal
acts and when Member States apply EU law. It also presents how a fundamental
rights culture is being developed in the EU by setting new legislation, where
the EU has competence to act, and through the jurisprudence of the Court of
Justice of the European Union (‘the Court’). Given the key role to be played by
Member States’ courts in scrutinising the respect of the Charter when Member
States apply EU law, this report also provides an overview for the first time
of the case law of national courts on the Charter.

The staff working document annexed to this
report provides detailed information on the application of the Charter and
illustrates concrete problems faced by individuals (see Annex I). Progress in
the implementation of the Strategy for Equality between Women and Men
(2010-2015) is presented in a second separate staff working document (see Annex
II).

2.           EU actions to promote the effective
implementation of the Charter

The Charter is addressed, first and foremost, to the EU institutions. It is therefore the
primary responsibility of the EU institutions to ensure respect for fundamental
rights as a legal requirement based on the binding Charter.

The Commission's
strategy is aimed at giving practical effect to the legally
binding Charter[3].
The concrete steps to implement the Charter have fostered a fundamental rights
reflex when the Commission prepares new legislative and policy proposals. This
approach is essential throughout the EU decision making process, including when
the European Parliament and Council make amendments to proposals prepared by
the Commission. All EU acts are also subject to the
scrutiny of the Court. This is the ultimate guarantee for the respect of fundamental rights in the EU's legislative work
and all other acts of the EU.

Fundamental rights are
promoted through all EU policies. The Commission's policy of giving substance to the status
of Union citizenship is complementary to the promotion of fundamental rights
within the EU. Most fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter do not
only apply to EU Citizens, but are of great importance for the protection of
all people living in the EU, whether they are Union Citizens or not.

2.1.        Strengthening the
protection of fundamental rights through EU legislation

A true
fundamental rights culture consists not only of ensuring compliance of legislation
with the Charter. Where the EU has competence to act, the Commission can also
propose EU legislation that gives concrete effect to the rights and principles
of the Charter. This is a crucial step for citizens to exercise their rights
under the Charter.

In order to
give full effect to the Charter in the digital age, the Commission has
proposed a major reform of the EU's rules on the protection of personal data[4]. Europe's historical
experience has led to a common understanding in Europe that privacy is an
integral part of human dignity and personal freedom. This is why the Charter
recognises both the right to private life (Article 7) and the right to the
protection of personal data (Article 8). The Treaty (Article 16, TFEU) gives
the EU complementary legislative competence to establish harmonised EU data
protection laws.

The Commission's proposals update and
modernise the principles enshrined in the 1995 Directive to guarantee the right
of personal data protection in the future[5].
This reform provides for increased responsibility and accountability for those
processing personal data and strengthens independent national data protection
authorities. It introduces the ‘right to be forgotten’, which will help people
better manage data protection risks online. The reform extends general data
protection principles and rules to national police and criminal justice
authorities. The new rules have been drafted to ensure a careful balance with all
fundamental rights they may affect, such as freedom of expression. A meaningful
example of this is that specific safeguards have been introduced in the
proposal for data that is processed solely for journalistic purposes.

In 2012, the Commission took a
pro-active approach to accelerate progress towards a better gender balance on
the corporate boards of European companies listed on stock exchanges[6]. The Commission's legislative
proposal is a milestone in EU legislation on gender equality. It reconciles, on
the one hand, the requirement of equality of treatment, and on the other hand,
the possibility to take positive action - by promoting the under-represented
sex - in order to bring about de facto equality.

The proposal sets an objective of 40% for
the minimum share of the under-represented sex among non-executive board members
of such companies by 2020 (by 2018 for listed companies which are public
undertakings). In order to meet the 40% objective it obliges listed companies
with a lower percentage of the under-represented sex among non-executive
directors to make appointments to those positions on the basis of a comparative
analysis of the qualifications of each candidate. This will be achieved by
applying pre-established, clear, neutrally formulated and unambiguous criteria;
and in case of equal qualifications by giving preference to the candidate of
the under-represented sex.

Safeguarding
procedural rights remains a priority for the EU. The Directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings,
adopted on 22 May 2012, requires that anyone arrested is informed about their
rights in a language that they understand[7].
In addition, the new Directive establishing minimum standards on the rights,
support and protection of victims of crime, adopted on 25 October 2012, ensures
that victims are given non-discriminatory minimum rights across the EU,
irrespective of their nationality or country of residence[8]. It guarantees that victims are
recognised and treated with respect when they come into contact with the
police, prosecutors and the judiciary. It also gives them the procedural rights
to be informed, supported and protected and ensures that they can actively
participate in criminal proceedings. The Directive focuses on the support and
protection of victims who are vulnerable to secondary or repeat victimisation
or intimidation during criminal proceedings. These vulnerable groups include
children and victims of gender-based violence, violence in a close-relationship,
sexual violence or exploitation, hate crime and victims with disabilities.

EU policies and EU legislation need to be
based on objective, reliable and comparable data on the respect of
fundamental rights in the EU. The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (‘the
Agency’) has been established to provide such data. Following the entry in
to force of the Lisbon Treaty, it should be able to perform its tasks in all
areas of EU competences where fundamental rights are at stake. To achieve this,
the Commission proposed that the Agency could work in the areas of police
cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters[9]. The Council did not endorse
this approach and decided to exclude these two major fields of competence of
the Union from the Agency's Multiannual framework, which determines the
thematic areas on which it can work during the period 2013-2017. The good
functioning of the Agency was further put at risk due to the delay in the
adoption of the new Multiannual framework. As a consequence, the Agency was not
in a position to carry out its tasks under normal conditions and had recourse,
for carrying out its tasks, to an ad hoc request, adopted by the Council
at the end of 2012. The Council proceeded with the adoption of the new
Multiannual framework on 11 March 2013, after the United Kingdom lifted its
parliamentary reservation[10].

2.2.        The fundamental rights
dimension of the EU external actions

The Charter applies to all actions of the
European Union, including in the field of external relations.

Building on a joint Commission/EEAS
Communication, the Council adopted a Strategic Framework on Human Rights and
Democracy and an Action Plan designed to improve the effectiveness and
consistency of EU human rights policy as a whole in the next years[11]. As one of the first actions
under the new EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan, the Council appointed Mr
Stavros Lambrinidis as EU Special Representative (EUSR) for Human Rights[12].

In a case concerning the freezing of
assets of a company and its majority shareholder, decided by the Council in
the framework of common foreign and security policy, the Court annulled the
measures taken on the grounds that the Council produced no information or
evidence. In doing so, the Court upheld that the principle of effective
judicial protection (Article 47 of the Charter), means that the ground for a
restrictive measure must be communicated to the entity and person concerned[13]. This is necessary both to enable the addressees to defend their
rights and also to put the Court in a position to review the lawfulness of the
measure in question. This judicial review extends to the assessment of the
facts and circumstances relied on as justifying it, and to the evidence and
information on which that assessment is based.

On 4th July 2012, the
European Parliament rejected the draft Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
which aimed at improving global standards for the enforcement of intellectual
property rights to more effectively combat trade in counterfeit and pirated
goods. In doing so the European Parliament used the Charter when exercising its
new prerogatives on international trade agreements[14].The EP referred in particular to
the need for an appropriate balance in the draft trade agreement between freedom
of expression and information and the right to property. The Commission was
also attentive to these concerns and had already asked the Court to assess
whether the ACTA agreement was compatible with the Charter. The Commission
withdrew its request for an opinion of the Court, after the European Parliament
made clear it could not accept the draft agreement.

2.3.        The Court's control of EU
acts for compliance with the Charter

The rulings delivered by the Court in 2012
that concerned the compliance of EU acts with the Charter, gave guidance on how
to take into account fundamental rights in the EU's legislative work and all other acts of the EU,
which have legal effects.

The Court made clear that the Charter must
be taken into account when the legislator decides to delegate powers to
the Council or to the Commission. It annulled a Council
implementing decision on surveillance of the external sea borders of the EU on
the basis that the adoption of rules conferring enforcement powers on border
guards entails political choices falling within the responsibilities of the
European Union legislature and that these rules were likely to affect personal
freedom and fundamental rights to such an extent that the involvement of the
European Union legislature is required [15].

The Court also examined whether the EU
institutions actually respect the principle of non-discrimination in
their recruitment policy. The Court annulled the notices of several open
competitions to become a civil servant of EU institutions which have been
published in full only in three official languages[16]. The
Court found that a potential candidate whose mother tongue was not one of the
languages of full publication of the contested competition notices was at a disadvantage
compared to a candidate whose mother tongue was one of those three languages.
That disadvantage was the consequence of a disproportionate difference in
treatment on the ground of language, prohibited by Article 21 of the Charter.

The Court also controlled the application
of the principle of good administration by the EU institutions (Article
41 of the Charter). It annulled the decision of the Commission to reject
an offer in the context of an invitation to tender for public service
procurement, because the Commission did not provide sufficient justification
for its decision[17]. The Court established a link between Article 41 (good
administration) and Article 47 (access to justice) of the Charter, insofar as
the reasons given by the administration are necessary for the person concerned
to decide whether to challenge the decision before the relevant courts.

Several rulings given by the Court in
the past years triggered adaptations to EU legislation. In this respect, the European Parliament,
the Council and the Commission incorporated the Court's case law when negotiating on the new ‘Dublin Regulation’
on the conditions for the transfer of asylum seekers in the EU[18]. As a result, under the newly agreed rules, asylum seekers cannot
be sent back to a Member State where there is a serious risk of violation of
their fundamental rights. Instead, the responsibility to give quick access to
an asylum procedure should be exercised by another Member State.

The Commission also incorporated the
Court's case law when preparing
its modified proposal on the publication of the beneficiaries of European
agricultural funds[19]. The new proposed rules are based on a revised detailed
justification, centred on the need for public control of the use of European
agricultural funds in order to protect the Union's financial interests. They
require more detailed information to be given on the nature and description of
the measures for which the funds are disbursed. However, below a minimum
threshold the name of the beneficiary will not be published. This provision
follows proportionality considerations, namely between the objective of the
public control of the use of public funds, on the one hand, and the
beneficiaries’ right to respect for their private life in general and to
protection of their personal data on the other hand.

3.           Implementation of the Charter in the
Member States

Within the EU, the protection of
fundamental rights is ensured by a two-layered system: the national system
based on Member States' constitutions and international legal obligations, such
as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); and the EU system based on
the Charter, which comes into operation only in relation to actions by EU
institutions, or when Member States implement EU law. The Charter complements
existing systems for the protection of fundamental rights, it does not replace
them.

The limits of the scope of application
of the Charter have been underlined by the Court. It declared inadmissible
a preliminary reference from a Bulgarian Administrative Court concerning the
right to a judicial remedy in respect of decisions imposing criminal sanctions
for certain breaches of road traffic regulations, referring to settled case
law, which is that the requirements flowing from the protection of fundamental
rights are binding on Member States whenever they implement EU law[20].

The provisions of the Charter are addressed
to the Member States only when they are implementing EU law and neither the Charter
nor the Treaty creates any new competence for the EU in the field of
fundamental rights. Where the national legislation at stake does not constitute
a measure implementing EU law or is not connected in any other way with EU law,
the jurisdiction of the Court is not established[21].

The important implications of the Charter are to be
seen in the increasing number of requests for a preliminary ruling of national jurisdictions
received by the Court. For example, in the field of asylum the Court upheld that whenever an application for asylum is lodged
at the border or in the territory of a Member State, that Member State is
obliged to grant the minimum conditions for reception of asylum seekers laid
down in EU law regardless of whether a Member State is responsible for
examining the application for asylum under EU law[22]. In
particular, the need to uphold fundamental principles of human dignity (Article
1) and the right to asylum (Article 18) means that, the obligation under EU law[23] to provide an asylum seeker with housing, food, clothes and a daily
expenses allowance, and the subsequent financial onus, are to be borne by the
requesting Member State until the asylum seeker is transferred to the Member
State responsible for examining their application.

3.1.        Actions taken by the
Commission to ensure the respect of the Charter by the Member States

The Commission also makes sure that the
Charter is respected in its role as guardian of the Treaties and is determined
to intervene to this effect where necessary when it has the power to do so. For
the first time, in 2012, the Commission was called upon to take infringement
cases to the Court of Justice, which concerned the non-compliance of a Member State with key provisions of the Charter.

Over the past years, Hungary adopted several laws – some of them so-called cardinal laws adopted
directly under its new constitution – which raised important fundamental
rights concerns and also came under the scrutiny of the Council of Europe.
The Commission carried out its legal analysis on those points where there was a
link with EU law, in accordance with the scope of application of the Charter
(Article 51) and the Commission's role as guardian of the Treaties. Following
first warning letters in the end of 2011, the Commission decided on 7th
June 2012 to bring infringement procedures before the Court. The Commission
firstly challenged interferences with the independence of the Hungarian data
protection authority, on the ground that the “complete independence” of
national data protection authorities is a requirement under the 1995 Data
Protection Directive and is recognised explicitly in Article 16 TFEU as well as
in Article 8 of the Charter. In a second infringement proceeding, the
Commission contested the early retirement of around 274 judges and public
prosecutors in Hungary caused by a sudden reduction of the mandatory retirement
age for this profession from 70 to 62. The basis for the Commission's action
was Directive 2000/78/EC on equal treatment in employment which prohibits
discrimination at the workplace on grounds of age. This also covers the
dismissal for age related reasons without an objective justification. This case
thus helps to implement the general prohibition of discrimination, including on
grounds of age, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Charter. The Court's ruling
of 6 November 2012 upheld the Commission's assessment according to which the
mandatory retirement age for judges, prosecutors and notaries within a very
short transitional period is incompatible with EU equal treatment law. Hungary will have to change these rules to comply with EU law[24].

Media freedom and pluralism also formed the
basis of the discussions between the Commission and the Hungarian authorities
on the new media legislation as regards the obligation of balanced coverage and
the rules on offensive content. Some modifications were also agreed between the
Commission and the Hungarian authorities on other provisions which could otherwise
constitute an infringement of the Audio-visual Media Services Directive and/or
the rules on free circulation of services and establishment.

As regards the issue of judicial
independence in Hungary more generally, the Commission expressed its concerns
in a number of letters in 2012, in particular the powers of the Hungarian
President of the National Judicial Office to reallocate cases from one court to
another and to transfer a judge against his or her will. The Commission pointed
out that these measures could affect the effective application of Union law in Hungary and the fundamental rights of citizens and businesses to an effective remedy by an
independent court in cases based on Union law, as guaranteed by Article 47 of
the Charter. Discussions have also taken place between the Council of Europe
(in particular the Venice Commission) and the Hungarian authorities. The
Commission keeps the matter under close review, in particular to verify
compliance with the right to an effective remedy.

Likewise, immediately upon having been made
aware, in August 2012, about developments in France on the dismantling
of Roma settlements and about returns of Roma to their home country, the
Commission wrote to the French authorities and discussions took place enabling
to clarify the facts and the legal framework. The situation has changed considerably
in the last few years. Further to the Commission's action in 2010 to guarantee
the application of free movement directive by all Member States, and to put in
place a European Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies, France
modified its law to guarantee full compliance with the free movement directive,
notably as concerns procedural safeguards related to expulsions of EU citizens,
and adopted its national Roma Integration Strategy. On the basis of this new
Strategy, close cooperation and enhanced efforts on Roma inclusion is taking
place with the active participation of France.

In 2012, the Commission also launched infringement
proceedings against Malta on the grounds of its failure to correctly
implement the EU free movement rules and more particularly the right of
same-sex spouses or registered partners to join EU citizens in Malta and reside there with them. As a result of the Commission's action, the Maltese
legislation was modified and is now compatible with EU rules on the rights of
EU citizens to free movement and non-discrimination.

3.2.        Development of national
case law on the application of the Charter by the Member States

The community
of law, on which the Union is based, relies on national courts. Only if
national judges fully exercise their powers, can the rights that Union law
grants to citizens be effectively guaranteed. The national constitutional and
supreme courts have a special responsibility for cooperating with the Court to
ensure effective application of the Charter.

Data gathered
by the Association of Councils of States and of Supreme Administrative
Courts (ACA) show that the Charter has by now been referred to in numerous
judgements by administrative courts in EU Member States[25]. The provisions of the Charter
most frequently mentioned in the reports are respect for private and family
life (Article 7), freedom of expression and information (Article 11), right to
property (Article 17), right to asylum (Article 18), prohibition of collective
expulsion and non-refoulement (Article 19), rights of the child (Article
24), right to good administration (Article 41) and right to an effective remedy
and to a fair trial (Article 47).

The branch of
law in which the Charter has been referred to most to date is immigration and
asylum[26].
The analysis provided by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights on information provided
by some Member States on case law on the Charter also shows that the
implications of the Charter go well beyond this area, and concern very diverse
areas such as regulations on financial markets, labour law, consumer
protection, environment law and children's custody[27].

The analysis of
court rulings referring to the Charter further suggests that national judges
use the Charter to support their reasoning, including when there is not
necessarily a link with EU law. There is also some evidence of an incorporation
of the Charter in the national systems of fundamental rights protection.
The Austrian Constitutional Court handed down a landmark decision regarding the
application of the Charter in the frame of domestic judicial review of
constitutionality[28].
It recognised the very special role of the Charter within the EU legal system,
and its different nature compared to the body of rights and principles which
the Court of Justice of the EU has been developing throughout the years. It
took the view that the Charter is enforceable in the proceedings brought before
it for the judicial review of national legislation, and therefore individuals
can rely upon the rights and the principles recognised in the Charter when
challenging the lawfulness of domestic legislation. The Austrian Constitutional
  Court identified strong similarities between the role played by the Charter
in the EU legal system and that played by the ECHR under the Austrian
Constitution, according to which the ECHR has force of constitutional law.

4.           accession of the EU to the European
Convention on human Rights

The Treaty of Lisbon has imposed a clear
obligation on the EU to accede to the ECHR. All Member States agreed to
this when they ratified the Treaty of Lisbon.

Negotiations on the accession agreement were
stalled in the first half of the year, as certain Member States had expressed
doubts and raised questions on the draft agreement, drawn up at technical level
in June 2011. Eventually agreement was reached in the Council in April 2012 so negotiations
could resume in June 2012 in a 47 + 1 format (47 Members of Council of Europe
and the Commission on behalf of the EU).

In parallel, work has been undertaken on
the core elements of the internal rules intended to govern the participation of
the EU and Member States in proceedings before the Court of Strasbourg in
situations where Union law is called into question.

Against this background, the unanimity
required for the conclusion of the accession agreement to the ECHR and its
accompanying measures should not serve as an excuse to delay the process, which
is a clear and mandatory objective enshrined in the Treaty.

5.           Conclusion

After just three years in force as primary
law, the take up of the Charter by national courts when EU law is involved can
be seen as a positive sign. The increasing reference to the Charter gives a
first indication of an effective, decentralised application of the Charter within
the national constitutional orders. This is an important step on the road to a more
coherent system for the protection of fundamental rights which guarantees equal
levels of rights and protection in all Member States whenever EU law is being
implemented.

The 2012 State of the Union address of
President Barroso underlined that the foundations on which our Union is built -
the respect of fundamental rights, the rule of law and democracy - must
continuously be protected and strengthened[29].
That is why the Commission is committed to lead by example in ensuring that all
EU acts comply with the Charter. The Commission remains determined to take
decisive steps to give concrete effect to the Charter when it has the competence
to do so. Likewise, the Commission is committed to intervene where necessary
when Member States implement EU law in order to ensure the effective implementation
of the Charter, as in the action it brought before the Court contesting the
early retirement of judges and public prosecutors in Hungary.

The Commission will keep the development of
fundamental rights protection in the EU, including the evolving case-law on the
application of the Charter both at Union and at national level[30], under close review and calls
upon the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers to discuss the
present report in detail.

[1]               Communication adopted by the Commission on 19.10.2010
– Strategy for the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights by the European Union – COM (2010) 573 final.

[2]               Voggenhuber Report of the European Parliament –
Document ref: A6-0034/2007.

[3]               See footnote 1.

[4]               a) Communication on Safeguarding Privacy in a
Connected World – A European Data Protection Framework for the 21st Century,
COM (2012) 09 final. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52012DC0009:en:NOT;
b) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on
the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data
and on the free movement of such data, COM (2012) 11 final. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0011:FIN:EN:DOC
c) Proposal for a Directive on the protection of individuals with regard to the
processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of
prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the
execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data, COM (2012)
10 final. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0010:FIN:EN:DOC

[5]               Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals
with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such
data, OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31-50.

[6]               Proposal for a Directive on improving the gender
balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges
and related measures, COM (2012) 614 final. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0614:FIN:en:PDF.

[7]               Directive 2012/13EU on the right to information in
criminal proceedings, OJ L 142, 1.6.2012, p. 1-10.

[8]               Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards
on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing
Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 57-74.

[9]               Proposal for a Council Decision establishing a
Multiannual Framework for the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights for
2013-2017, COM (2011) 880 final. Available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0880:FIN:EN:HTML.

[10]             Council Decision establishing a Multiannual Framework
for 2013-2017 for the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, adopted on
11 March. Available at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/12/st10/st10449.en12.pdf

[11]             Joint Communication on Human rights and democracy at
the heart of EU external action – towards a more effective approach, COM (2011) 886 final. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0886:FIN:EN:PDF. Strategic Framework and Action plan on Human Rights and Democracy Council
Document n°11417/12 EXT 1 of 28.6.2012. Available at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/12/st11/st11417-ex01.en12.pdf

[12]             Council Decision 2012/440/CFSP of 25.7.2012 appointing
the European Union Special Representative for Human Rights, OJ L 200, p. 21-23

[13]             CJEU, Case T-439/10 and T-440/10, Fulmen and F. Mahloudian
v Council, 21.3.2012.

[14]             Recommendation of the European Parliament, document
ref: A7-0204/2012 of 22.6.2012.

[15]             CJEU, Case C-355/10, European Parliament v. Council
of EU, 5.9.2012.

[16]             CJEU, Grand Chamber, Case C-566/10 P, Italian Republic v Commission, 27.11.2012.

[17]             CJEU, Case T-183/10, Sviluppo Globale GEIE v Commission,
10.10.2012.

[18]             CJEU, joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10, N.S. v Secretary
of State for the Home Department and M.E. e.a. v Refugee Applications
Commissioner, 21.12.2011. Proposal for a Regulation establishing the
criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for
examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the
Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, COM (2008) 820
final. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0820:FIN:EN:PDF

[19]             CJEU, joined Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09, Volker und
Markus Schecke GbR & Hartmut Eifert v. Land Hessen& Bundesanstalt für
Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, 10.11.2010. Amendment
to the Commission proposal COM (2011) 628 final/2 for a Regulation on the
financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy, COM (2012) 551 final. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/funding/regulation/amendment-com-2012-551_en.pdf.

[20]             CJEU, Case C-27/11, Vinkov, 7.6.2012

[21]             See also CJEU, Case C 370/12, Pringle v Ireland, 27.11.2012

[22]             CJEU, Case C-179/11 Cimade and
Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigrés (GISTI) v. Ministre de
l’Intérieur, de l’Outre-mer, des Collectivités territoriales et de
l’Immigration, 27.09.2012

[23]             Council Directive 2003/9/EC laying down minimum
standards for the reception of asylum seekers, OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 18 – 25.

[24]             CJEU, Case C 286/12, European Commission v. Hungary, 6.11.2012

[25]             See for details the reports to ACA Europa. Available
at: http://www.aca-europe.eu/en/colloquiums/colloq_en_23.html

[26]             Apart from Spain, Hungary and Austria, the Charter has been referred to in this branch of law in every country.

[27]             See in particular: The Protection of Fundamental
Rights Post Lisbon: the Interaction between the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights and
National Constitutions Vol I, ed. Laffranque, Julia, Reports of the FIDE
Congress Tallinn 2012, University of Tartu

[28]             Austrian Constitutional Court, Cases U 466/11 and U
1836/11, 14.3.2012

[29]             Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-12-596_en.htm

[30]             Speech of Vice-President Viviane Reding at the XXV
Congress of FIDE (Fédération Internationale pour le Droit Européen) Tallinn, 31 May 2012. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-12-403_en.htm?locale=en