ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEEDES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM(79)210
Vol.1979/0090

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement(CEE,Euratom)n°354/83duConseildu1erfévrier1983
concernantl'ouvertureaupublicdesarchiveshistoriquesdelaCommunauté économique
européenneetdelaCommunautéeuropéennedel'énergieatomique(JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telquemodifiéparlerèglement(CE,Euratom)n°1700/2003du22septembre2003
(JOL243du27.9.2003,p.1),cedossierestouvertaupublic.Lecaséchéant,lesdocuments
classifiésprésentsdanscedossierontétédéclassifiésconformément àl'article5dudit
règlement.
InaccordancewithCouncilRegulation(EEC,Euratom)No354/83of1February1983
concerningtheopeningtothepublicofthehistoricalarchivesoftheEuropeanEconomic
CommunityandtheEuropeanAtomicEnergyCommunity(OJL43,15.2.1983,p.1),as
amendedbyRegulation(EC,Euratom)No1700/2003of22September2003(OJL243,
27.9.2003,p.1),thisfileisopentothepublic.Wherenecessary,classifieddocumentsinthis
filehavebeendeclassified inconformitywithArticle5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung(EWG,Euratom)Nr.354/83desRatesvom1.
Februar1983überdieFreigabederhistorischen ArchivederEuropäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI.L43vom15.2.1983,
S.1),geändertdurchdieVerordnung(EG,Euratom)Nr.1700/2003vom22.September2003
(ABI.L243vom27.9.2003,S.1),istdieseDateiderÖffentlichkeitzugänglich.Soweit
erforderlich,wurdendieVerschlusssachen indieserDateiinÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel5
dergenanntenVerordnungfreigegeben.

COMMISSION OFTHEEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(79)210 final
Brussels -2ndMay 1979
Λ-'
MEMORANDUM ONTHE ACCESSION OFTHE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES TOTHE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION
OFHUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
COM(79)210 final

MEMORANDUM
ontheaccession oftheEuropean Communities totheConvention
fortheProtection ofHumanRightsandFundamental Freedoms
INTRODUCTION .
TheEuropean Community hasanincreasing numberofdirect
legalrelations .-<hindividuals .Itsactivities nolongeronly
concern acertain number -i'economic categories ~suchasfarmers
orprofessional importers c-ndexporters -butalso,eachindividual
citizen.Itis,therefore ,notsurprising toseetodayademand
expressed forthepowers .vhi;hbelongtotheCommunity tobecounter­
balanced bytheirformalsubjection toclearandwelldefined funda­
mentalrights.
TheCommission believes thatthebestwayofreplying tothe
needtoreinforce theprotection offundamental rightsatCommunity
4
level,atthepresent stage,consists intheCommunity formally ad­
heringtotheEuropean Convention fortheprotection ofhumanrights
andfundamental freedoms of4thNovember 1950(hereafter referred to
as"theEuropean Convention onHumanRights"or"ECHR").TheCommission
inproposing this,doesnot'disregard thefactthat,inthelonger
term,theCommunity shouldendeavour tocomplete theTreaties bya
catalogue offundamental rightsspecially adaptedtotheexercise of
itspowers.Itdoesnot,however,appearpossible toachievethis
objective intheshorttermbecauseofthedifferences ofopinion which
existbetween theMemberStatesonthedefinition ofeconomic andsocial
rights.Inordertoreinforce thelegalprotection ofthecitizensof
theCommunity immediately andinthemostefficient mannerpossible,
oneshouldrely,inthefirstplace,onthe'fundamental rightsinscribed

"ntpsECHR.Inothc-words,theCommunity shouldadhereassoon
aspossible tothisconvention andtotheprotection mechanisms
whichitcontains .Theelaboration ofacatalogue fortheCommunity
itselfwouldinnowaybeheldup.Accession totheECHRwouldcon­
stitute onthecontrary,afirststepinthedirection ofthat
objective .
Thepresent .Memorandum gives,firstofall,anoutlineof
howthequestion offundamental rightshasbeentreateduntilnow
atCommunity level(I).Itdescribes howtheECHRfunctions (II)and
theposition ofCommunity actsinrelation totheECHRintheexisting
legalcontext (III).Chapters IVandVcontainthearguments which
canbeadvanced "for"or"against"accession,whileChapters VItoXI
dealwithdifferent problems oflegaltechnique .
Thememorandum reaches theconclusion thattheaccession of
theEuropean Community totheECHRseemsdesirable forawholeseries
ofreasons.Noneofthedifficulties whichhaveappeared inthis
context seeminsurmountable .Giventhedimension oftheactionto
beundertaken anditscomplexity ,theCommission considersitnecessary ,
beforesettinginmotiontheappropriate institutional mechanisms ,to
encourage asprofound adiscussion aspossible withallinterested
bodies onthebasisofthismemorandum .

-3-
I.HISTORY
1. Fopmore than twocenturies thehistory ofEurope hasbeen
characterized byconstant efforts toimprove theprotection offunda­
mental rights .Founded onthehuman andcivil rights declarations of
theeighteenth century ,allEuropean constitutions today contain an
established body ofinviolable fundamental rights andfreedoms .This
isparticularly true oftheMember States oftheEuropean Communities .
Incontrast totheconstitutions ofsome East European countries ,the
constitutional orders ofallMember States not .only recognize essentially
thesame body offundamental freedoms ,butalso provide forthejudicial
enforcement ofsuch rights intheevent ofviolations .AllMember
States ,aware oftheir common heritage ofideas andpolitical traditions ,
have ,moreover ,become parties tointernational conventions onhuman
rights ;inparticular ,they have without exception become parties to
theEuropean Convention fortheProtection ofHuman Rights and Funda­
mental Freedoms ,of4November 1950 . .
Thequestion oftheprotection ofhuman rights hasbecome
0increasingly topical intheLast fewyears .High level national andEuropean
Courts have delivered important judgments onthesafeguarding ofthese
rights .InFrance ,theCourdeCassation recently recognized ,ina^
fundamental judgment .,thevalidity innational lawoftheEuropean
(1)Convention onHuman Rights . IntheUnited Kingdom ,aBill ofRights
(1)Cour deCassation ,Judgement of5December 1978 incriminal
proceedings against Ch6rif BAROUM .

i-4-
isenvisaged andinBelgium andtheNetherlands alsoconsideration
isbeinggiventoimproving theprotection offundamental rights
againstviolations bythelegislature .AttheHelsinki Conference ,
theprotection ofhumanrightswasthemostimportant demandmade
bytheWesternStates;thefinalactofthatconference hasawakened
expectations intheEasternbloccountries withregardtothegranting
ofgreater freedom.
2.AsfarastheEuropean Communities inparticular areconcerned ,
theirMemberStatesalreadydeclared whenconcluding theTreatyestablish­
ingtheEuropean Economic Community thattheultimate aimofthe
poolingoftheireconomic resources wastopreserve peaceandliberty.
Theguarantee ofabodyoffundamental rightsandtheexistence ofa
democratic pluralist regimeareamongtheessential features ofthe
declaration oftheNineon"European Identity"adoptedinCopenhagen in
1973andaccording towhich"theyeredetermined todefendtheprinciples
ofrepresentative democracy theruleoflaw,socialjustice-the ultimate
goalofeconomic progress-andrespectforhumanrights.Allofthese
constitute fundamental elements ofEuropeanIdentity".Bothelements
• »alsoplayed acentralrolemdetermining theattitude oftheCommunity
towards European countries wishingtobecomemembers.TheHeadsof
StateandofGovernment solemnly declared attheEuropean Council
meetingof8April1978"thatrespectforandmaintenance ofrepresen­
tativedemocracy andhumanrightsineachMemberStateareessential
(1)elements ofmembership oftheEuropean Communities .
(1)Cf.Bulletin oftheEuropean Communities N°3/78,page5.
SJ/229/79def.-EN»

3.TheTreatiesofParisandRomearedesignedprimarilyas
instrumentsofeconomicintegration,andprobablyforthisreason,
butperhapsalsoonaccountoftherestrictedpowersaccordedtothe
Communityinstitutions,donotincludefortheCommunityitsown
catalogueoffundamentalrights.Nevertheless,theCourtofJustice
hadtodealatarelativelyearlystage;withcomplaintsinwhichit
wasmaintainedthataparticular Communityactviolatedafundamental
rightguaranteedbytheconstitution ofaMemberState.Initsdesire
foruniformapplication ofCommunitylaw,theCourtofJustice
contenteditselfintheinitialstagesofitscaselawbydeclaring
inregardtosuchcomplaintsthatitwasnotoneofitstasksto
ensurethatnationalrulesofaMemberStatewereobserved,evenwhere
(1)suchruleswereofaconstitutional nature.Onlyfromtheendof
thesixtiescouldanevolutionbediscernedinthedecisionsofthe
Court.Intwojudgementsofprinciple,in1969and1970,itruled
thatrespectforfundamentalrightsformedanintegralpartofthe
generalprinciplesoflaw,theobservanceofwhichtheCourthadto
ensure.Theprotectionoffheserights,whileinspiredbythecon­
Istitutionaltraditions commontotheMemberStates,hadnevertheless
tobeensuredwithintheframeworkoftheCommunity'sstructureand.. (2)«objectives .@
InsubsequentdecisionstheCourtofJusticehasspecifiedthe
criteriaaccordingtowhichitintendstoensuretheprotectionof
fundamentalrightsatCommunitylevel,declaringthat"itcouldnot
acceptmeasuresincompatible withfundamentalrightsrecognized and
protectedbytheconstitutions "ofMemberStates.
./.
C1)Judgments 4February1959incase1/58StorkvHighAuthority
/1958/59/ECR43and17May1960incases36-38_and_40/59Ruhr-kohlenverkaufsgeselIschaftenvHighAuthority/?9607ECR857.
(2)Jydgrngntsof12November1969inCase29/69,StaudervCityofUlm
/1969/ECR49and17November1970incase11/70Internationale
Handelgesaellschaft /?9707ECR1125.

TheCourtofJusticealsostatedthat"similarly,international
treatiesfortheprotectionofhumanrights,onwhichtheMember
Stateshavecollaborated orofwhichtheyaresignatories,cansupply
guidelineswhichshouldbefollowedwithintheframeworkofCommunity
law».(1) .
ThiscaselawoftheCourt,throughwhichawholeseriesof
fundamentalrightsandgeneralprinciplesoflawhavebeensubsequent­
lyrecognizedasessentialelementsoftheCommunitylegalorder,
hasbeenhighlypraisedthroughouttheCommunity.Thepoliticalinsti­
tutionsoftheCommunitysupporteditintheirJointDeclaration on
fundamentalrightsof5April1977^*andhaverepeatedlystressedthe
primeimportancetheyattachtothemethodadoptedbytheCourtfor
developing ameansofprotectionoffundamentalrightswhichisspeci­
ficallyadaptedtotherequirements oftheCommunity.
Nonetheless,howeversatisfactory andworthyofapprovalthe
methoddevelopedbytheCourtmaybe,itcannotrectifyatleastone
oftheshortcomings affectingthelegalorderoftheCommunities
throughthelackofawrittencatalogueoffundamentalrights:the
impossibility ofknowinginadvancewhicharethelibertieswhich
maynotbeinfringedbytheCommunityInstitutionsunderanycircumstances.
TheEuropeancitizenhasalegitimateinterestinhavinghisrights
vis-a-vistheCommunities laiddowninadvance.Hemustbeableto
assesstheprospectsofanypossiblelegaldisputefromtheoutset
andthereforehaveathisdisposalclearlydefinedcriteria.Thefact
thatjudgmentswhichoperateorilyexpostfactocannotfullysatisfy
thisrequirementoflegalcertaintyisinevitableinthenatureof
thingsand-asisemphasizedhereonceagain-innowayimplies
criticismoftheCourt'sapproach.
./.,
(1)Judgmentof14May1974,Case4/73,NoldvCommission/?974/ECR491;
andof28October1975,Case36/75,RutilivFrenchMinisteroftheInterior/1975?ECR1219.
(2)FordetailsseetheCommission'sreportof4February1976onthe
protectionoffundamentalrightsintheEuropeanCommunity,supplement
5/76totheBulletinoftheEuropeanCommunities,p.9..
(3)OJN°C103of27April1977,p.1.

Thedecision bytheGermanFederalConstitutional Court,in
(1)itsjudgement of29May1974,that,solongasthereexisted no
Community catalogue offundamental rightscorresponding totheGermanCon­
stitution,itwasentitledtodecideuponthevalidityoflegalacts
oftheCommunity -evenwherethesehadpreviously beendeclared
lawfulbytheCourtofJustice-inthelightofthefundamental rights
laiddownintheGermanConstitution iscertainlyincompatible withthe
principle ofexclusive powerofreviewbytheCourtofJustice andof
theunityofCommunity law,butalsodemonstrates thatatleastsome
ofthehighestcourtsintheMemberStatesconsideritnecessary to
bindtheCommunity toawrittentext.
TheItalianConstitutional Courtdidnotgoquitesofarin
(2)itsJudgement N°183/1973butdidnonetheless suggest asimilarconcern.
TheEuropean Parliament andamajority ofwriters onthe
subjecthave,liketheCommission ,criticized thedecisionofthe
GermanFederalConstitutional Court.Nevertheless ,therehasrecently
beenincreasing supportfortheideaofawrittencatalogue offundamental
rightsfortheCommunity .
@
Theadvantages ofsuchacatalogue arenotcontested bythe
Commission ,butitisclearthattheprocessofdrawingitupwill
bealongandexacting -task.Ifitwereundertaken toohastily,there
isthefearthatitwouldbringtolightdifferences betweenthe
MemberStatesparticularly witiiregardtoeconomic andsocialrights,
andthatagreement wouldbepossibleonlyonthebasisofthelowest
commondenominator.^^Thiswouldrepresent aretrograde stepcompared
(1)BVerfGE 37,271.
(2)Judgment of27December 1973-Case183/73Fortini' andassociates ,
Giurisprudenza Costituzionale ,1973,2406=ForoItaliano,1974,
I,315,Giurisprudenza Italiana,1974,1,1,865.
(3)Itshouldbepointedoutinthisconnection thatthefirstattempts
toincorporate economic andsocialrightsintheEuropean Convention
onHumanRightswerenotastriking success.

-8-
withthelevelguaranteed bytheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropean
Communities .
3.Asawayoutofthesedifficulties ,thesuggestion ofaccession
totheECHRhasbeenputforwardfromvarioussides,andinparticular
ontheoccasion ofasymposium organized bytheEuropean Parliament in
October 1978inFlorence (cf.alsothedraftResolution Doc509/78
submitted bythesocialist andliberalgroups).
InitsReportof4February 1976totheEuropean Parliament ,
theCommission declared thatinitsviewtheCommunity wasalready
obligedtoobservethehumanrightsembodied intheECHRonthebasis
ofthedecisions oftheCourt,butitdidnotconsideritnecessary
(1)fortheCommunity formally toaccedetothisConvention .Closer
consideration hasrecently revealed moreclearlytotheCommission the
disadvantages whicharisefromthelackofawrittencatalogue both r"
fortheimageoftheCommunity ingeneral andfortheprotection ofthe
rightsoftheEuropean citizen.Asaresult,theCommission hasre­
considered itsposition .Ithasconsidered thelegalandtechnicalIproblems whichwouldbeposedbytheaccession oftheCommunity tothe
ECHRandithascometotheconclusion thattherearenoobstacles
tosuchastepthatcannotbeovercome .
Afterathorough examination ofallthearguments,theCommission
nowrecommends theformalaccession oftheEuropean Communities to
theECHR.Thedecisive factorinitsviewisthattheECHRandthepro­
tectionoffundamental rightsensured bytheCourtofJusticeofthe.
1
European Communities essentially havethesameaim,namelytheprotection
./.
(1)Cf.Supplement 5/76totheBulletin oftheEuropean Communities ,p.15.
I

ofaheritageoffundamental andhumanrightsconsideredinalienable
bythoseEuropeanStatesorganizedonademocraticbasis.Theprotec­
tionofthisWesternEuropeanheritageshouldultimatelybeuniform
andaccordinglyassigned,asregardstheCommunityalso,tothose
bodiessetupspecifically forthispurpose.
«
«
TheCommissionisawarethattheaccessionoftheEuropean
Communities totheECHRwillgiverisetonotinconsiderable difficul­
tiesonaccountoftheCommunities' particularstructure.Before.it
submitsappropriateproposalstotheCouncil,therefore,ithascon­
sidereditexpedienttolaunchadiscussion ontheresultsofitsexa­
minationbymeansofthisMemoranduminaccordancewiththeannouncement
madebyitsPresidenttotheEuropeanParliamenton16November1978.
4.Itshouldbeclearlystatedfromtheoutsetthataccessionof
theEuropeanCommunities totheECHRdoesnotformanobstacletothe
preparationofaspecialCommunitycatalogue,nordoesitpreventin
anywaytheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanCommunities fromfurtherde
velopingitsexemplarycaselawontheprotectionoffundamentalrights•
whichhasalwaysbeenwelcomedbytheCommission.AsArticle60thereof
clearlyshows,theECHRisonlyaminimumcodeandthusinnoway
preventsitscontractingpartiesfromdevelopingamoreextensive
protectionoffundamentalrights.TheCourtofJusticewilltherefore
remainfreenotonlytoapplythemethodwhichithasdevelopedforthe
Communitywithaviewtodefiningeconomicandsocialfundamentalrights
whicharebarelytoucheduponintheECHR,butalsowherespecific
needsdictate,togobeyondtherightscontainedintheECHR.
ItshouldalsobepointedoutthataccessiontotheECHR
doesnotimplyanyextensionofthepowersoftheCommunitywith
regardtotheprotectionoffundamentalrights,andthatitisinno
waytheintentionofthisMemorandumtoadvocatetheextensionofthe
powersoftheCommunityvis-a-vistheMemberStatestocoverfundamental
rightswhicharenotwithinthescopeoftheCommunity.

-IU*"
IIoTheEuropean Convention onHumanRightsanditsmodeofoperation .
«
DrawnupwithintheCouncilofEurope,theEuropean Convention
onHumanRightswassignedon4November 1950andcameintoforceon
3September 1953.Fiveprotocols wereadoptedLater.
TheECHRhasbeensignedbyallmembersoftheCouncilof
Europe,,thatistosayallnineMemberStatesoftheCoKmunity,plus
Austria,Cyprus,Greece,Iceland,Malta,Norway,Portugal,Sweden,
Switzerland andTurkeyandrecently SpainandLiechtenstein also.With
theexception ofSpainandLiechtenstein ,alltheseStateshavealso
u .(1)ratified theconvention .
i
TheEuropean Convention onHumanRightsrepresents acollec­
tiveguarantee ataEuropeanlevelofanumberofprinciples setout
intheUniversal Declaration ofHumanRights,supported byinternational
judicial machinery makingdecisions whichmustberespected bycontracting
States.Thiscollective andinternational guarantee isnotasubstitute
fornational guarantees offundamental rights,butissupplementary
tothem.Proceedings undertheConvention involvethreebodies:the
European Commission ofHumanRights,theEuropean CourtofHumanRights
andtheCommittee ofMinisters oftheCouncilofEurope.
• à ■ 0/0
(1)ItshouldbenotedhoweverthatFrancehasnotsignedtheadditional
Protocol N°2andthat-ItalyandtheUnitedKingdom havenotyet
ratified Protocol N°4..

<.
-11-
a)TheEuropeanCommissionofHumanRightshasmainly;a
missionofinquiryandconciliation .Ifnofriendlysettlementhas
beenreachedonthebasisofrespectforHumanRights,theCommission
formulates alegalopinion.TheCommissionconsistsofanumberof
membersequaltothenumberofcontractingparties.Thesemembersare
electedbytheCommitteeofMinistersbyabsolutemajorityfroma
listofnamesdrawnupbytheBureauoftheConsultative Assemblyof
theCouncilofEurope;theelectionisbasedonproposalsmadeby
eachgroupofrepresentatives intheConsultative Assembly.Themembers,
whoareelectedforaperiodofsixyears,sitintheCommissionin
theirindividualcapacity,whichensuresgenuineindependence .The
Commission maydealbothwithapplications submittedbyacontracting
party(Article24)andwithcomplaintsmadebyaperson,non-govern-
mentalorganization orgroupofindividuals (Article25);thelatterpro
visionapplies,however,onlyinsofarastheStatecomplainedofhas
;(1)expresslyrecognizedtherightofindividualstosubmitapplications .
I
(1)France,Cyprus,Greece,MaltaandTurkeyhavenotsofarpermitted
.individualapplications .

12-
TheCommissiondecidesfirstontheadmissibility ofapplica­
tions.Ifanapplicationisdeclaredadmissibleandnofriendlysettle­
mentcanbeachievedbetweentheparties,theCommissiondrawsupa
reportwhichincludesinparticularitsopinionastowhetherthere
isabreachoftheECHR.ThecasemaythenbereferredtotheCourt
withinthreemonths,althoughonlytheStatemakingtheapplication
ortheStatecomplainedof,the'Stateofwhomthepersonconcernedis
anationalortheCommissionofHumanRightsitselfareempoweredto
dothis.IfthecaseisnotreferredtotheCourt,theCommitteeof
Ministershastotakeadecision.
b)TheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsiscompetenttotakea
judicialdecisionwhichisbindingonthepartiestotheactionon
whetherinagivencasetheConventionhasorhasnotbeenviolated
byacontractingState.TheCourtconsistsofanumberofindependent
judgesequaltothatoftheMembersoftheCouncilofEurope.They
areelectedbytheConsultative Assemblyfromalistofcandidates
submittedbytheMemberStates;eachMemberStatemaynominatethree
candidates,o$whomtwoatleastmustbeitsownnationals.Thejudges
areelectedforaperiodofnineyears.
TheCourtiscompetentonlyifitsjurisdiction hasbeenrecog-
(1).nizedbythecontractingpartiesconcerned(Article46).TheCommission
oroneofthecontractingpartiesmayreferacasetotheCourt,but^
notanindividualapplicant(Articles44and48)."Itdecidesonthecase
inquestionbymeansofajudgmentwhichisfinalandmay.awardcompensa­
tiontotheinjuredparty.
c)IfthecasehasnotbeenreferredtotheCourtwithinthree
monthsofthesubmissionoftheCommission'sReport,theCommitteeof.
Ministersdecidesbyatwo-thirdsmajoritywhethertherehasbeena
violationoftheECHR;at-thesametimeitprescribesaperiodduring
whichtheStateconcernedmusttakethenecessarymeasures.Ifthat
Statedoesnottakesatisfactory measures,theCommitteeofMinisters •
hastodecide"what:effectshallbegiven"toitsoriginaldecision.
•'•.'
(1)WiththeexceptionofMaltaandTurkey'allmembersoftheCouncil
ofEuropehaveacceptedthecompulsoryjurisdictionoftheCourt.
SpainandLiechtenstein havenotyetadoptedapositiononthispoint.

TheECHRcontainsnoprovisions onhowthisshouldbedone;itmentions
asaformofsanctiononlypublication oftheCommission'sreport
(Article32(3)>.Manyobserversconsiderthesequasi-juricial powers
tobeextremelyunsatisfactory onaccountofthepoliticalnatureofthe'
CommitteeofMinisters.
III.Therelationship oftheCommunitytotheConvention onHumanRights
onthebasisofthepresentlegalposition.
1.Since1974,alltheMemberStatesoftheCommunityhavebeencon­
tractingpartiestotheECHR,whichhasledtheCourtofJusticeofthe
EuropeanCommunitiestoderiveguidelinesfortheconstitutional tra­
ditionscommontotheMemberStatesfromthefundamentalrightsembodied
intheECHR;inotherwordstousetheECHRindirectlyasanindicatorof
thestandardexistingatCommunitylevelinthefieldoffundamental
rights.AlthoughtheCourthashithertoavoidedspeakingoftheCommunity
beingdirectlyboundbythecatalogueintheECHR,therearegoodreasons
forconsideringthisalreadytobethecase.OntheonehandtheECHR
representsaminimumstandardofthe."generalprinciplesoflaw"protected
bytheCourtofJustice.Ontheother,itisarguablethattheCommunity,
insofaraspowerstfavebeenassignedtoitbytheMemberStates,is./
alreadybound,onthebasisoftheprincipleofsubstitution,bythe
substantiveprovisionsoftheConventiononHumanRightsbyreasonof6'
theoriginalobligationoftheMemberStates.
2.SincetheCommunityisnotacontractingpartytotheECHR,it
seemsimpossibleforittobemadethedirectobjectofanapplication
byaStateorindividual.Neverthelessthepossibilitythatcertainlegal
actsoftheCommunitycouldbemadethesubjectofproceedingsbefore
theCommissionofHumanRightsortheCourtofHumanRightscannotbe
dismissedapriori.Applicantsmightbeaboveallnon-membercountries,
whichhavenoaccesstotheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanCommunities
i
andnaturalorlegalpersons,whohavelosttheircasein.proceedings
beforethe'

Latter.ThisLastpossibilitymaterialisedrecently;anemployees'
associationsoughttoincriminatealltheMemberStatestogether
concerningadecisionoftheCouncilrefusingittherighttobe
representedintheConsultative CommitteesetupbytheECSCTreaty.
Adnittedlythisapplication wasdismissedbytheCommissionofHuman
Rightson10July1978asinadmissible,butonlyongroundsrelating
totheparticularcircumstances ofthatcase.Atthisstagethepossi­
bilitycannotbeexcludedthattheEuropeanCommissionforHumanRights
ortheCourtinStrasbourgwillonedaytakeadifferentviewof
thequestionofthecollectiveresponsibility oftheMemberStates,
havingregardinparticulartotheconsequences whichthetransfer
ofpowersoftheMemberStatestotheCommunityimplies.
3.ThedangerthatCommunityactswillbemadesubjecttocontrol
bytheStrasbourgauthoritieswithouttheCommunityhavingappropriate
meanstodefenditselfisevidentparticularly inthosecasesin
whichtheMemberStatesincorporateintonationallawobligations under
CommunityLawwithouthavinganydiscretionary powersoftheirown.
Ahumanrightscomplaintwouldbedirectedinsuchcasesagainsta
specificMemberState;and*'assuchwouldthereforebeperfectlyadmissible.
Theobjectofthe#complaintwouldthenbe,however,disregarding the
possibility ofanyadditionalprovisionsnotspecifically requiredunder
Communitylaw,theCommunityrulebehindthenationalact.Thesituation
withsuchimplementing actsisparticularly unsatisfactory inasmuch
astheMemberStatewouldcertainlybeunabletorelyonthedefencethat
itwasmerelyfulfilling anobligationunderCommunitylaw,whilethe
Community,thepartyultimatelyresponsible,would,foritspart,have
noopportunitytoreplytothecomplaintsagainstit.
•1
4.Thus,theCommunityrunstheriskunderthepresentlegalposition
thatitslegalactscouldbecontrolledbytheStrasbourgauthorities
astotheircompatibility withtheECHR,withouthavingappropriate
meanstodefendtheCommunityposition,whiletheMemberStatescould
possiblybepreventedfromapplyingthoseacts.

15
Thearguments infavourofaccession .
; Thearguments infavouroftheCommunity becoming aparty
totheECHRmaybesummarized asfollows :
1.Improving theimageofEuropeasanareaoffreedom anddemocracy .
a)Accession totheECHRwouldmakeasubstantial contribution
tothestrengthening ofdemocratic beliefs andfreedonbothwithin
andbeyondthefreeworld.EvenmorethantheJointDeclaration bythe
(1)threepolitical institutions of5April1977ontheprotection of
fundamental rights,:itwouldmakecleartothewholeworLdthatthe
Community doesnotmerelymakepolitical declarations ofintentbut
isdetermined toimproveinrealtermstheprotection ofhumanrights
bybindingitselftoawrittencatalogue offundamental freedoms *
b)Theaccession oftheCommunity totheECHRiscompletely
inlinewiththedeclaration madebytheEuropean Councilondemocracy
on8April1978;inthisdeclaration iswassolemnlystated"that
respect'forandmaintenance'of representative democracy andhumanrights
ineachMemberStateareessential elementsofmembership oftheEuropean
Communities ".IfrespectforhumanrightsisforaStateanessential
jconditionofmembership oftheCommunity,thenitisonlylogicalto~
bindtheCommunities themselves torespectsuchrights.
Theaccession oftheCommunity totheECHRwouldgiveincreased
significanceto theCopenhagen declaration andwouldallowtheCommunity
toensuretherespectofthelegal,political andmoralvaluestowhich
it.isattached . ~
(1)0JC103of27April1977,p.1.
ι

-16-
2.Strengthening theprotectionoffundamentalrightsintheCommunity.
a)AccessionoftheCommunitytotheECHRwouldclarifytheposition
ofitslegalactsinrelationtotheECHRandgivethemasatisfactory
status;foritismorelogicaltoenableacomplaintforviolation
offundamentalrightstobemadedirectlyagainst ,suchactsunderthe
conditionslaiddownintheECHRratherthanmerelybymeansofan
attackupontherelevant .implementing measurestakenbytheMember
States;thiswouldthenmakepossiblegenuineadversaryproceedings
inwhichtheCommunityitselfcouldparticipate.' Theaccessionofthe
CommunitytotheECHRwouldmoreoverrestorethelegalpositionin
whichthenationalsofMemberStatesfoundthemselvesbeforethe
transferofcertainpowerstotheCommunity.
b)Accessionwouldatleastpartlysatisfythedemand,voicedfor
sometime,thatawrittencatalogueoffundamentalrights,bindingon
theCommunity,shouldbeestablished.Itistruethattherightscon­
tainedintheConvention andintheadditionalProtocolsdonotcover
allthe.fundamentalrightswhichmightpossiblybepertinenttothe
activitiesoftheCommunity.Themajorityoftheserightsareneverthe­
lessimportantfortheCommunityalso.Theserightswillbeguaranteedby
awrittenlegal0actprovidingclearcriteriaknownbeforehandby
individuals andtheInstitutions .
m
3.Strengthening ofinstitutions . .
a)AccessionoftheCommunitytoaninternational mechanismof
legalcontrolwouldunderlineitsownpersonality .
B)AccessiontotheConventionwouldenabletheCommunity,when
confrontedwithcriticismconcerningthegapswhichexistasregards
fundamentalrights,topointnotonlytotheveryprogressive caselaw
oftheCourtofJustice,butalsotoitsformalcommitmentswithinthe
ECHR.TheCommunitywouldshowitswillingnesstomeetallobjections ,
callingintoquestionthecompatibility ofitsactswithfundamental
rights. ''* •'''/ •

C>Finally,accession wouldreducetheriskofnational courts
usingtheabsenceofawrittencatalogueoffundamental rightsformally
bindingupontheCommunity asjustification forreviewing actsofthe
CouncilortheCommission byreference totheirnationalconstitutions ,
andpossibly declaring theminapplicable inthelightofthoseconsti­
tutions,thusviolating theprinciple oftheuniformity ofCommunity
law.
Λ . *
V.Arguments against accession .
• i
1.TheCommunity requiresitsowncatalogue .■
Ithasbeencontended thatthefundamental rightscontained in
theECHRarenotreLevantfortheCommunity andthat,accordingly ,the.
ideaofaccession canserveonlyasanalibiforfailuretotacklethe
realproblem :thepreparation andadoptionofacatalogue specially
adaptedtotherequirements oftheCommunity .
Aswillbeshownbelowinpoint2,thecatalogue intheECHR
isbynomeansirrelevant totheCommunity 'sneedsbutatthesametime
itcannotbesaidtobeadaptedtotherequirements oftheCommunity on
allpoints.Onthifmatter,however,ithasalreadybeenpointedoutinthe
introduction thatthechancesofagreeing,withinareasonable periodof,
time,onacatalogue specifically designedfortheCommunity ,inparti-j
cularasregardseconomic andsocialrights,remainslight.TheCommunity
shouldtherefore adheretotheConvention withtheintention ofworking
activelytoenlarge andreinforce thehumanrightsenshrined therein.
Ashasalready beenpointedoutabove,theaccession ofthe
Community totheECHRinnowayprecludes theeventualpreparation ofa
specific Community catalogue goingbeyondwhatisrequired bytheConvention .

-18-
2.TheECHRdoesnotmeettherequirements oftheCommunity .
ItiscorrectthattheECHRisconcerned morewiththetradi­
tionalfreedoms thanwiththeeconomic andsocialrightswhichare
morerelevant totheCommunity .Nevertheless ,thetraditional freedoms
arealsoimportant fortheCommunity and,furthermore ,theConvention >
anditsadditional protocols docontain anumberofeconomic andsocial
rights.Intermsofpotential significance ,themostimportant probably
aretherighttorespectforprivate andfamilylife,homeandcorres­
pondence (Article 8).Theserightscouldbeofsignificance notonlyin
connection withrulesoncompetition andprices,butalsoinrelation to
provisions whichrestrict unreasonably therightofmigrantworkers and
membersoftheirfamilytolivetogether .Asregardsfreedomofreligion
andassociation ,therearealreadypertinent examples inthecaselawof
(1)theCourt andnotmuchimagination isneededtoseethatproblems could
alsoarisewithregardtothegeneral fredomtoholdopinions andto
receive andimpart -information andideas(Article 10).Article 10could
playaroleinconnection withbothcompetition lawandrulesonthe
movement ofgoods;moreover,ithasanotinconsiderable bearing onthe
relationship oftheCommunity anditsemployees .
Theprocedural guarantees providedforinArticle 6couldbe
relavant totheprocedures bywhichtheCommunity imposessanctions .
(2)Moreover,justasithasalready beenfacedwiththenebisindem
problem,theCommunity couldequally onedayfinditselfconfronted with
the"nullapoenasinelege"ruleembodied inArticle 7oftheECHR.
(1)cfjudgmentof27October1976,Case130/75-PraisvCouncil/19767
ECR1589andjudgmentof28October 1975^Case36/75-Rutuliv
FrenchMinister fortheInterior -/1975/ECR1219.
(2)Judgmentof14February 1972,Case7/72-Boehringer vCommission/1972?ECR1281.

Thenghttoformanytypeofpeacefulassociationortrade
union(Article11)iswithoutdoubtaneconomicfundamentalrightof
considerablesignificance .ThefirstAdditionalProtocolconcernsthe
protectionofpropertyandtherighttoeducation;thelatterhasbecome
ofconcerntotheCommunityinCases9/74<1)and68/74(2)inconnection
withtheequaltreatmentofthechildrenofmigrantworkers.Finally,
thereareembodiedinthefourthAdditionalProtocolrightsconcerning
thefreemovementofpersonswhichareofparticularsignificance for
theactivitiesoftheCommunity.
TheoftenheardclaimthattheECHRisonlyofmarginalinterest
fortheactivitiesoftheCommunitythereforeappears,allthingscon­
sidered,tobeincorrect.Moreover,inthefuture,itcannotbeexcluded
thatinitiatives maybetakentostrengthenthepositionoftheEuropean
citizeninthefieldofeconomicandsocialrights.
3.TheCommunityisincapableoffulfillingtheobligationsarising
fromECHR. •
Ithasalsobeenmaintainedthat,fromthepointofviewboth
ofthesubstanceoftherightsitcontainsandoftheproceduresitpro­
videsfor,theECHRisclearlyintendedforparticipation bysovereign
βStatesandthatcertainoftheobligations whichitimposescouldnotbe
fulfilledbytheCommunityinitspresentform.
./.
■«
(1)Judgmentof3July1974,Case9/74Casagrande vLandeshauptstadt
Munchen/?974?ECR773.
(2)Judgmentof29January1975,Case68/74AlaimovPréfetduRhône/19757ECR109.

a)Itistruethatbothinthewaythatitisdraftedandinits
i
origins,theECHRisintendedforparticipation onlybysovereignStates*
ProvisionssuchasArticles10,11,17,28,30,31or64,whichusethe
term"State"(which,however,isusedintheConventionmerelyasa
synonymfortheterm"HighContractingParty")cannotbeapplieddirectly
tointernational organizations .Fromalegalandpoliticalpointofview,
however,theCommissionconsidersthatthisisnomoreofanobstacle
thantheterms"nationalsecurity"of"economicwell-beingofthecountry",
whichareusedinArticles8to11asacriterionforthelimitationof
certainfreedomsbythelegislature .Theneedtorestrictfundamental
rightsongroundsofasuperiorcommoninterestappliesinprincipleto
theCommunityjustasitdoestothecontractingStates.Thereforeit
shouldbesufficienttolaydowninanaccessionprotocol(stilltobe
negotiated )thattheConvention,whenitusestermsrelatingspecifically
toStates,alsoappliesmutatismutandistotheEuropeanCommunities.
b)OnemusttakeintoaccounttheobjectionthattheCommunityis
notasovereignStateandforthisreasoncouldnotfullyexercisethe
proceduralrightsembodiedintheEC^R.Inviewofthenecessarilylimited
powersoftheCommunity incomparisonwiththoseofStates,itmust
indeedbeaskedwhetheritisrightfortheCommunitytoseekfulland
equalmembershipinallrespects.IntheCommission'sview,accession
mustservetoextendtherangeoflegalremediesavailableintheevent
ofviolationsoffundamentalrightsbytheCommunity.Inotherwords,
anypersonwho,undertheECHR,hasarighttobringproceedings before
oneoftheorgansoftheConventionshouldalsobeentitled,underthe
conditionslaiddownintheConvention,tohavelegalactsofthe
Community examinedastotheircompatibility withthefundamental
rightsembodiedtherein.

-21-
Asregardstheactiverighttorefercasesinaccordancewith
Articles24and48b,c,d,:oftheECHR,however,onemustaskwhetherthe
Communityshouldacquiretheserights.Oneshouldatleastadmitthatthe
Communityshouldbeabletoexercisesuchrightsinthosecasesconcer­
ningviolationsoffundamentalrightsbyaStatewhichisnotamember
oftheCommunityandwheretheviolationhasaspecificconnectionwith
thepowerstransferredtotheCommunity.Whereitisaquestionof
violationsoffundamentalrightsbyitsMemberStateswhicharespecifi­
callyrelatedtoCommunitylaw,theCommunityinanyeventpossesses
adequatemeansofaction,undertheTreaties *infringement procedures.
AnotherquestioniswhethertheCommunityshouldalsorefrain
fromparticipating intheworkoftheorgansoftheConventionwherethe
matterinquestionisofanon-Community nature:thisquestionwillbe
consideredbelowinchapterVI.1.
c)IthasalsobeenclaimedthattheCommunityinitspresentcon­
stitutional formcouldnotexecutevariousobligationsarisingfrom
theECHR,forexample,theeffectiveremedyrequirements ofArticle13
andtheholdingofelectionsatreasonableintervalswithaviewtothe
choiceofthelegislature (Article3oftheFirstAdditionalProtocol).
ca)ItistruethattheTreatiesprovidefornodirectremediesagainst
legalactswhichareaddressedtoanunspecified numberofpersons.
Nevertheless,Article13oftheECHRhasneverpreviouslybeeninterpreted
asmeaningthatintheeventofaviolationofoneoftherightsembodiedin
theECHRjudicialremedymustexistagainsteveryact,includinglegis­
lativeacts.ThewordingofArticle13requiresaneffectiveremedybefore
4■... ...<1>anationalauthority.AstheCourtofHumanRightsdecidedintheGolder
andKlasscases,amongothers,itneednotnecessarilybeajudicial
authority.
(1)Judgmentof21February1975,YearbookoftheEuropeanConventionon
HumanRights1975,pp.291andseq.
(2)Judgmentof6September1978.

-22-
Thepossibilityofaneffectiveremedyissufficient,particularly,in
theformofappealtoasupervisoryauthorityorthepossibility of,
presentingcounterarguments,butnevertheless onemustrelyonthe
totalityoftheremediesavailable.
Ifinthisconnection onetakesintoconsideration theindirect
remediesavailabletoanycitizenaffectedbyalegislative actofthe
Community,suchastheexaminationofsuchactsbymeansofproceedings
underArticle177and184oftheEECTreatyandbywayoftheclaimfor
compensation underArticle178andthesecondparagraphofArticle215
oftheEECTreaty,noobstaclestoaccessionshouldarisefromArticle
13oftheECHR.Itshouldmoreoverbepointedoutthatthelegalorders
ofaconsiderable numberofStateswhichhavesignedtheECHRdonot
providefordirectremediesagainstlegislativeacts.Nevertheless,none
ofthoseStateshasconsidereditnecessarytoenterareservation in
relationtoArticle13.
cb)AsregardsArticle3oftheFirstAdditionalProtocol,according
towhichthecontractingpartiesareobliged"toholdfreeelectionsat
reasonableintervalsbysecretballot,underconditionswhichwillensure
thefreeexpressionoftheopinionofthepeopleinthechoiceofthe
legislature",onemayquestionwhetherthisprovisionissatisfiedbythe
Community.Inthisrespect,itmustbepointedoutthatthetextof
Article3doesnotrequiretheelectionofthelegislative bodybydirect
universalsuffrage.Moreover,apartfromthespecialnatureofthelegis­
lativeprocessintheCommunity,thereisnodoubtthatthechoiceofthe
MembersoftheCounciloftheCommunitiesreflectstheresultsoffree
electionsensuringthefreeexpressionoftheopinionsofthecitizensof
theMemberStates.Inanycase,iftherearedoubts,itwouldbepossible
enterareservation intHisrespect,onsigningtheaccessionprotocol
oratthemomentofdepositingtheinstrumentofratification,tothe
effectthattheaccessionoftheCommunitytotheECHRdoesnotaffect
itspresentinstitutional structure.Suchreservationsarepossibleunder
Article64oftheECHRandhavebeenmadewithregardtovariousprovisions
oftheconventionbyalmostallsignatoryStates.

cc)Finally,referenceshouldbemadetotheproblemswhich,in
thiscontext,mightarisefortheCommunityfromArticle14oftheECHR.
Underthisprovision,theenjoymentoftherightsandfredomssetforth
intheConventionmustbe"securedwithoutdiscrimination",inparticular
descrimination ongroundsofnationalorigin.Inordertoavoidpossible
objectionsagainstthepreferentialtreatmentwhichisaccordedto
nationalsoftheMemberStatesandwhichisinherenttothenatureofthe
Community,aclarification wouldprobablybenecessaryinrespectof
Article14oftheECHR./
4.Impairmentofthejurisdictional systemoftheCommunity.
Itissometimesarguedthatitwouldbeunacceptable forthe
decisionsoftheCourtofJusticeoftheCommunitiestobesubjectto
reviewbysomeotherinternational body.Moreover,legalprocedures,
whicharealreadylengthyasaresultofthecombinationofnationaland
Communityremedies,wouldbemadesubjecttofurtherdelay.
a) "Oncloserexamination,thereisnothingunusualintheideathat
thedecisionsofan"international court"shouldbe.subjecttoreviewby
otherinternational bodies.TheCommunityisafterallthesmallerentity
inrelationtotheCouncilofEurope.Itslegalsystemmayinthisrespect
beconsidered aninternallegalsystem.Itisthereforeonlylogicalthat
decisionsoftheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanCommunities shouldbe
treatedintheframeworkoftheECHRasdecisionsofanationalcourt.
b)Thefactthataccesstoadditionalremedieslengthenstheproceed­
ingsisonlynaturalandshouldbeacceptedasalesserevilinviewof
theresultingimprovement intheprotectionoffundamentalrights.There
isnoreasontofearadelayintheexecutionofCommunitydecisions,
sinceneitherthelodgingofapplications withtheCommissionofHuman
RightsnorthebringingofcasesbeforetheCourtofHumanRightshas
suspensoryeffect.

-24-
5.Individualrightofpetitionandreservations
IthasbeencontendedthataccessiontotheECHRwould
leadtoarealimprovementofthelegalprotectionofthecitizen
onlyiftheCommunitywasalsotoallowindividualrightofpetition.
againstallitslegalacts;itisatpresentnotcertain/thatsuch
adecisionwillbetaken.TheCommunityought,moreover,tostate
whetheritintendstotakerefugebehindthereservationsits
MemberStateshavemaderegardingthisorthatprovisionandifneed
beaddnewones,orwhetheritispreparedtoaccepttheConvention
asitstands.
a)ifaccessionistobringaboutasubstantial improvement
intheprotectionoffundamentalrights,itwouldbedesirable,if
notentirelyindispensable,fortheCommunitytorecognizenotonly
thecompetenceoftheCourtofHumanRightsbutalsotoallowthe
individualrightofpetitionprovidedforinArticle25oftheECHR.
Withoutthepossibilityoftheindividualrightofpetitionaccession
totheECHRwouldprimarilybenefitthoseStateswhicharenot
membersoftheCommunity.Applications introducedbyaMemberState
againsttheCommunityunderArticle24oftheECHRarehardlyconceivable.
Oneshould,moreover,excludethemasArticles87ECSC,219CEE,and
193EAECforbidtheMemberStatestosettledisputesconcerningthe
applicationandinterpretation ofCommunitylawinadifferentmanner
fromthatlaiddownintheTreaties.

25
AccessiontotheHumanRightsConventionshouldsignify,asfaras
possible,thattheindividualrightofpetitioninArticle25ECHRbe
allowed.TheCommissionrecommendsthisapproachforbothpoliticaland ■
legalreasons.Itis'oftheopinion,however,thatforatransitional
periodaccessionmightbeenvisagedwithoutthispossibilityshouldthe
agreementofallMemberStatestotheallowingofindividualpetitions "
notbeimmediatelyforthcoming.EveniftheCommunitycouldnotimmediately
accepttheindividualrightofpetition,accessionwouldremainahim­
portantstepforwardfromthepoliticalpointofview,especiallyifit
weredeclaredonthatoccasionthaitheCommunityplanstorecognizethe
individualrightofpetitioneventually.Forthecitizenseekingjustice,
therewouldbeanadvantageinthisatleastinthattheECHRwouldthenno
longerhavetoberegardedonlyasanindicatorastothegenerallegale
,principlesoftheMemberStates,butasalegalinstrumentformallybinding
ontheCommunity (cf.Article228(2)oftheEECTreaty).Thiswould
ι ·
doubtlessencouragethecourtsofMemberStatestorefertotheCourtof
Justiceof'theEuropeanCommunities morefrequentlythanbeforequestions
concerningthecompatibility .ofcertainCommunityactswiththeECHR.
»
Itshouldalsobepointedoutthatthenegotiations overaccessionand
thesubsequentratification procedureswill,inanycase,takeaconsiderable
amountoftime.Thepossibility cannotberuledoutthatduringthisperiod
theMemberStatesmightreachagreementonthequestionoftherightof
individualpetition.
b)Becauseofthevariousreservations whichtheMemberStateshave
maderegardingindividualprovisionsuponsignatureorwhendepositing
theinstrumentofratification,ttfeobligations imposedonthembythe
ECHRarenotuniform.ThismightresultincertainMemberStatesnot
needingtocomplywiththeECHRwhen-fulfilling anobligationunderCommu­
nitylaw,whileothersdo.DependingonthetypeandextentoftheCommunity's
reservations,thesituationmightevenarisewherethecitizenconcerned-
cannotpleadtheincompatibility withtheConventionofanational
implementing measure,butcansuccessfullyattacktheCommunityactunder­
lyingthemeasure.
./.

IntheCommission 'sopinion ,such divergences ought notto
encourage theCommunity toenter reservations which gobeyond the
extent which isabsolutely necessary "having regard toitsinternal
structure .IftheCommunity confines itself tomaking thefewreserva *"
tions justified byitsspecific nature ,there would benofear ofa
conflict between thereservations made bytheMember States andthe
position oftheformer .Intheexample given ,thereservation expressed
bytheMember State would ,,ontheonehand ,befully respected ,while
ontheother hand thecitizen would beg^ven anopportunity toattack the
Community actdirectly onthegrounds that itconflicts with hisfundamental
rights .TheCommission therefore advocates that theCommunity 'sreserva­
tions intheevent ofaccession belimited tomatters specific tothe
Community .
VI.Participation bytheCommunity inthe organs of "theECHR .
Theprecee'ding considerations have shown that adoption ofthefundamental
rights contained intheConvention -apart from certain clarifying statements
asregards Article 14andArticle 3ofthefirst Additional Protocol -pose
noproblems fortheCommunity .Difficulties doarise ,however ,over thequestici
how theCommunity would actually participate inthework oftheorgans ofthe
ECHR .Even these difficulties nevertheless appear upon closer inspection to
besurmountable . 9
1.Partidpation inthework ofthe Commission ofHuman Rights and the Court
ofHuman Rights
Unlike theCommittee ofMinisters ,members oftheCommission andthe
Court donotrepresent thecontracting parties andarenotinstructed by
their Governments ;themembers oftheCommission andthe judges actonly
intheir individual capacity .

ThoseStateswhicharepartiestotheECHRbutnotmembersofthe
Communitythereforehavenoneedtofearthat,incasesconcerningthe
CommunityfthosemembersoftheCommissionorjudgeswhoarenationals
oftheMemberStatesoftheCommunitywilluniteinfavourofthe"Community
argumentbyformingablockingminorityoreventhemajority^.Forthe
samereason,theywouldnotbeabletomakeaccusationsof"over–represen­
tation"ifamemberoftheCommissionandajudgewereaddedinthenameof
theCommunityassuch.
Therearethereforetwopossiblesolutionswhichmaybeenvisagedforthe
CommissionandtheCourtofHumanLights:
a)•Thefirstsolutionwouldleaveuntouchedthepresentcomposition
ofthe'CommissionandtheCourtinStrasbourg.Itcanbearguedinfavour
ofthisarrangementthattheadditionofamemberoftheCommissionand
ajudgeinthenameoftheCommunityisnotindispensable becauseofthe
independentstatusofthemembers'^oftheCommissionandtheCourt.Incases
broughtbeforetheCourt,thejudgesitting"ex-officio"inthenameofthe
Communitycould,forexample,bethenationaloftheMemberStatecurrently
chairingtheCouncilof'theCommunities.
Onemayask,however,whethersufhasolutionwouldnotbeincontraidiction
withtheaffirmationof#theinternational personalityoftheCommunity.
Doesnottheinternational legfi.1capacityoftheCommunity,infact,require
that,whentheinterestsand,afortiori,theresponsibilities ofthe
CommunityarebeingdealtwithintheorgansoftheECHR,anadditional
commissionerandjudgebeappointedinthenameoftheCommunity? ^
Onecanobserve,infact,thatalthoughthejudgesoftheCourtofHuman
Rightssitintheirindividual ,capacityandnotasrepresentatives oftheir
States,anationaljudge,thatistosayajudgeofthecountryconcerned,
mustsitasamemberoftheChamber.
(l)TheNinefiguretodayamongthenineteenStateswhichhaveratifiedtheConvention;onthecompletionofthepresentnegociationsonthe
enlagementoftheCommunityaswellastheratificationproceduresto
theECHRinprogress,therelationwouldbetwelvetotwenty-one.

28
Itwouldthereforeseemunacceptable tooptforasolutionwherebythe
Communityassuchisnotrepresented withintheCommissionandtheCourt.
ItmustberememberedthatthemembersoftheorgansinStrasbourgarenot
necessarilyfamiliarwiththeCommunitylegalsystem.
b>.Theonlyacceptablesolutionisthereforethesecondone,wherebya
commissioner andajudge,bothappointedinthenameoftheCommunity,would
respectively bepartoftheCommissionandtheCourtofHumanRights.,Their
presencewouldunderlinetheautonomyoftheCommunity.Itwouldbejustified
onthesamegroundsasthepresenceofanationalfromeachcountrypartyto
theECHR„Itisessentialthateverylegalsystemberepresentedwithinthe
twoorgans. ,,
ThemembersoftheCommissionandtheCourtofHumanRightsact
inapurelypersonalcapacity,theparticipation ofthepersonalities,appointed
tothetwoorgansinthenameoftheCommunity,intheworkofthoseorgans
shouldinprincipleextendtoallcasesbeforethem„Itwould,ofcourse,also
bepossibletorestrictsuchparticipation toproceedingsrelatingtocomplaints
directedatth'eCommunity.Thiswouldbetantamount,however,tocreating
twocategoriesofmembersoftheCommissionandtheCourtofHumanRights,
"notwhichwould,nodoubt,vonlyposepersonalandadministrative problemsbut
mightalsojeopardizethecontinuityofthecase-law.Atallevents,the
participation ofthe"representati ves"oftheCommunitymustbeensuredin
thecaseofapplicationsdirectedatmeasurestaken'byMemberStatestoimplement
bindingCommunityrule's.
Theappointment ofthesepersonalities wouldrequireaderogation from
Articles20and38oftheConvention,whichlaydownthatnotwomembersof
theCommissionortheCourtofHum^nRightsmaybenationalsofthesameState.

2.TheCommittee ofMinisters
Althoughitsfunctionsarequasi-judicial ,theCommitteeofMinisters
isapolitical bodywhosemembersareboundbyinstructions fromtheirrespec­
tive,Governments .Inviewofthisdependence andtheallegiance owedbythe.
MemberStatestothe.Community,itishardlyconceivable thattheCommunity
andtheMemberStateswouldholddivergent viewpoints withintheCommittee ,
ofMinisters,notonlywhenthelawfulnessofanactoftheCouncilisatisSue,
butalsoinrespectofallactsoftheCommunity .
* Forthisreason,thosecontracting partiestotheECHRwhichare
notmembersoftheCommunity mighttherefore seetheMemberStatesofthe
CommunityblockingdecisionscatlingintoquestionCommunityacts.Since,
underArticle32oftheECHR,theCommitteeofMinisters adoptsdecisions by
atwo-thirds majority,thereisalready ablockingminoritywithsevenvotes
onthebasisofthepresentnumberofStatesmembersoftheCouncilofEurope.
i
4
'Thesedifficulties couldbeovercomeiftheMemberStatesof,
i •
theCommunity andtheCommunityitselfhadonlyonerepresentative onthe
Committee oftheMinisters duringproceedings relatingtoCommunity matters
(e.g.-thecurrentPresident oftheCouncil),i.e.iftheMemberStateswerelegal­
lyoDligedtowithdraw fromproceedings ofthissort.Thissolution
would,however,reducetoanabnormalextenttheparticipation ofthe ■
MemberStates.Itwouldalsosetadangerous precedent fortheexercise
ofmixedpowerswithinotherinternational organizations . i
Inthesecircumstances ,itwouldseemappropriate toexclude
totallytheCommittee ofMinisters from'proceedings relatingtoCommunity
matters.Thissolution mayappearradicalatfirstsight,butitwouldin
nowayprejudice theobjective pursuedbymeansofaccession .

Itshouldberemembered,also,thattheproceedingsbeforetheCouncilof
Ministers,wereconceivedforthecaseofaMemberStatewhichhasnotre­
cognisedthejurisdiction oftheStrasbourgCourt.Theproblemoftherepre­
sentationoftheCommunitywithintheCommitteeofMinisterslosesallpractical
importancethemomenttheCommunityrecognisesthecompulsoryjurisdiction
oftheCourtofHumanRights.Suchrecognitionwill,intheviewofthe
Commission,beamatterofcourse.ItwouldevenwelcomeitiftheCommission
ofHumanRights,ineverycasewhereitdeclaresadmissibleanapplicationagainst
aCommunityact,alwaysreferredthecasetotheCourtonthebasisof
article48a)oftheECHR.
VII.Therelationship betweentheECHRandtheCouncilofEurope
TheECHRisintheformalsensenotalegalactoftheCouncil
ofEurope.Itwas,ofcourse,draftedwithintheCouncilof.Europe,and
itisalsotruethattheConventionmakesuseofsomeoftheorgans
oftheCouncil.'Fromthelegalpointofview,however,itisan
independent mechanism.Itoughtthereforetobepossibletoagreetoa
derogationfromArticle66oftheECHR,whichprovidesthattheConvention
isopenonlytomembersoftheCouncilofEurope.
Thereisnor^eedfortheCommunitytobecomeamemberofthe
CouncilofEuropeitself.Thecooperation betweenbothorganizations is
satisfactory anditisbecomingincreasingly close.TheCommunityhas
alreadyaccededtoseveralconventions oftheCouncilofEuropewitha
contentrelevanttotheCommunity.Experiencehasshownthatthemember*
oftheCouncilofEuropeareasarulepreparedtofacilitate Community
participation insuchconventions,even1fthiscalls
forcertainchangestoexistingconventions. '

31
VIII.Electionprocedures
. ^»
1.CommissionofHumanRights
j*PursuanttoArticle21oftheECHR,themembersofthe
CommissionofHumanRightsareelectedbytheCommitteeofMinisters
byanabsolutemajorityofvotes.UnliketheexercisebytheCommitteewrneh
ofits.judicialfunctions/mayposeproblems,therearenoobjections
ofprincipletoallowingtheCommitteeofMinisterstoelectthe
"representative "oftheCommunity.(Seeinthisconnection VI.1(b)
above).TopreventtheMemberStatesoftheCommunityfromsystemati­
callyoverrulingtheothercontractingpartiesduringsuchelections
(whichcouldhappenespeciallyaftertheforthcomingenlargementof
theCommunity),itwouldappearadvisabletoprovideforunanimous ,
agreementontheappointmenttotheCommissionofHumanRightsofthe
memberinttienameoftheCommunity;infacttheelectionsofmembersof
theCommission o-fHumanRightsalreadyfollowthatpractice.
Asregardsthepreparationofthelistofcandidatesprovided
forinArticle21ofthe'°ECHR,itshouldbeconsideredwhetherthisshould
belefttotheConsultative AssemblyoftheCouncilofEuropeorwhether
aformulashouldbesoughtwhich,whilemaintaining byandlargethe
existingprocedures,guaranteesanappropriate degreeofparticipation
bytheEuropeanParliamentinthenominationofthe"Communitycandidates".
2.CourtofHumanRights
PursuanttoArticle39oftheECHR,themembersoftheCourt
areelectedbytheConsultative Assemblybyamajorityofthevotes
castfromalistofpersonsnominatedbythemembersoftheCouncilof ■■|
Europe.Thisprocedurecouldbefollowedwithoutanyparticulardifficulty
fortheappointmentofaCommunityjudge.Aderogationwouldnevertheless
havetobemadefromArticle39,sothatCommunity,assoonasitbecomes
aContractingPartytotheConvention,couldproposeitscandidateswithout
beingamemberoftheCouncilofEurope.
Preparationofthelistofcandidatesforthepositionof
CommunityjudgeisaninternalCommunitymatter.Therewouldtherefore
benoneedtoincludeaspecialprovisionintheprotocolofaccession.

IX.ThedefenceoftheCommunity'sviewpoint
«
This,too,isaninternalmatterwhichtheCommunityinstitutions
mustsettleamongthemselves.IntheCommission'sview,theCommunity
institutions shouldbe-guidedbyArticle211oftheEECTreaty.
X.Specialproblems .^
OfthenumerousproblemstowhichaccessionbytheCommunitiesto
theECHRgivesrise,threedeservespecialmention:thestatusoftheECHR
withintheCommunitylegalorder,theeffectsofaccessionontheoperation
theECHRwithinthelegalordersoftheMemberStates,andthequestionof
howtoproceedincasesinwhichnationalcourtshavefailedtofulfiltheir
obligationstomakeareferencetotheCourtofJusticeof-theEuropean
Communities .
1.UnderArticle228(2)oftheEECTreaty,accessionbytheCommunity
totheECHRwouldmeanthattheobligations containedintheECHRwouldbe
directlybindingontheCommunityinstitutions# OnlytheCourtofJustice
• •»
JusticecaninthelastanalysisruleonthestatusoftheECHRwithinthe
Community'slegalorder.Itisclearfromthepreviouscase-lawofthe
(1)CourtofJusticethatonerfluststarjtfromtheprinciplethattheECHR
ishigher-ranking vwithintheCommunitythansecondaryCommunitylegislation.
2.SincetheeffectsoftheECHRinnationallawareatpresentstill
veryvaried(theyrangefromthecompletelyinsignificant toapositionof
primacyovernationallawandeven,inthecaseofAustriatotheposition
ofaconstitutional norm).Onemustaskwhethertheformalincorporation
oftheECHRintoCommunitylawwouldinvolvechangesasregardsitseffect
withinthenationallawoftheMembecStates.IntheCommission'sopinion,
(1)Cf.Judgementof12December1972inJoinedCases21to24/72,
International FruitCompanyv.Produktschap voorGroenten/1972/1219

thiswouldnotbethecase.Accession bytheCommunitytotheECHRcanhave
implications onlyforCommunity lawassuch.Additional obligations would
ariseonlywithregardtothefreedomofactionoftheCommunityinstitutions ,
andtheirlegislative andadministrative functions .ThepositionofMember
Stateswhileexercising theirownpowerswould,therefore notbeaffectedby
accession,despitetheprimacyofCommunity lawovernationallaw.
3.UnderArticle26oftheECHR,theCommission ofHumanRights
maydealwithapplications concerning aninfringement oftheECHRonly
afteralldomestic remedies havebeenexchausted .Sincethemeans
ofdefenceagainstunlawful Community actsoftenconsistofacombination
ofnational andCommunity judicial remedies,thequestion shouldbe
cleared upofhowtoproceedincasesinwhichnational courtsoflast
instance havefailedtofulfiltheirobligation toreferthematterto
the CourtofJusticeunderthethirdparagraph ofArticle 177-
ofthe.EECTreaty.Thepartyconcerned cannothimself compelthe
courttomakesuchNareference .Consequently ,Article 26oftheECHR
cooIdnotbeusedagainst himpersonally .Theessence andpurpose -
ofArticle 26is,however,toprevent amatterfrombeingbrought
beforetheStrasbourg authorities whichhasnotyetbeenexhaustively
investigated bythecompetent national courts.Inotherwords,steps
mustbetakentoensurethattheCourtofJusticeinLuxembourg .9
isabletoperformfullythesupervisory functions vestedinitbythe
Treaties .
SinceitcanhardlybeenvisagedthattheStrasbourg authorities
wouldthemselves referquestionstotheCourtofJustice,itwouldappear
appropriate tointroduce aprocedurewhereby ,theCommunityisobliged,in
caseswherethecompatibility ofaCommunityactwiththeECHRisinquestion,
toasktheCourtofJusticeforanopinionbeforeitsubmitsitsowncon­
clusionsandtotransmitthisopiniontogetherwithitsobservations tothe
Strasbourgauthorities .-.Thisprocedureshouldbeemployedbothinthe

* •
' . •'* » »
' :'«: • : i
■ I i
-34-
ofclearfailurebynationalcourtsoflastinstancetocomplywiththe
:thirdparagraphofArticle177oftheEECTreatyandinthecaseof applications
bynon-membercountries,which,fortheirpart/donot.havetheopportunity
tomakeareferenceto;theCourtofJusticewhentheyareindoubtastothe
conformityofaCommunityactwithfundamentalrights.
y.lTechnicalaspectsofaccession
1.AsalreadyindicatedinChapterVII,accessionbytheCommunity
totheEuropeanConventionnecessitatesderogationfromArticle66ofthe
ECHR.Thisderogationcouldbe-includedintfceaccessionprotocol,i.e.,be
agreedatthesametimeastheotheramendmentswhichwillbenecessaryas
aresultofaccession(e.g.,toArticles ,20,38and39).
; ■Ji.
2.ThelegalbasisforaccessioncouldbeprovidedbyArticle235
oftheEECTreaty,Article203oftheEuratomTreatyandArticle95of
theECSCTreaty,whichenableappropriateprovisionstobeadoptedif
anactionappearsnecessarytoachieveoneoftheobjectivesofthe
• •
Community.ItistheobjectivesoftheCommunityasawholethatthe
proposedactionisintendedtoachieve;theactivittes undertakenbythe
Communityinstitutions undertheTreatiescannothenceforthbebrought
toasuccessfulconclusion-becauseofthedemandsmadebypublicopinioncertain
•supremecourtsandleadingauthoritiesaswellastheconstitutional -m■
principlesofalltheMemberStatesoftheCommunity-withouteffective
protectionoffundamentalrightsatCommunitylevel.Suchactionis.
moreoverinlinewiththelastpartofthePreambletotheEECTreaty
andwiththesolemndeclarations of5April1977and8April1978.
3.Thenegotiations withthecontractingStatestotheEuropean
Conventionshouldtakeplaceonthebasisofdirectiveslaiddownbythe
;CouncilofMinistersonaproposalfromtheCommission.TheEuropean^
-Parliamentwouldnaturallybeconsultedaftertheconclusionofthenegotia-
• i
tions.Inviewofthematters'importance,however,itwouldbe.advisable ,i.
" *' r;alsotoconsultParliament;atthestartofnegotiations,sinceithasshown'
.« T .
•aparticularinterestinthisquestionallalong. •:

-35-
4. Asalreadyindicated,thenegotiations concerning accession by
theCommunity totheConvention willcertainly takeseveralyears.The
necessary amendments totheConvention willatalleventsbecomeeffective
onlyaftertheyhavebeenapproved bythecurrent MembersoftheConvention
inaccordance withtheirnational constitutional rules.Thismeansthat
accession bytheCommunity totheECHRwillbepossible onlyif
allthesignatory States,including theMemberStatesofthe
Community,agreetoit. !
/
/
« t'/i
s
-Ί
1
Φ
λ