ARCHIVESHISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEEDES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM(76)37
Vol.1976/0017

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(76)37final
Brussels,4thFebruary1976
REPORTOFTHECOMMISSION
ontheprotectionoffundamentalrights
COM(76)37final

REPORTONTHEPROTECTIONOPFUNDAMENTALRIGHTS
WHEN"COMMUNITYLAWISCREATEDANDDEVELOPED
A.Introductionandscopeof-thesubjectmatter.
1.InitsResolutionof4April1973basedonthereportofthe
LegalAffairsCommittee,^^theEuropeanParliamentinvitedthe
Commission
"tosubmitto^theParliament^areportastohowitintends,
inthecreationanddevelopmentofEuropeanlaw,toprevent
anyinfringement ofthebasicrightsembodiedintheconsti­
tutionsofMemberStates,theprinciplesofwhichrepresent
thephilosophical ,politicalandjuridioalbasiscommonto
theCommunity'sMemberStates."
2.Thepresentation ofthisreporthasbeendelayedforseveralreasons.
Ontheonehand,boththeCourtofJusticeaswell-asseveralnational
courtshave,inthemeantime,decidedanumberofoasesinvolvingthe
problemoffundamentalrights.^Ontheother,itisonlynowthat
someinterimstock-talcing onthesubjectisemerginginaoademio
ceroids.' -'•FiliallytheCommissionitself,11;.itsreportonthe
(1)OJNo.C26>30.4.1973,p.7.
(2)Doc.297/72(EP30.94l/fin.)byMr.Jozeau-MarignS ,rapporteur.
(3)Seeinfraparagraphs9an<*10"thisreport.
(4)SeetheresultsofthespecialsessionoftheLegalAffairsCommittee
oftheParliamentary AssemblyoftheCouncilofEuropeof12.6.1975
inStrasbourgontheprotectionoffundamentalrights -within-the-.•.
frameworkoftheEuropeanCommunities,theresultsofthe7"tbInter­
nationalCongressoftheInternational FederationofEuropeanLaw
(MDE)of2to4.10.1975inBrusselsandthe4thInternationalColloquiumontheEuropeanHumanRi^itsConventionof5to8.11.1975
inRome.

EuropeanUnion,hasgivenitsviewsontheprotectionoffundamental
rightsintheconstruction ofthisUnion.
3*Inthisreport,whichinnowayolaimstoheexhaustive,the
Commissionwillfirstofallnaturallyconsideritsownposition.
Itwill,however,alsomakesomegeneralcommentswhichapplyto
boththeotherCommunityinstitutions and.theMemberStatesas
thesebearanequal,ifnotgreater,shareoftheresponsibility
andauthorityfortheprotectionoffundamentalrights.
4*InsofarasCommunitylawisnotaffected,theMemberStatesalone
areresponsiblefortheprotectionoffundamentalrightswithinthe
frameworkoftheirnationallegalsystems.Asithasrepeatedly
(2)stated,inreplytoParliamentary questions,v'theCommissionis,
tothisextent,notcompetenttointerveneorpassjudgment.Where,
however,bodiesirithe.MemberStatesapplyCommunitylaw,theyare
boundtoaotinaccordancewiththeguaranteesoffundamentalrights
whichapplyunderCommunitylaw.
.Thereis,therefore,noscopeforexaminingCommunitylawprovisions
usingasayardstickthefundamentalrightsguaranteedunderthe
nationalconstitutions becauseCommunitylawcanbeappliedinthe
MemberStatesonlyonauniformbasisandmustnecessarilybejudged
accordingtothesamestandards.Furthermore,whereMemberStates
adoptnationalmeasurestoimplementCommunitylaw,nationalfunda­
mentalrightsassuchareruledoutasacontrolstandard,atall
eventsinsofarasmandatoryprovisionsofCommunitylaw,including'
those'ofDirectives,areinvolved.
SeeSupplément5/75toECBulletin,points82-85»
See,forexample,WrittenQuestionNo.1/75byMr.Amendolaand
Mr.Ansart*OJHo.C170,28.7.1975fP-12;WrittenQuestibnHo.
282/75Mr,Bordu,OJNo.C242,22.10.1975,P*29.•

5.TheCommissionexercisestherightconferreduponit"bytheTreaties
tomakeproposalsandforthispurposetakespartinthedelibera­
tionsoftheParliamentandtheCouncil.Inaddition,ithasto
exercisethepowersofdecisionconferredonit"bytheTreatiesor
theCouncil.Finally,theCommissionisresponsibleforsupervising
theapplicationofCommunitylawandthereforealsoplaysawatchdog
roleinrespectoffundamentalrights.
InallitsactivitiestheCommissionmustpreventand,ifnecessary,
opposepossibleinfringements offundamentalrights.
6.Thefollowingtextindicates
–howtheprotectionoffundamentalrightshasdeveloped -inthe
Communitylegalorder;inotherwordsaccordingtowhichyard­
stickthe"Communityinstitutions shouldbasetheiractions
(SectionB);
-theconclusions theCommissionhasdraT.mfromthisinpursuing
itsactivitiesandtheextenttowhichithasattemptedtocon­
tributetowardsfurtherdevelopingtheprotectionoffundamental
rights(SectionC);
.–theconclusionstobedrawnbytheCommissionwithregardto
futuredevelopments (SectionD).
ThestandardoffundamentalrightsintheCommunity
7.ThereareprovisionsintheTreatiesthemselveswhoseaim,orat
leasteffect,istoguaranteeandimprovethepositionofthe
individualintheCommunity:forexample,Articles7,48,52,57»
117»119EEC.Itisonthebasisofsomeofthesearticlesthat
theCourtofJusticehasbeenabletogiveimportantjudgmentsas''
regardstheprotectionoffundamentalrights.

-4-
Atthesame tine ,itmast notbeforgotten that theoreation ofthe
Common Market hashadtheeffect ofextending beyond national fron­
tiers thearea over whioh thefreedoms ofthecitizen ,especially
intheeconomio sector ,may "beexercised#
8*Turning tofundamental rights ,strictly speaking ,theCommunity
institutions have ,since thebeginning oftheCommunity ,been faoed
with thequestion oftheir existence .andwith a. s
precise definition oftheir scope under theCommunity legal order .
Today ,fundamental rights –however.' theymaybedefined'*' -unde­
niably constitute anessential part oftheCommunity legal order *
Theindividual citizen should notbewithout protection intheface
ofofficial power .Hemust have oertain inviolable rights .This
isoneofthefundamental elements intheidentity andoohesion of
theCommunity .
Initsreport onEuropean Union theCommission hasalready stated
that itsees democracy asoneofthebasic conditions foroo-exlstence
andintegration oftheMember States within theCommunity .An
;essential part ofanydemocracy isprotection ofandrespect for
human rights andfundamental freedoms whioh alone enable theindi­
vidual citizen freely todevelop hispersonality . .There canbe
nodemooraoy without recognition andproteotion ofhuman rights
andguaranteed freedom ofthecitizen .This isequally true of
theCommunity .
Even ifthebasic principles areclear ithasnevertheless been
difficult tosecure agreement onthesoope andeffect ofthevarious
fundamental rights *
1Seeonthis theparagraph tfoich follows .

-5-
9»TheCourtofJusticeof"theEuropeanCommunities wasfacedwiththe
questionoffundamentalri^itsforthefirsttimein1959*Its
caselawissufficiently wellknownandmay"besummarisedasfollows:
–Intwojudgmentsin1959and1960^theCourtofJusticeinitially
heldthatitwasnotcompetenttoexaminethelegalityofactsof
theCommunityinstitutions accordingtotheyardstickofnational
fundamentalrights.
–Thesubsequentcasesv'ofStauder(19&9)andInternationale
Handelsgesellschaft(1970)revealanewattitudeinthejuris­
prudenceoftheCourtwhenitheldthat"respectforfundamental
rightsformsanintegralpartofthegeneralprinciplesoflaw
ofwhich(it)ensuresrespect.1*
(3}....... !*•In1974»intheHoldcasev'theCourtofJusticewentonestep
seerastohavefurther.It/movea"cowardsasortofoptimum ,standardoffunda­
mentalrightsbyholdingthat"insafeguarding theserights,the
Courtisboundtodrawinspiration fromtheconstitutional tradi­
tionscommontotheMemberStates,anditcannot,therefore,up­
holdmeasureswhichare'incompatiblewithfundamental'rights
I
recognisedandprotectedbytheConstitutions ofthoseStates".
Inaddition,theCourtofJusticedrawsfrominternational treaties
ontheprotectionofhumanrightsinwhichtheMemberStateshave
collaborated orofwhichtheyaresignatoriesguidelinesfordeter­
mininggenerallegalprincipleswhichapplyintheCommunitylegal
order.
(1)Judgmentof4*2.1959–Storkv.HighAuthority,Case1/58,Recueil
1958/59f43;Judgmentof55.7.I960-Ruhrlcohlenverkauf s^esellschaften
v.HighAuthority,jointcases36–38,Recueili960,8^7«j
(2)Judgmentof12.11.1969iCase29/69»Recueil1969,419>judgmentof
17*12.1970,Case11/70,Recueil1970,1125*ForatranslationofrthesecasesinEnglish,seerespectively/197Q7CJI.L.R*112and U11C30C7^0.0^3©X14J.U1
/T9727'C.M.L.R. ,255*
(3)..Case4/73f^97^fe*C«R«491 *Seealsojudgmentof28.10.1975-Rutiliv.TheItalianMinisterfortheInterior,case36/75»notyet
published.

Theabove-mentioned decisionsconcerntherighttohumandignityand
freedomillgeneral(Stauder)andtheprinciplesofthefreedomto
developanddealwithpropertyfromaneconomiostandpoint(int.
Handelsgesellsohaft)•TheNoldcaseconcernedrightsofownership
intheeconomiosenseandfreedomtochooseandpractiseaprofession
ortrade.
TheCourtofJusticehas,however,recognisedthatfundamentalrights
arenottobeconsideredasabsolute.Asinalllegalsystems,
therearenofundamentalrightswhicharenotsubjecttolimitations,
theextentofwhichdependsonthenatureoftherightinvolved.
InthiswaytheCourtofJusticehasalreadyheldintheInternationale
Handelsgesellschaft casethat"theprotectionof(fundamental)rights,
whileinspiredbytheconstitutional principles commontotheMember
States,mustbeensuredwithintheframeworkoftheCommunity's
structureandobjectives."IntheNoldcase,theCourtdecided
thatevenifthefundamentalrightsatissueinthecasewerepro­
tected,nevertheless theseweretobeconsidered"inthelightof
thesocialfunctionofthepropertyandactivitiesprotectedthere-
under"sothatitislegitimate"tjiattheserightsshouldifneces­
sarybesubjecttocertainlimitsjustifiedbytheoverallobjectives
pursuedbytheCommunity,onconditionthatthesubstanceofthese
rightsisleftuntouched."
Furthermore,otherjudgmentsoftheuourthavereoognizedanumber
ofimportantgeneralprinciplesoflawasessentialelementsofthe
principleoftheruleoflawinordertosecure&n"effective protec­
tionoffundamentalrights.Theseincludetheprincipleof.propor­
tionality,^therequirementoflegaloertaintyandtheprotection
ofconfidencethereby#^observanceoftheprinoipleoftheright
Judgmentof12.6.1958–CompagniedesHautsPourneauxdeChassev.
TheHighAuthority,case15/57»Recueil1958#155•
Judgmentof4*7«1973-Westzucker -v.Einfuhr-undVorratsstelle für
Zucker,case1/73,E.C.R.723.

to"beheardandtodefendone'srightsinlegalproceedings.;'the
(2)prohibitionofconvictionofasingleoffencetwices',thegeneral
obligationtogivereasons^andtheprincipleofnon-discrimination .
FurthermoretheCourtofJusticehasnotonlypaidattentiontothe
substantivestandardasregardstheprotectionofthecitizenagainst
publioauthority:ithasalsoconsideredtheproblemoftheaccess
oftheindividualtotheCommunitycourt* j
Ontheonehand,bydevelopingamoreandmorefavourablejuris­
prudenceonthesubjectofthedirecteffectofCommunityprovisions,
ithasconsiderably widenedaccesstothenationalcourtsandthereby
broadenedthescopeofapplication ofArticle177EEC.Ontheother
(5}hand,thecasesdecidedbyitsince1971involvingArticle215EEC
enabletheindividualcitizentogobeforetheCourtofJusticeeven
wherethedamagesallegedariseoutofCommunitylegalactswhich
oannotbedirectlyattacked.
InthiswayaccesstotheCourtaslaiddowninArticles173and175
EEChasbeensubstantially extended.
Judgmentof22.3.1961-SociétéNouvelledesUsinesdePontlieue
TheHighAuthority,jointcases42and49/59»recueil1961,101.
Judgmentof14.12.1972-BoehringerMannheimGmbHv.TheCommission,
case7/72,Recueil1972,1281. j
Judgmentof15«3.19^7–S«A«Cimenteries CBRCementbedrijven N.V.and
othersv.TheCommission,jointoases8to11/66,fV)E.C«R«75»
seealsotheRutilicase(footnote3atthefootofpage5)*
Judgmentpf24•10.1973–Merkur-Aussenhandels-GmbHv.TheCommission,
case43/72,£-91$/E.C.R.1055. j
Seejudgmentof2.12.1971–Zuckerfabrik Schoppenstedtv.TheCounoil,
case5/71,Recueil1971,975.

10.Itiswellknownthattheeffectiveness oftheprotectionoffunda­
mentalrightsis"basednotsomuchonwrittenlegalguaranteesas
onjudicialprotectioninindividualcases.Accordinglyitis
necessarytounderlinetheimportantrolewhichthecourtsofthe
MemberStateshaveplayedtowardsclarifyingthefundamentalrights
standardwhichistoapplyintheCommunity,aboveallbyreferring
questionsforpreliminaryrulingtotheCourtofJustice.
Inthisconnection,theoourtsoftheMemberStatesmaybefaced
4 •*"
withaconflictincasesrelatingtoCommunitylawifthenational
standardoffundamentalrightsthattheyarerequiredtoprotectwere
gobeyondthatrecognizedTinderCommunitylaw.Competitionto
obtainthebestprotectionoffundamentalrightsmayhavesome
positiveeffectsforthecitizen.However,heisalsoaffected
ifCommunitylawisnotappliedeverywhereonauniformbasis.
Recently,thesupremeoourtsoftheMemberStateshaveadopted
variouspositionswithregardtothisundoubtedly moretheoretical
thanrealconflict.
TheItalianConstitutional Courtdescribedsuohaconflictas
"aberrant"andextremelyimprobable.^Whilstrefusingto
examinesecondaryCommunitylegislationaccordingtothefundamental
rightsintheItalianConstitution "itnevertheless reservedthe
right,inanextremecase,toquestion,inrespectofItaly,the
lawoftheTreatyitselfiftheeffectofthisweretopermitsuV
stantialinfringements offundamentalrights..
:(2)Initsdecisionof29May1974»itistruethattheGerman
FederalConstitutional Courtwasunabletoestablish .anysubstantive
confliotbetweenseoondaryCommunitylegislation andnational
Judgmentof18/27.12.1973-Frontinioase,183/73.
Internationale Handelsgesellschaftcase,2BvL52/71*

-9-
fundamentalrights.However,itjustifiedtherightitclaimedto
examinesecondaryCommunitylav;by"basingitselfonthefundamental
rightsembodiedintheGermanConstitution^and"bystatingthat
initsopinionthefundamentalrightsstandardachievedinthe
Communitywasinadequate.Initsviewthiswasbecausetherewas
nowrittencatalogueoffundamentalrightsenaoted "byademocrati­
callyelectedParliament.
I
11•Atfirst,aprimeconcernofthepublicwasthatthecitizeninthe
Communitywouldbesubjectedtoanewauthorityboundneitherby
nationalfundamentalrightsnorbyacatalogueoffundamentalrights
(2)atCommunitylevel.'Meanwhilethemorerecentdecisionsofthe
CourtofJusticeinfavouroffundamentalrightshavesilencedthe
originalcriticismstoaconsiderable extent.Thefrequently
asserteddangerofmassiveinfringements offundamentalrightsby
theCommunityinstitutions hasatnotimematerialized .Thismust
boattributed,first,tothemechanismsadoptedbytheCommunity
institutions topreventanyconflictbetweenCommunitylegalacts
andfundamentalrightsreoognizedintheCommunitylegalorderand,
secondly,tothelimitedcompetenceoftheCommunity:thepowers
ofintervention writtenintotheTreatiescanbytheverynatureof
thingsoomeintoconflictonlyviitharelativelylimitednumberof
fundamentalrights.ThedebateaboutthedeficiencyofCommunity
lawasfarastheprotectionoffundamentalrightsisconoernedhas
(1)Acorrespondingabstractreservationhadalreadybeenmadeinthe
rulingofthesamecourtof18.10.1967*
(2)See,forexample,thedebatesintheGermanBundestagontheECSC
Treaty(Parliamentary reportsoftheGermanBundestag,1stterm,
133rdsessionof10.1.1S52)andontheEECTreaty(Parliamentary
reportsoftheGermanBundestag,2ndterm,208thsession ;of9*5»1957
and224thsessionof5.7.1957)•Here,anxietywithregardtoalack
ofdemocracyintheCommunitywasexpressedwithparticularintensity.
SimilarfearswereexpressedintheParliamentsofthenewMember
StatesduringthedebatesonacoessiontotheCommunity.

-10-
■thereforeprovedtobe,toaconsiderable extent,hypothetical even
thoughtheCommunityinstitutions *awarenessoffundamentalrights
naytherebyhavebeenconsiderably increased#
Althoughtherearestillsporadioassertionsthatfundamentalrights
areinadequatelyprotectedintheCommunity,theviewsofthosecon­
cernedareusuallybasedontheuniversalapplicationoftheirown
nationalsystemsoffundamentalrights.Theopinionofmost,
however,isthattheapproachindicatedbytheCourtofJustioe
providessufficientguaranteethatthefundamentalrightsofthe
Community'scitizensarerecognizedandeffectivelyprotected.^
12#Summarizingtheaboveitcanbesaidthatthelegalprotectionof
fundamentalrightsattheCommunitylevelisguaranteedbythe
procedureslaiddownintheTreaties.Astothesubstantive
standardoffundamentalrights,thisisbased,first,onthefun­
damentalrightsandsimilarguaranteeslaiddoymintheTreaties
and,secondly,onthegeneralprinciplesoflav;tobedetermined
accordingtotheoriteriasetoutintheIToldjudgment.
C*ThepositiontakenbytheCommission onthequestionoffundamental
rientstodate
13.TheCommissionhascertainlyinfluencedthedevelopmentoffunda­
mentalrightsasdescribedabove.Ithasalsoadoptedinitsown
sphereanumberofpreventative measurestomeettherequirements
necessarytoprotectfundamentalrights.
14*ThecreationoftheCommonMarkethasextendedthefreedomof
Communitycitizens.Asframeworktreaties,theCommunitytreaties
callforpermanentandcontinuousenaotmentoflegislation,for
(1)Seethemanyoriticalobservationswithregardtothedeoisiondf
theFederalConstitutional Courtof29»5*1974 «

-11-
example,inthefieldoffreedomofmovementandfreedomofestab­
lishment.TheCommissionplaysadecisiveroleinthislaw-making
I
process.Therespectandproteotionoffundamentalrightsis
thereforeapermanenttaskforit.Inthefieldofagricultural
policyinparticular,wheredecisionsthathaveadirecteffecton
theindividualcitizenhavetohetakenalmostdaily,theCommission
hasconstantlytoconsiderhowitcansafeguardhimagainst
discrimination ,interference withdulyacquiredrightsandexcessive
encroachments. j
TheinstrumentatthedisposaloftheCommission,theTreatyin­
fringementprocedure,can/servedoacoun^!rSbreachesofCommunity
lawthroughnationalmeasureswhichadverselyaffectthecitizen.
Thisdoesnotmeanthatonlydirectinfringements ofthefundamental
rightsofcitizensareinvolved.^Disturbancesinthefreemove­
■mentofgoods,forexample,"bythelevyingofunauthorized taxes
Iorthegrantingofaidswhichareincompatible withtheTreaty,oan
alsolimitthecitizen'sfreedomtoengageinthetradeorprofession
ofhischoice.
15•TheCommissionalsoplaysaroleinalmostallproceedings "before
theCourtofJustice.By■fehismeansitisablethroughitswritten
opinionstocontributetowardsresolvingthequestionatissue,even
whenitisnotitselfoneoftheparties.Inparticular,ithas
alwaysmadeuseofthepossibility ofpresentingitsobservations
inArticle177EECprocedures.Inthiswayithascontributedin
theworkingcutofajurisprudence whichhasbecomeincreasingly
morefavourableinthesphereoffundamentalrightsandasregards
(2}theeconomiclibertieslaiddownbytheTreaties.N'j
(1)JudgmentoftheCourtofJusticeof4»4»1974-Commissionv.French
Republic,case167/73,JJ31AJE.C.R.359»
2)Soeparagraph9sbove.

-12-
16•Incooperation with theEuropean Parliament theCommission hashad
many opportunities toexpress itsviews ontheprotection ofthe
fundamental rights ofcitizens .Invarious statements tothe
Parliament ^andinreply tomanywritten andoralquestions ,^
theCommission hasstated that it 'abhors every violation ofhuman
rights andanyattack ondemocracy wherever this maytake place
Inthis wayitintervenes with allthemeans atitsdisposal in
favour oftherespect offundamental rights intheCommunity legal
order .
This agreement "between theviews oftheCommission andthose ofthe
European Parliament wasrecently shown intheassessment ofthe
effect that theabove-mentioned decision oftheGerman Federal
Constitutional Court of29May1974 nayhave ontheCommunity legal
order andinparticular ontheprotection offundamental rights .
TheCommission shares theconclusions drawn bytheLegal Committee
'oftheEuropean Parliament initsdraft Resolution contained inthe
report ofMr.Riviere z.^
17.Inaddition ,oneaspect which isalso ofimportance indeveloping
thefreedom ofthecitizen should notbooverlooked ,namely informing
himofhisrights .Only when thecitizen himself isconvinced that
thefreedoms which aregiven himbytheTreaties will beextended
(1)Seeforexample thestatement bySirChristopher Soames on14«3»1973
(EPDebates ofMarch 1973# p*18);statement byMr.Scarascia Mugnozza
on30.4*1973 (EPDebates ofApril 1973 ,PP*21etseq.)•
(2)Seethefollowing more recent examples :Written Question Ho.213/75
byMr.Giraud andMr.Schmidt ,OJNo.C242of22.10.1975»PP *3et
seq;Written Question No.285/75byMr.Seefeld ,OJNo.C264of
18.11.1975 ,P*13;Oral Question No.H-40/75of14-5 .1975 "
Mr.Bordu ,EPDebates of .May1973 ,p.105* .
(3)Statement bySirChristopher Soaaes (of.footnote 1above ).
(4)Doo.No.390/75(EP41.913 /fin,).

13-
anthecourseofEuropeanintegration andthathecancounton
effectiveprotectionofhisrightswillintegration "besuccessful.
TheCommissionisendeavouring toinformthepublicofthose
measureswhichaffectthecitizendirectly.
AspartofitspublicrelationsworktheCommissionhaspromoted
scientificexaminationofthequestionoffundamentalrightsthrough
organizational andfinancialassistance.Itispreciselybecause
theCourtofJusticerefersto"thefundamentalrightsembodiedin
theconstitutions oftheMemberStates"astheexpressionofgeneral
principlesoflawthatsurveyscomparinglawsandconstitutions are
essential. j
I
!
TheCommission summarizeditsviewsandaimsinrespectofthe
protectionoffundamentalrightsandputthemforwardforpublic
discussioninitsreportonEuropeanUnionofJune1975•
I
18.Asystemofpreventivelegalcheckswhichextendstosafeguarding
fundamentalrightsexistswithintheinternaldecision-making pro­
cedureoftheCommission.Rightfromtheinitialstagesofworking
outalegalactoftheCommissionthevariousinterestedservices
areontheirguardtoavoidaconflictbetweenthemeasurein
questionandthefundamentalrightsoftheindividual.
InadditiontheCommissionhascreatedaspecialorgan,theLegal
Service-ashastheCouncil-toexaminethelegalit^ofdrafts
oflegalactswhicharesubmittedtoit.Pursuantt<?adeoision
oftheCommissionof1958wa-8laiddownthat"alldocuments
intendedfortheCommission,eitherwithaviewtotheirforming
'thesubjectofaproposaltotheCouncilorfortheadoptionof
oneofthemeasureslaiddowninArtiole189,arefirsttobe
referredtotheLegalService.TheOpinionoftheLegal
ServiceistobeforwardedtotheCommissionatthesametimeas
jthedocumentsinquestion. j
(l)Decisionof1October1958(Minutes*-31)•

-14
Becauseofthecohesivewayinwhichitworks,theflexibilityofits
organisation andthemeansatitsdisposal,thisService,whose
memberscomefromthevariouslegalcirclesoftheMemberStates,
isinapositiontoclarifyanyfundamentalrightsquestionwhich
mayarisewithregardtogenerallegalprinciplesortheconstitutional
traditions ofoneormoreMemberState#
Inthisway,theCommissionconsidersthatithasbeenableuptonow
tocomeupwithsolutionswhichconformtofundamentalrights#
19*ProposalsfromtheCommissionfortheenactmentofalegalinstrument
affectingthecitizen,andtheCommission'sowninstruments,are,of
course,precededbypreparatory work.Herethereisalwaysadequate
opportunitytoexaminefundamentalrightsquestions.Theviewsof
andmeetingswith,expertsfromtheMemberStates,consultations within
theframeworkofthevariouscommittees,andcontactswithassociations
representing,inter alia,theinterestsofpersonsaffectedbysuchinstruments
enableadditional checkstobecarriedout.
20.AsregardsCommunityactsinrespectofwhichtheCommissionhasonly
therighttomakeaproposalresponsibility torespectfundamental
rightsisalsointhehandsofboththeCouncil,whichdecides,andthe
EuropeanParliament,totheextentitisoonsuited.
InthiscasetheParliamentisabletoraiseanyquestionconcernedwith
fundamentalrightsbyaskingtheCommissiontoreconsideritsproposals
andtomodifythempursuanttoArticle149»secondparagraph,EEC.
TheCommission,whichhasundertakentolookatitsproposalsagainin
thelight-oftheopinionoftheParliamentisnaturallyreadytomodify
themeverytimethattheparliamentary debatesbringtolightan
incompatibility oftheseproposalswiththefundamentalrightsofthe
citizen.
TheCouncilisthenableatthefinalstage,withtheCommissionarid
allsortsofexpertsfrom'theMemberStatesparticipating inthework,
tomakesurethatproblemsboundupwithfundamentalrightsreceivea
satisfactory solution.

15-
])•Programmes andobjectives
21.TheCommissionisconvincedthattheconclusionssetoutinSection
Candthepreventivemeasuresithasadoptedshouldbesufficienttoavoid
infringements ofthefundamentalrightsofcitizens.Protecting
fundamentalrightsisnot,however,astatictask.Thepotentialfor
extendingthefreedomofcitizenswithintheCommunityisbynomeans
exhausted.TheincreasingmassofCommunitylawaffectingthe
individualcitizencallsforconstantandincreasedattention.
AsregardsitsfutureactivitiestheCommissionhassetitselfthe
followingtasks:
-extendingknowledgeofthesourcesandbasesoffundamentalrights
tobesafeguarded bytheCommunity,
–pursuingshort–termprojectsconcerningtheimprovementofthe
positionofthecitizenintheCommunityand
–developinggénéralobjectives.
22.If,inthefieldoffundamentalrights,onegoesbacktonational
constitutional traditions,themostimmediatetaskfromthecomparative
lawstandpointistoacquiredetailedknowledgeofthesetraditions.
TheCommissionwillsupportandpromoteeffortsundertakeninthis
Idirection.Untilveryrecentlytherewerenodetailedcomparative
surveysoftheconstitutional traditionsofallMemberStates,
I
Thecomprehensive preparatory workfortheVIIFIEECongressana
astudyrequestedbytheCommissionontheproblemsfacedbythe
Communityindrawingupacatalogueoffundamentalrights(l)
nowmakeitpossibletogain/insightintothevarioussystemswhich
havebeensetupintheMemberStatestoprotectthefundamental
rightsofcitizens.Alongsidemanypointsincommonthereareat
timesprofounddifferences.
(l)DtfawnupbyProf.R.Bernhardt,DirectoroftheMax-PlanckInstitute
forforeignpubliclawandinternational law,Heidelberg,together-
withseveraloolleagues.TheCommissionwillmakethestudy,
togetherwiththisreport,availableforpublicdiscussionasa
SupplementtotheBulletinoftheEuropeanCommunities.

-16-
23.Theabovenentioned studyoftheMax-PlanekInstitutecomes
essentiallytotheconclusionthatthemethodusedatpresentby
theCourtofJusticetoproteotfundamentalrights,thatisto
derivegenerallegalrulesfromtheconstitutional traditionsofthe
MemberStatesfensuresadequateprotectionoffundamentalrights.
Itconsidersthismethodtobesuitablefortheinstitutional
safeguarding offundamentalrightsgiventhepresentCommunity
structure.Ontheotherhand,acatalogueoffundamentalrights'
embodiedinatreatyishardlylikelytoimprovetheprotection
offundamentalrightsinthepresentstateofintegration.The
studyrefersinparticulartothepossibilityofusinginternational
conventions andlegalrules,evenwheretheyarenotbindinginall
MemberStates,toderivegeneralprinciplesoflaw.
Alsoaccordingtothestudy,shouldtherebeastructuraltransformation
oftheCommunitiesintoaEuropeanUnionorintoasubjectof
international law,analogoustoafederalstate,itwouldbe
"difficulttoimaginethatanewEuropeanconstitution could,
contrarytoallcontemporary trendsanddemands,dispensewithan.
expressanddetailedguaranteeoffundamentalrights"*
24.ApartfromattemptstofindsolutionstoBasicproblems,the
Commissionisalsopursuing,ihthecreationandfurtherdevelopment
ofEuropeanlaw,variousindividual -projects(somepursuingobjectives
alreadylaiddownintheTreaties*othersbeingstepsonthepath
towardsEuropeanUnion)whichshouldbringappreciableimprovementsinthe
positionoftheindividualcitizenwithintheCommunity.
25.Inconnectionwithextendingthefreedomofindividualcitizenslaid
.downintheTreatiestheCommissionhas,"forexample,recentlysubmitted
totheCouncilenactionprogrammedesignedtoreinforcethesocial
situationofmigrantworkers(l).
(1)COM74/2250

-17-
Atthebeginningof1975"theCouncil,onaproposalofthe
Commission,adoptedadirectiveputtingintoconcreteformthe
principleofequalpayformenandwomencontainedinArticle
119EEC(1).
Recently,onthe18December1975»"theCouncilhasgiveneffect
toalargeextent,toaproposeddirectivewhichtheCommission
submittedtoiton12February1975(2)designed
toachieveequalityof
treatmentformenandwomenasregardsaccesstoemployment,
vocationaltraining,promotionandworkingconditions(3)»
26.Furthemore,ontheroadtowardsEuropeanUnion,theCommissionis.
participating intheprogressivecreationofaEuropeancitizenship.
Ithassubmittedtwoconcreteproposalsdrawnupontheinvitation
oftheHeadsofStateorGovernmentattheParisSummitmeeting
inDecember1974(4):
-ontheestablishment ofaPassportUnion,whichproposes
progressiveharmonization oflegislationaffectingaliensand
theabolitionofpassportcontrolswithintheCommunity;
-onthegrantingofspecialrightsineachMemberState *
tonationalsofotherMemberStatesontheprincipleoftreatingsuch
personsinthesamewayasnationalsofthehostMemberState.
Thespecialpoliticalrightsare,inparticular,toincludethe
righttovote,tostandforelectionandtoholdpublicofficeat
thelocalandpossiblyregionallevel
(1)Directiveof10.2.1975IO.J.No.L45,19*2*1975tP*9
(2)O.J.No.C124,4.6.1975,p.2
(3)Directivenotyetpublished
(4)Seepoints10and11ofthefinalcommunique.
(5)TheCommissionreportsonthesesubjectshavebeenpublishedin
Supplement7/75of"theBulletinoftheEuropeanCommunities.

-18-
27»ThegeneralobjectivesoftheCommissionasregardsthedevelopment
offundamentalrightsintheCommunityaredeterminedaboveall
bythreeproblemareas:
-dueregardfortheEuropeanHumanRightsConventioninthe
Community,
-theguaranteeofastandardoffundamentalrightswhichisas
comprehensive aspossible,
-themannerinwhichtheInstitutions aretosafeguardthisguarantee,
28*IntheHoldcasetheCourtofJusticeruledthat"similarly,international
treatiesfortheprotectionofhumanrights,onwhichtheMemberStates
havecollaborated orofwhichtheyaresignatories,cansupplyguidelines
whichshouldbefollowedwithintheframeworkofCommunitylav/"(1).
TheCommissionisoftheopinionthatthisapproachisparticularly
relevantwithregardtotheHumanRightsConvention# TheHumanRights
.Conventionsetsout,asfarasthe"classic"fundamentalrightsare
concerned,thatis,certainofthefundamentalrightstobeprotected
intheCommunity,acatalogueofprinciplesoflawrecognizedas
bindinginalltheMemberStates.Itthereforealsohasbladingeffect
ontheactivitiesoftheCommunityinstitutions.
TheCommissiondoesnotconsideritnecessaryfortheCommunityassuch
tobecomeapartytotheConvention.Thefundamentalrightslaiddown
asnormsintheConventionare±orecognizedasgenerallybindinginthe
contextofCommunitylawwithoutfurtherconstitutive act
(1)IntheRutilicase(of.footnote3onpage5)the
Courthasforthefirsttimeexpresslyreferredtocertain
articlesintheConvention.

*19-
29»Thesecondproblemareaconcernstheguaranteeofastandardof
fundamentalrightswhichisascomprehensive aspossible.Itis
troethatmanybasicrightscanbeinvolvedonlyinexceptional
casesinviewofthepowersconferredupontheCommunityinstitutions (1)»
Fundamentalrightsare,however,regulatoryprinciplesofapluralistic
societyTandshouldbetakenintoaccountassuchbythe{Community
institutionsevenifitisunlikelythattheymay,ina'specificcase,be
infringed. ■
30.Ontheotherhand,adualtendencyofCommunitylawmakesthe
protectionofcivilandpoliticalrightsaswellaseconomicand
socialrightsappearmorenecessarythanbefore:
-thetendencytoadoptincreasingly detailedandspecificrules
which,byvirtueofthisfact,affecttheindividualjnoredirectly,
andthisnotonlyinthefieldofeconomicactivity;!
I
–theextensionofthepowersoftheCommunityinstitutions aspart
ofthedynamicdevelopmenttowardsEuropeanUnion.
31*Thesetendenciesincreasetheneedfortheprotectionpffundamental
rightswhichtheCommissionwillmeetintwoways.i
Firstly,itwill,initslegislativeactionsandinexercisingitsright
ofinitiativevis-£r»vistheCouncil,payparticularattentiontothe
developmentofeconomicandsocialfundamentalrights#Itconsiders
ofthisfieldoffundamentalrightstobe/particularsignificancesince
theactivitiesoftheCommunityinstitutionsaremainlyinthe
economicsector.TheCommissionisawarethatthesetypesoffundamental
rightsneedinparticulartobeputintoconcreteformandcomplemented
bybeinggiveneffectontheCommunityaswellastheMemberState
level#Itcanonlyconfirmitsintentionincreasingly )toencourage
developments inthedirectionindicated#
(l)SeetheviewsofMr.Jozeau-MarignS inhisreport (referred
toabove,footnote2onpage1#

-20-
Secondly,ininterpretingthedecisionsoftheCourtofJustice,
theCommissionproceedsfromthebasisthatthesubstantive
contentofthefundamentalrightsrecognizedunderCommunitylaw
mustbedefinedinaccordancewiththenationalstandardthat
affordsthemaximumprotectiontotheindividualwhilsttaking
intoaccountthegeneralinterest,inordertoachieveanoptimum
standardofprotectionoffundamentalrightsintheCommunity.
Inconsideringthelegalpositionsoftheindividualandofthe
CommunitytheCommissionwill,oneveryoccasion,alignits
activities ontheoptimumstandardinquestion
andnot
onthe
lowestcommondenominatorofthestandardsoffundamentalrights
achievedintheMemberStates.Ahighstandardoffundamental
rightsatCommunitylevelwillconstituteanelementinthe
Communitylegalorderthatwillenoourageintegration.
32.Thela3tproblemarea,mentionedunderparagraph27,ooncernsthe
questionofthe^afeguar&i^offundamentalrightsfromthetechnicalpoint
ofview.Asalreadyindicated,expertopinionsexpressedinlegalacademiccirclesrecentlyonthisquestiorytiavebeenoverwhelmingly totheeffectthat
protectionoffundamentalrightsbythejudicialauthorityisprefera/-
bletoanattempttocodifytherightstobeprotected.TheCommission,
althoughbeinginfavourofaCommunitycatalogueinitsreporton
EuropeanUnion,considersthatinthepresentstateofintegration
thereasonsputforwardinfavourofajudicialsolutionare
conclusive.
33*AwrittenCommunitycatalogueoffundamentalrightswouldhavemany
advantages:suchacataloguewouldimprovelegalcertaintyandwould
lendsolidsupporttothelaw-makingbythejudiciary.Inaddition
itwouldemphasizetheimportanceoffundamentalrightsandremoveany
remainingdoubtsabouttheirrelevanceinCommunitylaw.Finallyit
wouldenabletheexerciseofeconomicandsocialrights,mostofwhich
requirelegislativemeasurestomakethemeffective,tobemorecompletely
assured.

-21-
34*Theadvantagesofcodifyingfundamentalrightscan,however,
hardlyberealizedintheshorttern*Ifthelegalsystems
oftheMemberStatesdoindeedhavemanyfundamentalpoints
incommon,certaindifferencesnevertheless remain.
Thefundamentalrights,andboundupwiththem,thefreedom
ofactionofthestatevis-S^visitscitizensarebasedonthe
structuralprinciplesoftheindividualconstitutions .It
mightbedifficultforcertainMemberStatestoaccepta
codification offundamentalrights,bindinginitsentirety,
especiallyifthisdifferedconsiderably fromtheirownconstitutional
traditions. Theestablishment ofacatalogueof
fundamentalrightswouldrequire,inthepresentstateofthe
Community,anintergovernmental negotiation andwouldhave
toreceivetheunanimousagreementoftheMemberStates.
Definingthefundamentalrightstobeincluded
intheCommunitycataloguecouldtherefore
resultincompromisesanddeletions. Therewould
bearealdangerthattheresultofsucheffortswouldbea
minimumconsensusonthematterstobeincluded.
35*Anycatalogueoffundamentalrightsmust,moreover,provide
forthepossibility oflimitations andinvolvemakingan
inevitablechoicebetweentheprotectionofindividualrights
andthenecessityofsafeguarding thecommongood.Inthe
presentpoliticalandinstitutional structureoftheCommjmity
djiundertakingofthiskindcouldonlyberealisedonthebasis
ofconcents

-22-
whichoftendifferamongtheMemberStates.Therecould
"beariskofworkingoutformulaswhichwould "betoo
generaltohaveanyvalueorofdifferentreservations "by-
differentMemberStates.Legalsecurity,whichisthe
objectiveofacatalogue,wouldthereforenotreallybeachieved.
36.Ineverycaseinwhichaproblemisraisedasregards
fundamentalrightstheCourtofJusticecan,atthepresent
time,beguidedbytheoptimumleveloftheserights.
Acataloguewouldnotgreatlyimprovethematerialposition
ofthecitizenintheCommunityif,beingdrawnupunderthe
conditionsmentionedabove,itendeduponalowerlevel.
37»Ontheotherhandth^positionwouldbecompletelydifferentonthe
totalityofrelationsbetweentheMemberStatesbeingtransformed
intoaEuropeanUnion.Boththepowersandthemeansofactionof
theUnion,evenif,althoughattributed,theywerenotimmediately
fullyexercisable ,wouldapplyoveramuchlargerareaandwould
revealamuchmorepoliticalqualitythanthoseofthepresent
Communities .

-23-
Undertaking theaction involved will affect individual citizens even
more intheir daily lives .Just asitisdifficult toimagine that
theconstitutional lawofdemocratic states would nothave provisions
covering theprotection offundamental rights ,soitwould bedifficult
for theEuropean .Union toavoid this .Further -^
more ,intheconstruction ofthe >.European Union
there will certainly bepolitical pressure toemphasise fundamental
rights :this will facilitate thework preparatory totheestablish­
ment ofaCommunity catalogue .
Moreover itisclear that apredominant role would fall onaEuropean
Parliament elected bydirect universal suffrage intheestablishment
ofthis catalogue :this would conform tothetraditions ofallthe
Member State3 .
38.Forthetime being ,theCommission feels that theidea already
putforward toconfirm ,byasolemn common declaration ofthethree
political institutions oftheCommunity ,respect forfundamental
rights intheCommunity merits serious consideration * Such a
declaration could underline theimportance oftheHuman Rights
Convention andtheindispensable nature oftheprotection ofthese
rights bytheCourt ofJustice .Inthis wayareply would begiven
tooortain objections directed again^the present system ,objections
which ,based ontheprinciple oftheseparation ofpowers ,take
exception toitsexclusively judge-made character .
However ,such adeclaration would have tobeadopted without giving
rise tolong discussions onitscontents .Ifthere isnotimmediate
agreement between theInstitutions involved onthedeclaration such an
attempt would beofnouseandeven dangerous# Itmight create doubts –
notjustified »-astothecredibility oftheCommunity institutions in
thefield offundamental rights .

Conclusions
Inview ofdevelopments sofar,theCommission isoftheopinion
that thepresent standard ofprotection offundamental rights ,as
this canbetaken from themore recent decisions ofthe Court of
Justice ,issatisfactory#
Furthermore ,itconsiders that theprotective machinery atpresent
available within the institutional structure ofthe Communities is
sufficient toprevent andcounter infringements offundamental
rights through Community acts and,following theimplementation of
these acts ,atthenational level .However ,itfeels that while ....
theEuropean Union is "being setupaccess bytheindividual tothe ..
Community Court should beimproved#
TheCommission considers that ithasaconstant duty ,inthefurther
development oftheCommon Market ,tosafeguard andextend the
freedom oftheindividual citizen .Itwill accordingly pursue its
efforts inthis area .
Asalready stated inthereport onEuropean Union ,express embodiment
offundamental rights inafuture European constitution remains
desirable ,ifnotessential .
Asregards thepresent andthenear future ,however ,theCommission '
shares theopinion oftheParliament that inthelight ofthepresent
structure oftheCommunity ,themost complete protection of
fundamental rights isensured bytheCourt ofJustioe which guarantees
amaximum level ofprotection ,nevertheless theCommission considers
itdesirable tostress byadeclaration tothis endtheimportance
offundamental rights intheCommunity .