Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union - Respect for and promotion of the values on which the Union is based
Date: 2003-10-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU law, EU policy, European Union, human rights, promotion of the European idea, protection of freedoms

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 15.10.2003
COM(2003) 606 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

on Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union.
Respect for and promotion of the values on which the Union is based

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 3

1.

1.1.

1.2.

1.3.

1.4.

THE CONDITIONS FOR APPLYING ARTICLE 7 OF THE UNION TREATY..... 4

Mechanisms applicable in all areas of activity of the Member States ......................... 5

Mechanisms allowing a political assessment by the Council ...................................... 5

Involvement of independent persons ........................................................................... 6

Essential conditions for applying Article 7 of the Union Treaty: the clear risk
of a serious breach and the serious and persistent breach of the common values ....... 6

1.4.1.

The threshold for activating Article 7 of the Union Treaty: breach of the common
values themselves......................................................................................................... 7

1.4.2.

The clear risk of a serious breach................................................................................. 7

1.4.3.

Serious breach .............................................................................................................. 8

1.4.4.

Persistent breach........................................................................................................... 8

2.

2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

2.4.

2.5.

MEANS OF SECURING RESPECT FOR AND PROMOTION OF COMMON
VALUES ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE UNION TREATY.................. 8

Introducing regular monitoring of respect for common values and developing
independent expertise................................................................................................... 9

Concertation between institutions and with the Member States ................................ 10

Cooperation with the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights ........... 11

Regular dialogue with civil society............................................................................ 11

Information and education for the public................................................................... 11

Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 12

2

“Morality always makes better citizens than law”

Montesquieu “Persian Letters”

INTRODUCTION

Article  6(1)  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  (the  “Union  Treaty”)  lists  the  principles  on
which the Union is based: “the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and
fundamental  freedoms,  and  the  rule  of  law,  principles  which  are  common  to  the
Member States”.

This enumeration of common principles, or to use the terminology of the draft Constitution, of
common  values,1  puts  the  person  at  the  very  centre  of  the  European  integration  project.  It
constitutes  a  hard  core  of  defining  features  in  which  every  Union  citizen  can  recognise
himself irrespective of the political or cultural differences linked to national identity.

Respect  for  these  values  and  the  concern  to  work  together  to  promote  them  is  one  of  the
conditions for any State wishing to join the European Union. Article 49 of the Union Treaty
speaks  very  clearly  to  States  wishing  to  accede  to  the  Union:  “Any  European  State  which
respects the principles set out in Article 6(1) may apply to become a member of the Union”.

Article 7 of the Union Treaty, introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty and amended by the Nice
Treaty,  and  Article  309  of  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Community  (the  “EC
Treaty”),  equip  the  Union  institutions  with  the  means  of  ensuring  that  all  Member States
respect the common values.

The entry into force of the  Nice  Treaty on 1  February 2003  was a defining  moment  for the
Union's  means  of  action  here.  By  giving  the  Union  the  capacity  to  act  preventively  in  the
event of a clear threat of a serious breach of the  common values, Nice  greatly enhanced the
operational  character  of  the  means  already  available  under  the  Amsterdam  Treaty,  which
allowed only remedial action after the serious breach had already occurred.

In  this  respect,  the  amended  Article 7  confers  new  powers  on  the  Commission  in  its
monitoring of fundamental rights in the Union and in the identification of potential risks. The
Commission  intends  to  exercise  its  new  right  in  full  and  with  a  clear  awareness  of  its
responsibility.

The  ultimate  purpose  of  the  means  laid  down  is  to  penalise  and  remedy  a  serious  and
persistent breach of the common values. But first, and above all, they are intended to prevent
such a situation arising by giving the Union the capacity to react as soon as a clear risk of a
breach is identified in a Member State.

A  serious  and  persistent  breach  of  the  common  values  by  a  Member State  would  radically
shake  the  very  foundations  of  the  European  Union.  Given  the  current  economic,  social  and
political  situation  in  the  Member States,  the  European  Union  is  without  doubt  one  of  the
places  in  the  world  where  democracy  and  fundamental  rights  are  best  protected,  thanks
largely to the domestic judicial systems and in particular the Constitutional Courts.

1

Article I-2 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.

3

                                                
However,  a  number  of  factors  of  variable  importance  make  it  necessary  to  conduct  a
meticulous examination of issues linked to respect for democracy and fundamental rights in
the Member States:

- At a time when the Union is about to enter on a new stage of development, with the
forthcoming  enlargement  and  the  increased  cultural,  social  and  political  diversity  between
Member States  that  will  ensue,  the  Union  institutions  must  consolidate  their  common
approach to the defence of the Union's values.

- Developing and consolidating democracy and the rule of law, and respect for human
rights  and  fundamental  freedoms,  are  among  the  main  objectives  of  Union  and  Community
policies  directed  at  countries  outside  the  EU.  In  this  connection,  the  Commission  wishes  to
make  clear,  like  the  European  Parliament  in  its  report  on  the  human  rights  situation  in  the
European Union of 12 December 2002,2 that the EU's internal and external policies must be
coordinated and consistent if they are to be effective and credible.

- Members of the public and representatives of civil society who are most active in the
protection of fundamental rights are unsure of the exact scope of Member States' obligations
under  Article  7  of  the  Union  Treaty.  The  Commission  notes  in  particular  that  the  regular
complaints that it receives from individuals show that Union citizens often regard Article 7 of
the Union Treaty as a possible means of remedying the fundamental rights breaches that they
have suffered.

In view of these various factors, the Commission believes that a debate on the protection and
promotion of our common values within the meaning of the Union Treaty is vital.

The Commission wishes to contribute to this debate.

This  Communication  accordingly  aims  both  to  examine  the  conditions  for  activating  the
procedures  of  Article  7  and  to  identify  the  operational  measures  which,  through  concerted
action  by  the  Union  institutions  and  cooperation  with  the  Member States,  could  make  for
respect and promotion of the common values.

However, it does not address questions concerning the penalties that should be ordered by the
Council against a Member State that is in default in accordance with Article 7(3) of the Union
Treaty  and  Article 309  of  the  EC Treaty.  The  Commission  considers  that  it  would  be  well
advised  not  to  speculate  on  these  questions.  It  prefers  to  approach  Article  7  of  the  Union
Treaty  in  a  spirit  of  prevention  of  the  situations  to  which  it  applies  and  in  a  concern  to
promote common values.

1. 

THE CONDITIONS FOR APPLYING ARTICLE 7 OF THE UNION TREATY

The  innovation  made  at  Nice  was  the  addition  of  a  prevention  mechanism  to  the
penalty  mechanism  provided  for  by  the  Amsterdam  Treaty.  Two  mechanisms  now
coexist,  with  activation  of  the  first  not  required  for  the  second:  they  are
determination  that  there  is  a  threat  of  a  serious  breach  (Article  7(1))  and
determination  that  there  is  a  serious  and  persistent  breach  of  the  common  values
(Article 7(2)).

2

A5-0451/2002.

4

                                                
Article 7 of the Union Treaty is quite precise when it comes to the respective roles of
the  European  Parliament,  the  Member States  and  the  Commission  in  activating  the
two mechanisms. The Commission can only refer readers to the wording of Article 7,
annexed to this Communication.

However,  the  Commission  would  wish  to  underline  certain  fundamental  aspects  of
Article 7.

1.1.  Mechanisms applicable in all areas of activity of the Member States

The  scope  of  Article 7  is  not  confined  to  areas  covered  by  Union  law.  This  means
that the Union could act not only in the event of a breach of common values in this
limited field but also in the event of a breach in an area where the Member States act
autonomously.

The fact that Article 7 of the Union Treaty is horizontal and general in scope is quite
understandable in the case of an article that seeks to secure respect for the conditions
of  Union  membership.  There  would  be  something  paradoxical  about  confining  the
Union's  possibilities  of  action  to  the  areas  covered  by  Union  law  and  asking  it  to
ignore serious breaches in areas of national jurisdiction. If a Member State breaches
the fundamental values in a manner sufficiently serious to be caught by Article 7, this
is  likely  to  undermine  the  very  foundations  of  the  Union  and  the  trust  between  its
members, whatever the field in which the breach occurs.

Article 7 thus gives the Union a power of action that is very different from its power
to ensure that Member States respect fundamental rights when implementing Union
law.  The  courts  have  always  held  that  Member States  are  obliged  to  respect
fundamental rights as general principles of Community law. However, this obligation
operates  only  in  national  situations  where  Community  law  applies.3  Unlike  the
mechanisms  of  Article  7  of  the  Union  Treaty,  compliance  with  this  obligation  is
enforced  by  the  Court  of  Justice,  for  example  in  infringement  proceedings
(Articles 226 and 227 of the EC Treaty) or in preliminary rulings (Article 234 of the
EC Treaty).

1.2.  Mechanisms allowing a political assessment by the Council

Article 7 gives a discretionary power to the Council both to determine that there is a
clear threat of a serious breach and to determine that there is a serious and persistent
breach, acting as appropriate on the basis of a proposal by the European Parliament,
one third of the Member States or the Commission. However, the Council's hands are
not tied either in determining that there is a clear risk or in determining that there is a
serious or persistent breach.

Likewise,  under  Article 7(3),  once  the  Council  has  determined  the  seriousness  and
persistence of the breach, it may decide to apply penalties, but is not obliged to do so.

3

Judgment  in  Case  5/88  Wachauf  [1989]  ECR  2609  (given  on  13.7.1989)  and  in  Case C-260/89  ERT
[1991] ECR I-2925 (given on 18.6.1991).

5

                                                
These options underline the political nature of Article 7 of the Union Treaty, which
leaves room for a diplomatic solution to  the  situation  which would  arise  within the
Union  following  identification  of  a  serious  and  persistent  breach  of  the  common
values.

However, the Council's discretionary power cannot evade democratic control by the
European Parliament, in the form of the assent that it must give before the Council
can act.

On the other hand, and despite the repeated suggestions made by the Commission in
the run-up to the Amsterdam and Nice Treaties, the Union Treaty does not give the
European Court of Justice the power of judicial review of the decision determining
that there is a serious and persistent breach of common values or a clear risk of such
a  breach.  Under  Article  46(e)  of  the  Union  Treaty,  the  Court  reviews  “the  purely
procedural stipulations in Article 7”, which allows the relevant State's defence rights
to be respected.

1.3. 

Involvement of independent persons

The involvement of “independent persons”, who can be invited to present a report on
the situation in the relevant Member State within a reasonable time, as provided for
by Article 7(1), could help to provide a full and objective picture of the situation on
which the Council has to take a decision.

The Commission suggests that thought be given to the possibility for the Council of
having  a list  of names of "independent persons"  who  could  be consulted  quickly  if
needed.

1.4. 

Essential  conditions  for  applying  Article 7  of  the  Union Treaty:  the  clear  risk
of a serious breach and the serious and persistent breach of the common values

For  Article 7  of  the  Union Treaty  to  be  applied,  essential  conditions  must  be  met
with  regard  to  a  breach  or  risk  of  a  breach.  These  conditions  are  different  for  the
prevention  mechanism  and  for  the  penalty  mechanism:  the  prevention  mechanism
can be activated where there is a "clear risk of a serious breach", whereas the penalty
mechanism can be activated only if there is a "serious and persistent breach" of the
common values.

A variety of international instruments can offer guidance for interpreting the concept
of “serious and persistent” breach, which is taken over from public international law.
Article  6  of  the  United  Nations  Charter  reads:  “A  Member  of  the  United  Nations
which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may
be  expelled 
the
recommendation  of  the  Security  Council”.  Likewise  Article  8  of  the  Statute  of  the
Council of Europe reads: “Any member of the Council of Europe which has seriously
violated Article 34 may be suspended from its rights of representation …”.

the  General  Assembly  upon 

the  Organization  by 

from 

4

“Every  member  of  the  Council  of  Europe  must  accept  the  principles  of  the  rule  of  law  and  of  the
enjoyment  by  all  persons  within  its  jurisdiction  of  human  rights  and  fundamental  freedoms,  and
collaborate  sincerely  and  effectively  in  the  realisation  of  the  aim  of  the  Council  as  specified  in
Chapter I.”

6

                                                
However,  the  concept  of  risk  introduced  by  the  Nice  Treaty  to  allow  the  Union  to
take preventive action is a specific creature of the Union legal system.

Before  analysing  these  concepts,  which  distinguish  between  a  situation  of  risk  and
that of a breach which has already taken place, we must first point out that the clarity
of  the  risk  of  a  serious  breach  and  the  persistence  and  seriousness  of  the  breach
determine the threshold for activating Article 7 of the Union Treaty. This threshold is
much  higher  than  in  individual  cases  of  breaches  of  fundamental  rights  such  as
established  by  the  national  courts,  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  or,  in  the
field of Community law, by the Court of Justice.

1.4.1.  The  threshold  for  activating  Article 7  of  the  Union Treaty:  breach  of  the  common

values themselves

It is obvious that, for the  victim of  a  manifest breach  of  his  rights,  every  breach  is
serious. In the light of the complaints it receives, the Commission has observed that a
large and growing number of people consider that any breach of fundamental rights
in the Member States could activate Article 7 and often suggest that the Commission
start proceedings. It is therefore essential that this point be clarified.

The procedure laid down by Article 7 of the Union Treaty aims to remedy the breach
through a comprehensive political approach. It is not designed to remedy individual
breaches.

A combined reading of Articles 6(1) and 7 of the Union Treaty shows that there must
be a breach of the common values themselves for the existence of a breach within the
meaning of Article 7 to be established. The risk or  breach  identified must therefore
go beyond specific situations and concern a more systematic problem. This is in fact
the  added  value  of  this  last-resort  provision  compared  with  the  response  to  an
individual breach.

This is not, of course, to say that there is a legal void. Individual fundamental rights
breaches  must  be  dealt  with  through  domestic,  European  and  international  court
procedures.  The  national  courts,  the  Court  of  Justice,  in  the  field  covered  by
Community law, and the European Court of Human Rights all have clearly defined
and important roles to play here.

1.4.2.  The clear risk of a serious breach

A risk of serious breach remains within the realm of the potential, though there is a
qualification:  the  risk  must  be  “clear”,  excluding  purely  contingent  risks  from  the
scope of the prevention mechanism. A serious breach, on the other hand, requires the
risk  to  have  actually  materialised.  To  take  a  hypothetical  example,  the  adoption  of
legislation allowing procedural guarantees to be abolished in wartime is a clear risk;
its actual use even in wartime would be a serious breach.

By introducing the concept of “clear risk”, Article 7 of the Union Treaty provides a
means  of  sending  a  warning  signal  to  an  offending  Member State  before  the  risk
materialises.  It  also  places  the  institutions  under  an  obligation  to  maintain  constant
surveillance, since the “clear risk” evolves in a known political, economic and social
environment and following a period of whatever duration during which the first signs
of, for instance, racist or xenophobic policies will have become visible.

7

1.4.3. 

Serious breach

The  serious  breach  criterion  is  common  to  the  prevention  and  the  penalty
mechanisms:  the  clear risk must  be  that  of  a  “serious”  breach  and  the  breach  itself
when it occurs must be “serious”.

To determine the seriousness of the breach, a variety of criteria will have to be taken
into account, including the purpose and the result of the breach.

Regarding  the  purpose  of  the  breach,  for  instance,  one  might  consider  the  social
classes affected by the offending national measures. The analysis could be influenced
by  the  fact  that  they  are  vulnerable,  as  in  the  case  of  national,  ethnic  or  religious
minorities or immigrants.

The result of the breach might concern any one or more of the principles referred to
in Article 6. Even if it is enough for one of the common values to be violated or risk
being violated for Article 7 to be activated, a simultaneous breach of several values
could be evidence of the seriousness of the breach.

1.4.4.  Persistent breach

This condition applies only to the activation of the penalty mechanism in respect of a
breach which has already taken place.

By definition,  for  a breach to  be persistent,  it  must  last  some  time.  But  persistence
can be expressed in a variety of manners.

A  breach  of  the  principles  in  Article  6  could  come  in  the  form  of  a  piece  of
legislation  or  an  administrative  instrument.  It  might  also  take  the  form  of  a  mere
administrative  or  political  practice  of  the  authorities  of  the  Member State.  There
might  already  have  been  complaints  or  court  actions,  in  the  Member State  or
internationally.  Systematic  repetition  of  individual  breaches  could  provide  stronger
arguments for applying Article 7.

The fact that a Member State has  repeatedly been condemned for the same type of
breach over a period of time by an international court such as the European Court of
Human  Rights  or  by  non-judicial  international  bodies  such  as  the  Parliamentary
Assembly  of  the  Council  of  Europe  or  the  United  Nations  Commission  on  Human
Rights and has not demonstrated any intention of taking practical remedial action is a
factor that could be taken into account.

2. 

MEANS OF SECURING RESPECT FOR AND PROMOTION OF COMMON
VALUES ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE UNION TREATY

Apart from the fact that the Union policies themselves help to secure respect for and
promotion of common values, the legal and political framework for the application of
Article  7  as  described  above,  based  on  prevention,  requires  practical  operational
measures to ensure thorough and  effective monitoring of respect for and promotion
of common values.

8

2.1. 

Introducing  regular  monitoring  of  respect  for  common  values  and  developing
independent expertise

Substantial  efforts  are  already  being  made  by  the  three  institutions  -  European
Parliament,  Council  and  Commission.  The  European  Parliament's  annual  report  on
the fundamental rights situation in the European Union is a major contribution to the
elaboration of an exact diagnosis on the state of protection in the Member States and
the Union.5

Many other sources of information are available, such as the reports of international
organisations,6 NGO reports7 and the decisions of regional and international courts,
among them the European Human Rights Court.8

The very large number of individual complaints addressed to the Commission or the
European  Parliament  are  another  valuable  source  of  information.  In  most  cases  the
Commission  has  no  grounds  for  investigating  a  breach  of  Community  law  and
bringing  an  action  against  the  Member  State  before  the  Court  of  Justice,  as  they
concern  situations  for  which  the  Member  States  alone  are  responsible  without  any
link  to  Union  law,  but  they  do  provide  a  basis  for  summing  up  the  public's  major
concerns in fundamental rights matters.

In  its  2000  report  on  the  fundamental  rights  situation  in  the  European  Union,9
Parliament recommended establishing a network of authoritative fundamental rights
experts  to  provide  a  high  degree  of  expertise  regarding  each  of  the  Union
Member States. A pilot project was carried out involving the  establishment in 2002
of  a  network  by  the  European  Commission.10  It  is  a  good  example  of  cooperation
between  the  Commission  and  Parliament,  because,  although  its  aim  is  to  provide
input  for  the  Commission's  work,  it  also  provides  Parliament  with  essential
information.

The  network's  main  task  is  to  prepare  an  annual  report  on  the  fundamental  rights
situation  in  the  Union11  giving  a  precise  picture  of  the  situation  in  each
Member State. The published report reaches a wide audience.

The  information  should  make  it  possible  to  detect  fundamental  rights  anomalies  or
situations where there might be breaches or the risk of breaches of these rights falling
within Article 7 of the Union Treaty.

Through  its  analyses  the  network  can  also  help  in  finding  solutions  to  remedy
confirmed anomalies or to prevent potential breaches.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Report on the fundamental rights situation in the European Union (2002) (2002/2013(INI)), Rapporteur:
Mr  Fodé  Sylla,  A5-0281/2003.  See  also,  for  2001,  report  by  Ms  Swiebel  (PE311.039/DEF)  and,
for 2000, report by Mr Cornillet (PE 302.216/DEF).
E.g.  Resolutions  of  the  UN  General  Assembly  and  reports  by  the  Human  Rights  Commission,
the Council of Europe, and its Commissioner for Human Rights in particular, and the OSCE.
E.g. documents and reports published by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Fédération
Internationale des Droits de l'Homme.
But also the International Court of Justice and, in future, the International Criminal Court.
2000/2231(INI).
The invitation to tender for the network was issued in OJ S60 on 26 March 2002.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/cfr_cdf/index_en.htm.

9

                                                
Monitoring  also  has  an  essential  preventive  role  in  that  it  can  provide  ideas  for
achieving  the  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice  or  alerting  the  institutions  to
divergent  trends  in  standards  of  protection  between  Member  States  which  could
imperil the mutual trust on which Union policies are founded.

It is important for the Member States to be involved in the exercise of evaluating and
interpreting  the  results  of  the  work  of  the  network  of  independent  experts.  With  a
view  to  exchanging  information  and  sharing  experience,  the  Commission  could
organise  regular  meetings  on  the  information  gathered  with  the  national  bodies
dealing with human rights.

The network of experts is independent of both the Commission and Parliament, and
this  independence  must  be  preserved.  Obviously  neither  the  Commission  nor
Parliament is bound by the network's analyses.

The  network  is  currently  operating  on  the  basis  of  a  contract  of  limited  duration
between the Commission and a university centre.12

The  role  played  by  the  current  network  of  experts  will  be  meaningful  only  if  its
continuity,  or  even  permanent  status,  is  ensured.  To  this  end,  the  network's  work
needs to be provided with an appropriate legal basis.

Proper  coordination  would  at  all  events  be  needed  in  order  to  avoid  any  risk  of
duplication  with  the  European  Monitoring  Centre  on  Racism  and  Xenophobia,13
which for some years has played an important role in collecting data on racism and
xenophobia  in  the  EU's  Member States  through  the  network  of  national  contact
points (Raxen).

In  the  light  of  experience  with  the  network,  the  situation  could  be  reviewed  in  the
medium term to see how best to continue.

2.2. 

Concertation between institutions and with the Member States

Activating the Article 7 mechanism would have repercussions for the Member State
being  criticised  but  also  for  the  Union  as  a  whole.  The  seriousness  of  the  resulting
situation will be such that a need for concerted action will probably be felt, especially
with the European Parliament and the country concerned.

If the Commission is to make a proposal, it will seek, with due respect for its powers,
close  contacts  with  the  two  other  parties  involved  at  the  various  stages  prior  to
presenting  a  proposal  with  a  view  to  identifying  situations  likely  to  be  caught  by
Article 7,  to  analysing  them  and  to  making  initial  informal  contact  with  the
authorities of the Member State concerned.

This Member State could be contacted for its opinion on the situation. These contacts
would  enable  the  Commission  to  present  the  facts  of  which  the  Member State  is
accused and allow that Member State to make its views known.

12

13

The  network  is  made  up  of  high-level  experts  from  each  Member  State,  coordinated  by  Mr  O.  De
Schutter from the Université Catholique de Louvain.
Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 of 2 June 1997, OJ L 151, 10.6.1997.

10

                                                
Any such informal contacts would not be mandatory and would in no way prejudge
the decision which the Commission will ultimately have to take in all conscience.

The  Commission  considers  that  it  would  be  helpful  for  the  Member States  to
designate  contact  points  that  could  operate  as  a  network  with  the  Commission  and
the European Parliament and provide support to the network of independent experts.

2.3. 

Cooperation with the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights

Established in 1999 as an independent institution within the Council of Europe,14 the
Commissioner  for  Human  Rights  is  a  non-judicial  body  responsible  for  promoting
respect for and education in human rights, as derived from the Council  of Europe's
instruments.  It  submits  an  annual  report  to  the  Committee  of  Ministers  and  the
Parliamentary Assembly.

As  part  of  the  cooperation  between  the  Council  of  Europe  and  the  European
Community,  contacts  should  be  established  between  the  Council  of  Europe's
Commissioner  and  the  Community  institutions.  The  Commission  is  willing  to
establish such contacts with a view, for example, to mutual exchange of information.

2.4. 

Regular dialogue with civil society

Civil society plays a particularly important monitoring role, both in protecting and in
promoting  fundamental  rights.  It  is  often  thanks  to  reports  by  non-governmental
organisations that public and institutional attention is drawn to breaches but also to
good practices.

The  Commission  would  therefore  like  to  establish  a  regular  dialogue  with  NGOs
responsible for fundamental rights in the Union along the lines of what is done under
its external policy.

2.5. 

Information and education for the public

Education  projects  and  projects  promoting  fundamental  rights  are  already  in  place,
supported by the Community programmes Socrates, Youth and Leonardo da Vinci or
by  other  education  and  culture  programmes,  as  well  as  devised  as  part  of  the
Commission's information policy on the Charter of Fundamental Rights.15

The  Commission  considers  it  would  be  worthwhile  developing  a  public  awareness
and education policy with the Member States and international organisations, like the
Council  of  Europe  and  NGOs  active  in  the  fundamental  rights  field,  which  have
developed a body of practice.

14

15

Resolution  (99)  50  on  the  Council  of  Europe  Commissioner  for  Human  Rights  adopted  by  the
Committee of Ministers on 7 May 1999, at its 104th Session.
The Commission has approved the Community financial contribution for several projects selected after
a  call  for  proposals.  They  seek  to  inform  the  public  about  their  fundamental  rights,  including  the
Charter.

11

                                                
Conclusion

The  European  Union  is  first  and  foremost  a  Union  of  values  and  of  the  rule  of  law.  The
conquest  of  these  values  is  the  result  of  our  history.  They  are  the  hard  core  of  the  Union's
identity and enable every citizen to identify with it.

The Commission  is  convinced  that in this Union  of values it  will not  be necessary  to apply
penalties pursuant to Article 7 of the Union Treaty and Article 309 of the EC Treaty.

But  the  preservation  of  the  common  values  must  be  at  the  centre  of  every  political
consideration and every action of the Union, in order to promote peace and the well-being of
its peoples.

The Commission believes it is contributing  to  achievement  of  that  objective  by  insisting  on
measures  based  on  prevention,  strict  monitoring  of  the  situation  in  the  Member States,
cooperation  between  the  institutions  and  with  the  Member States  and  lastly,  public
information and education.

12

Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union

ANNEX

1. On a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or
by  the  Commission,  the  Council,  acting  by  a  majority  of  four  fifths  of  its  members  after
obtaining the assent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a
serious  breach  by  a  Member State  of  principles  mentioned  in  Article  6(1),  and  address
appropriate recommendations to that State. Before making such a determination, the Council
shall hear the Member State in question and, acting in accordance with the same procedure,
may  call  on  independent  persons  to  submit  within  a  reasonable  time  limit  a  report  on  the
situation in the Member State in question.

The Council shall regularly verify that the grounds on which such a determination was made
continue to apply.

2. The Council, meeting in the composition of the Heads of State or Government and acting
by unanimity on a proposal by one third of the Member States or by the Commission and after
obtaining  the  assent  of  the  European  Parliament,  may  determine  the  existence  of  a  serious
and persistent breach by a Member State of principles mentioned in Article 6(1), after inviting
the government of the Member State in question to submit its observations.

3.  Where  a  determination  under  paragraph  2  has  been  made,  the  Council,  acting  by  a
qualified majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application
of  this  Treaty  to  the  Member State  in  question,  including  the  voting  rights  of  the
representative  of  the  government  of  that  Member State  in  the  Council.  In  doing  so,  the
Council shall take into account the possible consequences of such a suspension on the rights
and obligations of natural and legal persons.

The obligations of the Member State in question under this Treaty shall in any case continue
to be binding on that State.

4.  The  Council,  acting  by  a  qualified  majority,  may  decide  subsequently  to  vary  or  revoke
measures taken under paragraph 3 in response to changes in the situation which led to their
being imposed.

5. For the purposes of this Article, the Council shall act without taking into account the vote
of  the  representative  of  the  government  of  the  Member State  in  question.  Abstentions  by
members present in person or represented shall not prevent the adoption of decisions referred
to  in  paragraph  2.  A  qualified  majority  shall  be  defined  as  the  same  proportion  of  the
weighted votes of the members of the Council concerned as laid down in Article 205(2) of the
Treaty establishing the European Community.

13