Source: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.dk/2014/01/
Timestamp: 2017-04-24 13:20:38
Document Index: 276010988

Matched Legal Cases: ['CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ']

Pirates of the Indian Ocean: Legal Base and Democratic Debate Steve Peers
The legal base issue: foreign policy, or development and judicial cooperation? The Council believes that the treaty with Mauritius concerns the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) alone, while the EP believes that the treaty concerns also judicial cooperation and development. In this case, the choice of legal base has far greater consequences than usual. Either way, the treaty had to be agreed unanimously by the Council, since both parties agree that it concerns foreign policy at least in part. But if the Council is right, and the treaty only concerns foreign policy, then: the EP did not even have to be consulted; the treaty had to be negotiated by the EU foreign policy High Representative; and the CJEU has no jurisdiction (except the jurisdiction to rule on whether the Council used the right Treaty base, as in this case: see Article 275 TFEU). If the EP is right, then: the EP had the power of consent over the treaty; the treaty had to be negotiated by the Commission; and the CJEU has its full usual jurisdiction.
The Advocate-General also rejected the use of the EU’s powers concerning criminal judicial cooperation. In his view, the external use of the EU’s justice and home affairs powers must ‘have a close link with freedom, security and justice within the Union’, namely ‘a direct link between the aim of the internal security of the Union and the judicial and/or police cooperation which is developed outside the Union’. This was distinct from a CFSP measure which had the objective of, ‘first and foremost, peace, stability and democratic development in a region outside the Union’. In this case, transferring pirates to East African states was too far removed from the development of the EU’s justice and home affairs policies.
Finally, the Advocate-General rejected the use of the EU’s development policy powers, since the assistance which the EU gives to Mauritius is linked only to the application of the rules on the transfer of pirates, which constitute (in his view) a CFSP measure.
It makes sense to apply the same legal base rules to the conclusion of international treaties as apply to the adoption of internal legislation, since the Treaty drafters have forged a strong link between those two facets of EU decision-making. On the other hand, while it is true to say that a treaty containing rules on the transfer of pirates is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the military operation which catches them, it does not necessarily follow that it has the same legal base. For example, for the EU’s patent legislation to be effective, there need to be rules on patent translation and the creation of a patent court. But the patent translation rules were adopted pursuant to a different decision-making rule, and the patent court will be established pursuant to a treaty between Member States. The legal base of the treaty with Mauritius should depend only on the content of the specific rules in the treaty with Mauritius. Here, the arguments are finely balanced. The Advocate-General makes a persuasive case that EU military operations can use civilian assets, and that the EU’s justice and home affairs powers can be used externally only where there is a sufficient link to the EU’s internal rules in this area. Incidentally, this line of argument strangles at birth the idea (floated, as it were, by Italy) that an EU foreign policy measure could establish a military action in the Mediterranean to control immigration towards the EU. The link between such an action and the EU’s immigration, asylum and border control powers is blindingly obvious.
Let’s go back to the wording of the rule. First, a textual interpretation. Unlike the rules regarding the negotiation and conclusion of treaties by the EP, it makes no distinction between CFSP and other treaties. So prima facie, the two types of treaties must be placed on the same footing as regards information for the EP. Secondly, a contextual interpretation. The Advocate-General’s view of this rule is that it is designed to supplement the EP’s subsequent role as regards concluding the treaty concerned. But the Treaty makes no such link expressly. So the difference in wording between this rule and the rules on the EP’s role in concluding treaties suggests that it has a different purpose: to facilitate democratic debate as regards any planned treaty.
Holocaust denial and hate crime: Can the EU and its Member States do more? Steve Peers
Implementing the EU legislation Member States had to implement this law, a relic of the pre-Lisbon 'third pillar' of EU law (setting out special rules on policing and criminal law measures) by December 2010, and the Council had to assess the Member States' implementation of the rules, on the basis of the Commission report, by November 2013. So the Commission report is a little late, but most such reports arrive even later (due to Member States' tardy reporting on their implementation). All Member States must apply this law, although the UK is planning to opt out as of December 2014, and does not intend to apply to opt back in. The first crucial legal question is whether Member States have properly implemented their obligations under the Framework Decision. They are obliged to criminalise: public incitement to violence or hatred based on race, et al; dissemination of tracts to the same end; the denial, trivilisation et al of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity as defined in the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court; and denial or trivialisation of the Holocauat. The Commission identifies some apparent breaches of the Framework Decision here; for instance, two Member States insist on some further conditions being met before criminal liability attaches to the first category of actions. Some Member States do not specify that the crimes can apply to an individual or to a group. Two Member States refer to 'nationality' instead of 'national origin'. As regards the Rome Statute crimes and Holocaust denial, some Member States' laws do not refer to all types of actions referred to as regards the first type of crime, or do not fully reflect the obligations as regards Holocaust denial. In particular, two Member States only criminalise Holocaust denial in relation to their own nation or citizens. Some Member States have no specific provisions on these issues, although arguably a general law on incitement to violence that fully covers all of the relevant actions would be sufficient. According to the EU law, Member States must either provide for racist and xenophobic motives to be considered an aggravated circumstance, or provide that courts may take those motives into account. Some Member States restrict this obligation to certain violent crimes only. Furthermore, some Member States attach conditions to the rules regarding liability for legal persons, or do not fully apply the rules on jurisdiction, in particular as regards offences committed over the Internet. As to the future, the Commission makes a number of recommendations to Member States, as regards (for instance) special hate crimes units, the exchange of information, cross-border cooperation, data collection, the rights of victims and comments by opinion leaders. The Commission intends to discuss the correct implementation of the Framework Decision with Member States up to 1 December 2014 - the date when it can begin infringement proceedings as regards pre-Lisbon third pillar legislation. It does not make any mention of any amendment of the legislation, or of the specific issues which the Council is required to review (the issue of judicial cooperation as regards the relevant crimes). Comments The Commission cannot be criticised for holding off on bringing infringement proceedings, since it cannot do so until the end of this year. After that point, this legislation will be another EU measure which the Commission ought to enforce vigorously by means of infringement proceedings if it is, as it claims, committed to ensuring the full implementation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in practice. It would be possible to clarify the interpretation of the Framework Decision if it were amended, and more importantly, its provisions could be improved. For instance, the recommendations which the Commission makes to Member States in its report could be incorporated into the legislation (except for the point concerning the rights of victims, which will become binding anyway once the EU's crime victims directive is implemented in 2015). The Commission does not consider the issue of possible amendments at all. More significantly, the scope of the Framework Decision (or rather, the future Directive) could be enlarged, to cover other forms of hate crime. The Commission perhaps avoids mentioning the issue of amendment because of the lack of a specific legal base dealing with this issue in the current Treaties. True, racism and xenophobia are not listed among the crimes the EU can combat in Article 83(1) TFEU. But they surely fall within the scope of Article 83(2) TFEU, which gives the EU power to adopt criminal law measures when necessary in relation to a matter which the EU has harmonised. Since the EU has banned discrimination on grounds of race as regards all goods and services (inter alia), and it surely would interfere with equal access to transport, shopping and recreation (for instance) if crimes of racial hatred were committed, it could be argued that further EU measures could be adopted on this basis. The same would apply to bias crimes against women, given the scope of EU harmonisation already on the issue of gender equality. However, it would be harder to argue that a legal power exists for the adoption of EU measures banning hate crime on grounds of sexual orientation, disability, religion or age, since the EU has only harmonised the law as regards equality in employment as regards those issues. When or if the Commission's proposed Directive extending equal treatment as regards these four grounds of discrimination is adopted, then a further measure relating to hate crime on the same grounds could be proposed. Barnard & Peers: chapter 25, chapter 20
The EU’s Financial Supervisory Authorities: Mind the Accountability Gap Dr Marios Costa, Lecturer in Law, City Law School
In 2010 we witnessed the establishment of three European Supervisory Authorities: the European Banking Authority; the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority; and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). They were set up by the Union as a response to the current, unprecedented financial crisis. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) gave on 22 January 2014 a significant judgment in relation to more recent legislation empowering ESMA to adopt legally binding measures upon financial institutions of the Member States in the event of a threat to the proper functioning of the financial market or to the stability of the financial system of the EU (Case C-270/12, United Kingdom v Council & Parliament). The legal action concerned the annulment of Article 28 of Regulation 236/2012 in relation to ESMA’s power to ban ‘short selling’, a practice which permits the sale of shares not owned by the vendor at the time of sale with the view of benefiting from a fall in the share price. There are broader constitutional implications which this judgment highlights. The judgment, which does not come as a surprise, clarifies issues in relation to the powers that can be lawfully exercised by EU independent financial regulatory agencies. This commentary examines, with all due respect, whether the recent ruling will remedy the lack of accountability of EU agencies.
ESMA can draft highly detailed technical and implementing standards which are later on adopted by the Commission under Article 290 and 291 TFEU (which concern, respectively, the adoption of delegated and implementing acts). In relation to Article 290 TFEU, the Commission sets out the conditions and specifies the criteria under which the agency can adopt further regulatory measures of a technical nature, but the drafting of the technical measure always comes from the agency. A very important issue here is whether the Commission has the sources, technical knowledge and scientific expertise required to control the appropriateness of the measures drafted by the agency. If the Commission decides not to adopt the measures drafted by ESMA then it is required to send it back to the Agency and explain why it has decided to not to endorse it (see Article 10 and 15 of Regulation 1095/2010). Interestingly enough, there are extreme limitations imposed upon the Commission. According to the preamble of Regulation 1095/2010, the Commission can only depart form the draft measures prepared by the agency only if they are incompatible with EU law, violate the principle of proportionality or contradict the EU’s financial services legislation. Facts of the case
The UK government challenged the legality of article 28 of Regulation 236/2012 on the power of the ESMA to ban short selling practices. The Regulation was adopted on the basis of Article 114 TFEU which allows for the enactment of harmonisation measures necessary for the establishment and the functioning of the internal market. The rationale for the adoption of the Regulation and in particular Article 28 is for the ESMA to interfere and issue legally binding measures against the financial institutions of the Member States to prohibit short selling in the event of a threat to the proper functioning and integrity of financial markets or to the stability of the whole or part of the EU’s financial system. The ESMA has wide discretionary power to issue such bans, and it is the only adjudicator of whether such a threat exists. The UK raised four arguments. First of all, it argued that ESMA is given political powers which entail policy choices to adopt legally binding measures vis-a-vis the financial institutions of the Member States. These powers do not fit well with the old Meroni line of case law, which states that delegation to autonomous bodies is considered to be acceptable as long as Commission retains control powers to monitor how the agency is carrying out its tasks. According to the Meroni line of reasoning, the conferment of broad discretionary power, reconciling competing public interests, to an EU agency cannot be justified on the basis of scientific expertise. In any case, the CJEU has several times emphasised that ‘[s]cientific legitimacy is not a sufficient basis for the exercise of public authority’ (Pfizer). However, in this judgment the Court of Justice ruled that the parent EU legislation, and the delegated and implementing acts adopted pursuant to that legislation by the Commission, sufficiently circumscribed ESMA’s powers. Secondly, the UK argued that the power for ESMA to ban short-selling breached the principle in Romano that the EU legislature could not delegate the power to adopt ‘quasi-legislative measures of general application’. However, the Court ruled that Romano did not add anything to Meroni, noting in particular that the Treaty provides for agencies to adopt measures of general application. Thirdly, the UK argued that Articles 290 and 291 TFEU (the provisions on the adoption of delegated and implementing acts) were in effect exclusive, ruling out a contrario the delegation of powers like the short-selling ban to EU agencies. In the Court’s view, the Treaty (in particular, the rules on judicial review) presupposed that agencies could adopt binding acts, and the provision allowing ESMA to ban short selling had to be seen in its overall legal context. Finally, the UK argued that Article 114 TFEU cannot constitute a correct legal basis for the adoption of the rules laid down in Article 28 of the Regulation. Earlier in 2013 the Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen concluded in favour of the annulment due to concerns in relation to the appropriateness of the legal basis of Article 114 TFEU. According to his view, the adoption of legally binding measures by the ESMA addressed to the financial institutions of the Member States cannot be considered as EU harmonising measures or uniform practices which could be justified under Article 114 TFEU. The Court, however, decided not to follow the non-binding view of the Advocate General and ruled that Article 114 TFEU constitutes an appropriate legal basis for the adoption of Article 28 of the Regulation since it aims (a) to approximate national law and (b) to improve the conditions for the establishment and functioning of the internal market in the financial field. On the first point, the Court brought together its prior case law which had specified that Article 114 could be a legal base for the creation of EU agencies (Case C-217/04 UK v Council and EP), and for the conferral of power upon the EU institutions to adopt legally binding acts (Case C-359/92 Germany v Council). Comments
The Court’s judgment has significantly clarified the law relating to the conferral of powers to EU agencies. First of all, the Meroni doctrine, while still in force, does not prevent the conferral of such power when the relevant legislative framework is sufficiently detailed. Secondly, the Romano ruling adds nothing to Meroni. Thirdly, Articles 290 and 291 TFEU do not prevent the conferral of powers upon agencies, at least where such conferral of power takes place in the context of an overall legislative framework. Finally, at least the internal market powers of the EU (and arguably, by analogy, other legal bases) do not prevent the delegation of powers to agencies to adopt legally binding measures. The Court’s ruling gives significant emphasis to the fact that the measures adopted by the EU financial agencies are subject to judicial review under Article 263 (4) TFEU. However, regulatory and implementing technical standards drafted by the EU financial agencies are subject to the Commission’s endorsement and although they constitute the basis for the adoption of the final act by the Commission they are technically and legally preparatory documents and as such they are excluded, in principle, from judicial scrutiny. Additionally, non-privileged applicants, such as financial institutions negatively affected by any ban adopted by ESMA, might not be in a position to satisfy the EU’s locus standi requirements. They may be excluded from direct actions under Article 263 (4) TFEU on the basis that the ban adopted still entails separate implementing measures within the meaning of the Telefonica judgment. With great respect to the ESMA judgment, the fact that the founding Regulation of the ESMA [Regulation 1095/2010, Article 10(1) and 15 (1)] limits the power of the Commission to proceed with the drafting of technical standards or to unilaterally amend them empowers EU financial agencies with wide political decisions which entail policy choices. The wider implications of the judgment and also of the current framework establishing the agencies seem to suggest what has already pointed out in the literature that ‘in any event, it is clear that EU independent agencies are independent in the sense of being relatively free of control by any other organs of the [Union]’ (Shapiro, 1997). Another point is whether the Commission or the agency will be held responsible in cases where adverse consequences occur if the assessment by the agency proves to be wrong and has further financial repercussions? Moreover, according to the ESMA judgment additional powers could be conferred on agencies to adopt acts of general application outside the scope of articles 290 and 291 TFEU. The delegated and implementing acts of the Commission which detailed ESMA’s powers to adopt the short-selling bans were themselves drafted by…ESMA. This raises important questions in relation to the accountability of ESMA which the Court seemed, with all due respect, to ignore.
The judgment Mr. Koushkaki, an Iranian citizen living in Iran, applied to the German authorities for a Schengen visa to vist Germany. The German authorities refused, on the grounds that he did not have proof of subsistence for his stay or return. These are among the conditions for entry set out in the Schengen Borders Code, and also apply to the issue of Schengen visas under the EU visa code. So Mr. Koushkaki applied again, this time explaining that he wished to visit his brother, who resided in Germany after obtaining asylum there. This second application was again rejected, this time on the grounds that Mr. Koushkaki had not shown an intention to return. Mr. Koushkaki challenged this decision, and the national court, believing that the authorities had refused Mr. Koushkaki on grounds not referred to in the visa code, asked the Court of Justice (inter alia) whether Mr. Koushkaki had the right to a visa if the conditions in the code were satisfied and none of the grounds for refusal listed in the code were applicable. The Advocate-General took the firm view that there was no right to a Schengen visa, but the Court took a different approach. It reworded the national court's main question, answering instead the question whether the list of grounds for refusal of a visa set out in the Code was exhuastive. In the Court's view, the list was exhaustive, taking account of the wording, context and objectives of the Code. First of all, the wording of the Code was ambiguous. Secondly, the context included: a reference to only those grounds for refusal listed in the code; a standard form for giving reasons for a rejection of a visa application which provided for no other reasons for refusal besides those listed in the Code; the wording of the legislation establishing the Visa Information System; and the link between the grounds for refusal of a visa application and the grounds for revocation or annulment of a visa which has already been issued. Since a Member State can annul or revoke a visa issued by another Member State, this presupposed that the 'conditions for the issue of uniform visas are harmonised', so there could be no differences between Member States as to the grounds to refuse a visa. As for the objectives of the visa code, the preamble to the code states that it aims to 'establish the conditions for the issue of uniform visas'. Also, the preamble refers to 'the facilitation of legitimate travel', which would be jeopardised if Member States could add their own grounds for refusal of a visa application. So would the objective of 'preventing different treatment of visa applicants', also referred to in the preamble. Such variations in national practice would also encourage 'visa shopping', ie applications being to the Member State with the most favourable rules (leading to what a labour or company lawyer would call a 'race to the bottom'). Having said that, the CJEU did emphasise that Member States' authorities had a lot of discretion in applying the standard criteria. They have to consider the 'personality of the applicant', his or her integration in the country of origin, the 'political, social and economic situation of that country' and the possible threat to public policy, internal security, public health or international relations of the Member States. Some of these factors are not, in fact, expressly referred to in the visa code. The Court of Justice then addressed the national court's other questions. It clarified that there need only be 'reasonable doubt', not certainty, that an applicant had the intention of leaving the country when the visa expired, and spelled out the criteria which had to be taken into account. Finally, it required the national court to interpret national law consistently with the judgment, even though that national law provided for residual discretion to refuse visa applications. Comments The Court's judgment is surely relevant by analogy to applications for most of the various forms of short-stay visa referred to in the visa code: airport transit visas, multiple-entry visas and visas with limited territorial validity. It is doubtful whether it applies to the issue of visas as the border, since the code says that such visas 'may' be issued if the relevant conditions are met. More obviously, the judgment is relevant by analogy to the Schengen Borders Code, given the similar wording and context of the rules on refusal of entry in the latter code, along with the use of a similar standard form to give reasons to refused applicants. It is also arguable that the judgment applies by analogy to some or all of the EU's legal migration legislation: indeed the same German court has sent questions to the Court of Justice on exactly this point, as regards the students' Directive (Ben Alaya). On the key question of the 'right' to a Schengen visa, the Court's ruling is welcome and its reasoning is convincing, in light of the structure and objectives of the visa code. It is notable that the Court sets out its ruling in technical language, referring to the exhaustive nature of the list of grounds for refusal, rather than a 'right to a visa'. But this is a distinction without a difference: national authorities must nonetheless issue the visa if the conditions are satisfied. As Mary Poppins might say, the different wording is simply a 'spoonful of sugar' to help the national authorities accept the Court's ruling. Anyway, as the CJEU makes clear, those authorities have a lot of discretion left when they apply those criteria. As noted above, some of the factors referred to by the Court are not referred to in the Code. In particular, assessment of the applicant's 'personality' surely requires a psychiatrist, but it is doubtful that many consulates employ any of them. The position of potential asylum-seekers According to the United Nations (Geneva) Convention on refugee status, a person cannot be considered a refugee until he or she is outside the country of origin. But of course a person fearing persecution on Convention grounds (or needing subsidiary protection) might well apply for a visa with the intention of leaving the country of origin in order to apply for asylum in the country which issues the visa. On the facts of the Koushkaki case, it is strking that when Mr. Koushkaki mentioned that his brother had obtained asylum in Germany, the German authorities refused his application for a visa on the grounds that he had not proved his intention to return. Since Mr. Koushkaki might be assumed to have had life experiences comparable to his brother's, the national authorities might well have feared that he intended to apply for asylum in Germany. (Incidentally, the Dublin rules would have allocated Germany responsibility for his claim, if the German authorities had given him a visa). Can potential asylum-seekers rely on this ruling to insist on the right to a Schengen visa? The key problem is that they do not have an intention to leave the country which might issue the visa to them. They would need to offer enough evidence that they do have such an intention to dispel any reasonable doubts of the national authorities. While such evidence might not be offered honestly, Article 31 of the Geneva Convention implicitly makes clear that the need to flee persecution justifies breaches of immigration law. While Article 21(1) of the visa code refers to a need to decide whether an applicant presents a 'risk of illegal immigration', this clause should not be used against potential asylum-seekers, since they have the right to stay in the territory (subject to the conditions in the asylum procedures Directive), and the case-law of the CJEU on the Returns Directive confirms that they cannot be considered to be irregular migrants. Potential asylum-seekers would also have to meet the other relevant conditions, such as holding a valid travel document, having subsistence, and not being listed on the Schengen Information System. For many, these conditions will be hard to fulfil.
However, as suggested above, following Koushkaki it could be argued that Member States are obliged to issue a visa with limited territorial validity (ie valid in one Member State only: this is good enough for an asylum-seeker to flee persecution, provided that the Member State concerned complies with its obligations towards asylum-seekers). Such visas 'shall' be issued if the Member State 'considers it necessary on humanitarian grounds, for reasons of national interest or because of international obligations', to derogate from the rules in the Schengen Borders Code (among other things). Arguably the binding nature of the relevant international obligations, along with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the use of the word 'shall', override the discretion suggested by the words 'consider it necessary'. If this argument is correct, then the Koushkaki judgment has opened a significant crack in the wall of 'Fortress Europe' for would-be asylum-seekers. Barnard & Peers: chapter 26
Comments The judgment of the Court sheds some light on the requisites necessary in order to be considered a dependant. Owing to this judgment an applicant simply has to prove that he or she has been receiving financial support from the EU citizen family member that he or she wishes to join. Simply showing the regularity of the remittances seems to be enough to fulfil the requisite of dependency (see the Advocate-General’s Opinion, para. 59).
With Reyes, the Court has begun to give more concrete guidance to national courts on how to apply the concept of dependence. This improvement was long awaited due to the lack of indications in any sense from the legislation. Given the new development introduced by this case it is likely that in the future other challenging questions on this issue will arise. Barnard & Peers: chapter 13
If a Member State does this, the Commission can no longer collect penalty payments, unless it can establish the breach all over again by bringing proceedings again under Article 258 and then Article 260. And when this second round of proceedings concludes years later, what is to stop the Member State making another small change to its national law, compelling the Commission to start Article 258 proceedings a third time if it wishes to (re-)establish the continuing breach? The Court never examines the issue of effectiveness, although the Commission had raised it. As for the reasons which the Court does give, it can't really be said that the Commission or General Court would be encroaching upon the Court of Justice's exclusive jurisdiction as regards infringement proceedings, since such a case would only arise in the first place after a first round of judgments under Articles 258 and 260.
Of course, such a change in the EU's judicial architecture is undesirable as long as the General Court is overworked. Yet its workload could be alleviated if more judges were appointed to it. The Court of Justice has suggested this, but its proposal is blocked in the Council, due to squabbles about which Member States would get the extra judges. So perhaps there is a 'hidden agenda' to this judgment? Barnard & Peers: chapter 10
case-law of EU courts,
Infringement procedure,
jurisdiction of EU courts
When does the EU Charter of Rights apply to private parties? Steve Peers
The judgment First of all, the CJEU ruled that the French law breaches the Directive, which does not provide for the exclusion of such categories of employee from its scope. But how can this breach of EU law be remedied, on the facts of this case? The Court states that while the relevant rule in the Directive is precise enough to have direct effect, Directives (following well-known and long-established case law) cannot be invoked against private parties. Also, the CJEU confirms prior case law which states that the principle of indirect effect (as it is usually called), ie the requirement for national courts to interpret national law to be consistent with EU Directives, meets its limits where (as in this case) there is an unambiguous contradiction between the national law and the relevant EU Directive. Towards the end of the judgment, the Court mentions the long-established prospect of suing a Member State for damages for its failure to implement a Directive correctly. However, on the facts of this case, it's hard to see how that remedy could work well. Perhaps the union or an employee could argue that if worker consultation had been established, it could have persuaded the employer not to make redundancies (for instance). But really what the unions seek to achieve here is to have worker consultation established in the first place. So this brings us to the heart of the matter: does the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights affect the issue? Article 27 of the Charter states that:
'Workers or their representatives must, at the appropriate levels, be guaranteed information and consultation in good time in the cases and under the conditions provided for by Union law and national laws and practices.’ Previously, in the judgment in Kucukdeveci, building on its prior judgment in Mangold, the CJEU had stated that employees could invoke the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age against private employers, and this principle is set out in the Charter (Article 21(1)). Can Article 27 of the Charter also been invoked against private employers? No it can't. According to the Court, it's 'clear from the wording of Article 27 of the Charter that, for this article to be fully effective, it must be given more specific expression in European Union or national law'. More precisely, 'It is not possible to infer from that Article or the explanations to it' that the rule in the Directive is a 'directly applicable' rule which addresses a prohibition to Member States from excluding categories of employees when implementing the relevant Directive. The CJEU distinguishes its prior judgment in Kucukdeveci, on the grounds that the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age laid down in the Charter 'is sufficient in itself to confer on individuals an individual right which they may invoke as such.' Finally, the Court states that the Charter Article and the Directive cannot be combined to require that the national law breaching the Directive has to be set aside, because 'that [Charter] article by itself does not suffice to confer on individuals a right which they may invoke as such', so 'it could not be otherwise if it is considered in conjunction with that directive'.
Comments The Court's judgment has clarified some key points. The old argument that the Charter can never apply to private parties at all, since Article 51 of the Charter (which sets out its scope) states that it is addressed to EU institutions and other EU bodies, plus the Member States only when they implement EU law - and so implicitly not to private parties - has surely been rejected by the Court here. While the Court does not reject this argument expressly, its judgment obviously assumes that the Charter can apply to private parties in some cases, otherwise why distinguish between Articles 21(1) and 27 of the Charter? The key point is that the underlying challenge here (as in Kucukdeveci) is to a law adopted by a Member State which breaches an EU obligation, so the Charter still applies to the dispute even on a narrow interpretation of Article 51. The Court has also expressly rejected the argument - which was a reasonable extrapolation of its judgments in Mangold and Kucukdeveci - that somehow the legal effect of a Directive could be 'supercharged' when combined with a relevant provision of the Charter. Rather, the Court makes clear that the Charter Article must be judged separately. Most importantly, we now have a test for determining whether Charter provisions can apply against private parties - whether the Charter provision requires 'more specific expression' in national or EU law on the one hand, or on the other hand whether the Charter Article is 'sufficient in itself to confer on individuals an individual right which they may invoke as such'. The Court elaborates upon the first test, but not the second. It seems that Article 27 requires 'more specific expression' because neither that Article nor the explanations concerning it indicate that the key clause in the worker consultation Directive is a directly applicable prohibition against excluding categories of employees from that Directive. With great respect, the Court's explanation cannot be taken literally. After all, the Charter and the explanations to it make few references to EU legislation, and none of those references indicate that the key rules in the legislation concerned are directly applicable. Most importantly, neither Article 21(1) of the Charter nor the explanations to it make any reference to the framework employment equality Directive (Directive 2000/78); and yet the Court confirms that Article 21(1) can be invoked in litigation brought against private parties. Perhaps the key point is that Article 27 refers to the 'conditions' of national or EU law. Several other Charter provisions refer to national or EU law, but without using the word 'conditions' (for instance, Articles 28 and 30, concerning trade union rights and unfair dismissal). Some key provisions do not refer to national or EU law at all: for instance, Article 31, on the right to 'fair and just working conditions', including regulation of working time. Also, there's a dog that didn't bark in this judgment. Article 52(5) of the Charter sets out a distinction between the legal effect of 'rights' on the one hand, and 'principles' on the other. This distinction is the subject of much academic literature, and was extensively discussed in the Advocate-General's opinion, but the Court doesn't mention it. Neither - for obvious reasons - does the Court mention the Protocol limiting the legal effect of the Charter in the UK and Poland. But of course it could arguably be relevant in litigation in those countries which seeks to apply the Charter against employers.
Conclusions The Court has begun to answer some key questions about the horizontal effect of the Charter. This is an improvement from the most recent judgment on this issue (Case C-282/10 Dominguez), which avoided answering any of them. But the answers in the ASM judgment raise many further questions in turn, which the Court will surely be called upon to resolve in future. Barnard & Peers: chapter 9, chapter 20
Directive 2002/14,
Home Office belatedly issues guidance on Operation Nexus