Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Human Dignity in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and its Interpretation Before the European Court of Justice

  • Published:
Liverpool Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article argues that the EU Charter’s dignity provisions must be given a specific, expansive European meaning that underpins the importance the EU places on fundamental rights protection as a principle EU value. To this end, the article examines the EU Charter provisions on dignity and critically analyses the case law before the EU Charter had full legal effect and after it did. It finishes with looking at three areas in which the potential for an expansive interpretation of dignity could help bring the EU closer to its people and fully respect and protect dignity: asylum, criminal justice and sexual orientation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. EU Commission (2012).

  2. Official Journal. C 364: 01.

  3. De Burca (2001).

  4. De Burca (2001).

  5. Former President of Germany.

  6. De Burca (2001).

  7. Official Journal 2000 C 364: 1, updated Official Journal 2010 C 83: 389.

  8. See for instance, Strawson (2002).

  9. This is (potentially) very different to the implicit references to them under the ECHR.

  10. See Jones (2004).

  11. Official Journal. C 303: 17.

  12. Article 52(3) EU Charter.

  13. FRA (2011).

  14. Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, § 32, Series A no. 26, para 33. See X v. France, app. 18020/91, ECommHR report of 17 October 1991, SW v United Kingdom: CR v United Kingdom (1995) 21 EHRR 363; East African Asians v United Kingdom (3 E.H.R.R. 76). Held that ‘publicly to single out a group of persons for differential treatment on the basis of race might, in certain circumstances, constitute a special form of affront to human dignity,’ a decision applied in Moldovan v Romania (41138/98; 64320/01), where the ECtHR upheld the claim of a number of Roma that their rights had been breached under Article 14.

  15. In national constitutions as well as international treaties the first articles are often viewed as the most fundamental of the entire document. This is the case under the German Basic Law, with dignity as the first and supreme fundamental right of all that follow. See below.

  16. It should be remembered that the EU Charter is not only a catalogue of fundamental rights for the citizens of the EU, it applies equally to all those found to be inside the EU territories, regardless of citizenship.

  17. This articulation of human dignity mirrors the philosophy of Kant (1959).

  18. There is ample case law in relation to Article 2 ECHR; this will not be discussed here.

  19. Article 2 German Basic Law.

  20. The ‘troubles’ in Northern Ireland have never been classified as conflict by the UK government (unlike a strong lobby inside Northern Ireland itself), with the resulting application of Resolution 1325 that should be applied and the ICC statute which could be as well.

  21. EU Commission (2012).

  22. The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu. Case No. ICTR-96-4-T. Judgment of 2 September 1998.

  23. MSS v. Belgium and Greece. Application no. 30696/09.

  24. See also Pretty v. the United Kingdom. 2002. no. 2346/02 ECHR III. Para 92.

  25. See, inter alia, Tyrer v. the United Kingdom. 1978. Series A no. 26. Para 52.

  26. There are two further articles of the EU Charter that mention human dignity: rights of the elderly (Article 25) and fair and just working conditions (Article 31). These will not be discussed here as the purpose of the article is to examine Chapter 1(dignity) of the EU Charter.

  27. Available at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/197.htm.

  28. Directive 2011/36/EU of the EP and the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims. Official Journal L 101/1.

  29. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children, supplementing the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. United Nations Treaty Series. 2237: 39. Doc. A/55/383. Available at: http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XVIII-12-a&chapter=18&lang=en.

  30. For example, Bengoetxea et al. (2001); de Witte (2004); Lane (2007); Peers (2004).

  31. Case T-177/01 Jégo-Quéré et Cie SA v Commission, judgment of 3 May 2002. Para 51.

  32. See C-340/99 TNT Traco SpA v Poste Italiane SpA [2001] ECR I-4109; Case C-173/99 R (on the application of BECTU) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2001] ECR I-4881; Cases C 122 & 125/99P D v Council [2001] ECR I-4319; Cases C-20 and 64/00 Booker and Hydro v Scottish Ministers [2003] NPC 89; Case C-49/00 Commission v Italy [2001] ECR I-8575; Case C-131/00 Nilsson, unreported; Case C-459/00 MRAX, unreported; Case C-377/98 Netherlands v Parliament and Council [2001] ECR I-7079; Case C-270/99 P Z v Parliament, unreported; Case C-50/00 P Unión de Pequenos Agricultores v Council [2002] ECR I-6677; Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ECR I-7091; Case C-313/99 Mulligan, unreported; Case C-353/99P Council v Hautala [2001] ECR I-9565; Case C-309/99 Wouters v Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten [2002] ECR I-1577. This is not a complete list, merely an illustration that many Advocates General have referred to the Charter. All these are available at http://europa.eu.int/cj/en/transitpage.htm.

  33. Case C-353/99P Council v Hautala [2001] E.C.R. I-9565. Quoted in CONV 116/02. June 18, 2002: 4.

  34. Case C-377/98 Netherlands v European Parliament and Council. 2001. ECR I-7079.

  35. Case C-168/91 Christos Konstantinidis v. Stadt Altensteig Standesamt. 1993. 3 Common Market Law Review 3: 401.

  36. Case C-13/94 P v. S and Cornwall County Council. 1996. ICR 795.

  37. Case C-105/03 Pupino. 2005. ECR I-5285.

  38. Case C-36/02 Omega. 2004. ECR I-9609.

  39. Case C-303/06 Coleman v. Attridge Law. 2007. IRLR 88.

  40. Case 5-88 Wachauf v Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft. 1989. ECR 2609.

  41. C-260/89 ERT. 1991. ECR I-2925.

  42. Case C-292/97 Kjell Karlsson. 2000. ECR I-2737.

  43. Case C-578/08 Chakroun. 2010. ECR I-1839.

  44. Case C-179/11 Cimade, Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigrés (GISTI) v Ministre de l’Intérieur, de l’Outre-mer, des Collectivités territoriales et de l’Immigration. 2012. Not yet reported.

  45. Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10, N S. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department and M.E., ASM., MT., KP., EH. v. Refugee Applications Commissioner, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. 2011. Available at: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=119024&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=340874.

  46. Para 14.

  47. Para 56.

  48. Para 75. Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10, N S. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department and M.E. (C-493/10), ASM., MT., KP., EH. v. Refugee Applications Commissioner, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in which the Court also referred to recital 5 and article 1 human dignity, Official Journal C 49: 8. See Joined Cases C-175/08, C-176/08, C-178/08 and C-179/08 Salahadin Abdulla and Others. 2010. ECR I-1493, para 53, and Case C-31/09 Bolbol. 2010. ECR I-5539, para 38.

  49. Para 15.

  50. Indeed, there are now many regulations, directives, opinions and decisions that include a similar recital or operative part that includes respect for human dignity including: Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Official Journal L 200: 1; Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code). Official Journal L 105: 1; Directive 2011/99/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the European protection order. Official Journal L 338: 1; Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted. Official Journal L 337: 9; Directive 2010/45/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation. Official Journal L 207: 14; Council Decision of 29 May 2000 to combat child pornography on the Internet. Official Journal L 138: 1. There are many more.

  51. Official Journal. 2008. L 348: 98.

  52. Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.

  53. See earlier. This also related to Article 2 EU Charter. It is possible therefore that both articles will be invoked.

  54. Directive 2011/99/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the European protection order.

  55. Preamble. Para 9.

  56. Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia. 2010. Application no. 25965/04.

  57. C.N. v. UK. 2012. Application no. 4239/08.

  58. For an overview in the UK, see Jones (2010, 2012).

  59. See Jones (2011a, b).

  60. Jones (2011a, b).

  61. Peers (2004).

  62. Rees v. UK. 1986. Series A, No 106 9 EHRR; Cossey v. UK. 1990. Series A, No 184 13 EHRR; Sheffield and Horsham v. UK. 1997. 27 EHRR 163; Goodwin v UK and I v. UK. 2002. 35 EHRR 18; Karner v. Austria. 2004. 38 EHRR 24.

  63. Official Journal C 303: 1. Explanatory Notes.

  64. Paragraphs 100-101. See also Advocate Generals in P v. S (above) and Case C-117/01 K.B. v National Health Service Pensions Agency and Secretary of State for Health. 2004. ECR I-541.

  65. See Case C-236/09 Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats v Conseil des Ministres. 2011. Common Market Law Review 2: 38.

  66. EU Commission (2012). See Article 2 Treaty.

  67. Feldman (2000).

  68. V. Reding, Speech/10/324, ‘How to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights the compass for all EU policies?’, Brussels, 22 June 2010.

References

  • Bengoetxea, J., N. McCormick and L. Moral Soriano 2001. Integration and Integrity in the Legal Reasoning of the European Court of Justice. The European court of justice Chap. 3, eds de Búrca, G. and J.H.H. Weiler, Oxford: OUP.

  • De Burca, G. 2001. The drafting of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. European Law Review 26: 126.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Witte, B., and G.N. Toggenburg. 2004. Human rights and membership of the EU. In The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Chap 3, ed. S. Peers, and A. Ward. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU Agency for Fundamental Rights. 2011. Coping with a fundamental rights emergency. The situation of persons crossing the Greek land border in an irregular manner. Vienna: FRA.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU Commission. 2012. 2011 Report on the application of the EU charter of Fundamental Rights. COM (2012) 169 final. Brussels.

  • Feldman, D. 2000. Human dignity as a legal value—Part II. Public Law 61.(Spring 61–71).

    Google Scholar 

  • Joint communication from Presidents Costa and Skouris. 2011. http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-02/cedh_cjue_english.pdf.

  • Jones, J. 2004. “Common constitutional traditions”: Can the meaning of human dignity under German law guide the ECJ? Public Law 1: 167–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. 2010. Trafficking of women and children in wales, Bristol Law School Working Paper. No 1.

  • Jones, J. 2011a. The responsible court: Creating European familial ties for all’. In Taking responsibility: Law and the changing family, eds. Lind C, H.M. Keating and J. Bridgeman. Farnham: Ashgate.

  • Jones, J. ed. 2011b. ‘Taking “Sex” out of marriage. in the EU.’ In Gender, sexualities and law. Routledge: Glasshouse.

  • Jones, J. 2012. Trafficking of human beings in the UK: A focus on children. Child and Family Law Quarterly 24(1): 77–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. 1959. Foundations of the metaphysics of morals. L. W. Beck. Munich: Beck.

  • Lane, R. 2007. The EU Charter of fundamental rights and the subsisting commitments of EU member states under the ECHR: More variable geometry. Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy 3: 355–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peers, S. 2004. Taking rights away? Limitations and derogations. In The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, ed. S. Peers, and A. Ward. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strawson, J. (ed.). 2002. Law after ground zero. London: Glasshouse Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bristol Law School, UWE, Bristol, UK

    Jackie Jones

Authors
  1. Jackie Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jackie Jones.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jones, J. Human Dignity in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and its Interpretation Before the European Court of Justice. Liverpool Law Rev 33, 281–300 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-012-9121-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-012-9121-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation