The traty of Lisbon: a new european agenda for human rights. Filling the gap between solemn declarations and the reality on the ground
| Autor | Elvira Méndez Pinedo |
| Cargo | Professor of European Law, University of Iceland |
| Páginas | 419-451 |
I.3. DERECHO DE LA UNIÓN EUROPEA
THE TREAT Y OF LISBON:
A NEW EUROPEAN AGENDA FOR HUM AN R IGHTS.
FILL ING TH E GAP BETW EEN SOL EMN DEC LARATION S
AND THE REAL ITY ON THE GROUND
Por D.ª E M-P
Professor of European Law
University of Iceland
«While we belong, for sure, to our country, to our city and v illage, there is
however a higher belongi ng which unites all of us. This higher belonging is one
to a frontierless world. Gius tizia, tu sei la nostra patr ia»*.
Professor Mauro C appelletti
Resume n
Este art ículo se refiere a la protección de los derechos humanos en la Unión Europ ea
(U.E.) a ntes y después del Tratado de L isboa que entró en vigor el 1 de diciembre de
2009, con especi al énfa sis en la Ca rta de Derechos Fundamentales y la adhesión de la
U.E. a la Convención de Derechos Humano s (C.E.D.H.). Se analiza n además los próxi -
mos do s retos má s importante s: la neces aria reducción del «déficit de implementación»
y la import ancia de mejorar «el acce so a la ju sticia». El objetivo de hacer efectivos los
derechos de todos los ciudadanos debe constituir la primera prior idad en l a agend a
político legal del siglo XX I a todos los niveles.
Por e sta raz ón, la Parte I ofrece un breve resu men sobre los log ros en materia de
protección de los derechos huma nos en la U.E. antes del Tratado de Li sboa. La Pa rteII
examina cómo la U.E. ha replanteado el papel de los derechos fundamenta les en los
nuevos Trata dos de la U.E. para dar va lor jurídico vinculante a la Car ta Europea de los
* M. Cappelletti, Pre sident of t he Int ernational Associ ation for Procedural Law, «Some re-
flexions on the ru le of procedural scholarship today», in Justic e and Efficiency. General Repor ts and
Discussions , The Eight World Conference on Procedural Law, D utch Associat ion for Procedural L aw,
ed. By Dr. W. Wedek ind, Kluwer- Deventer, 1989, 460 pp. See also M. S and F. C (eds.),
«Internationa l Ass ociation of Procedu ral L aw», In honorem Mauro Cappe lletti (1927-2004), Tribute to
an Inte rnational P rocedural Law yer, Kluwer Law Int., The Hague, 2005, 79 pp.
Derechos Funda mentales y para proporc ionar la base jur ídica para la neces aria adhesión
de la U.E . a la C.E .D.H. En la Pa rte III, se cierra este e studio recordando la importancia
de l as próximas batalla s pendientes, es decir, la necesid ad de reducir lo que se conoce
como «déficit de implementación» de estos derecho s desde la perspectiva de la teorí a
juridical y metodología del «acceso a la justicia». Dos cuestiones fu ndamentales deben
estar a la orden del día: la necesidad de dotar de efic acia a los derechos ya declar ados
a todos los niveles (europeo, n acional y local) y l a de proporcionar el mayor acceso a
la justicia para to dos los ciudadanos. De esta ma nera se podría llenar la brech a entre
las declaraciones solemnes y la re alidad sobre el terreno. A la hora de concluir, el autor
trata de sugerir la s principa les direct rices que deben i nspirar l as agenda s de derechos
humanos de las admi nistraciones naciona les y locales europeas par a la próxima década.
Abstr act
This a rticle addresse s the protection of human ri ghts in the European Union (E.U.)
before and after the Treaty of Lisbon which entered into force on the 1st December 2009
with special emphasis on the E.U. Charter of Fundamenta l R ights and the a ccession
of the E.U. to the European Convention of Human Rights (E.C.H.R.). Fur thermore, it
discusse s the next two import ant challenges: the necessary reduction of the «implemen-
tation deficit» and the importa nce of improvi ng «access to justice». The goal of making
rights effective for a ll cit izens must constitute the first priority in the agenda s for the
21st centur y at all adm inistrative levels.
For this reason, Par t I gives a brief sketch on ach ievements regarding the protection
of huma n rights in the E.U. before t he Treaty of Lisbon. Pa rt II examines how the E.U.
has rethought the role of f undamental right s within the new Treaty of Lisbon by giving
legal binding value to the E.U. Charter of Fundamental Rights and by providing the
legal basis for t he accession of the E.U. to the E.C. H.R. In Part III the exercise is closed
by remind ing the impor tance of t he next battles still p ending, that is to say, the need to
reduce what is known as «implementation def icit» of these rights from t he perspect ive
of the «access-to- justice» legal thought and methodology. As it w ill be explained, the
fundamental questions remaining on the agenda refer to the necessit y of ma king rights
effective at all levels (local, national and European levels) and providing the greatest
access to justice for a ll citizens ( judicial and non-judicial remedies). This wou ld finally fi ll
the gap between solemn declarations and the reality on the ground. Together w ith the
conclusions, the author attempts to suggest the ma in guidelines that should inspire the hu-
man rights agendas of European, national and local Administrations for the next decade.
SUMARIO
I. INTRODUCT ION
II. THE PROT ECTION OF HUMA N RIGHTS IN THE E .U. BEFORE THE
TREAT Y OF LISBON. MAIN ACHIEVEM ENTS
III. THE NEW TR EATY OF LISBON (200 7): R ETHINKI NG FUNDAMEN TAL
RIGHTS IN THE E.U.
IV. AN AGENDA FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: IMPLEMEN TING FUN DAMENTAL
HUMA N RIGHT S AND IMPROVING ACCESS TO J USTICE I N EUROPE
V. FINAL CONCLUSIONS
Anuario de la Facultad de Derech o, ISSN 0213-988 -X, vol. XXVIII , 2010, 419- 451
I. INTRODUCTION
The most important references on Human Rights debates are the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (U.D.H.R.)1, the European Convention for the
Protection of Human R ights (E.C.H.R .)2 and the European Union (E.U.) Charter
of Funda mental R ights3. Each of these international conventions ha s a different
scope4. Th is article is written from the perspective of E .U. Law, focu sing mainly
on the E .U. Charter of Fundamental rights and the new Treaty of Lisbon signed
in December 2007 which entered into force in December 20 09. Incidental refer-
ences to the E.C.H.R. w ill be done when they are needed.
Special focus on the European Union is justified by the fact that it is to date
the only partly intergovernmental, partly supranational organisation, for which
1 After the Second World War, t he adoption of the Universa l Declarat ion of Human Rights i n
1948 began a new era, where rights and dut ies under internationa l law were gr adually conferred
upon t he individua l. Thank s to t his declar ation, today it is clear t hat indiv iduals have legal r ights
and are subject to i nternational law.
2 The European Convent ion on Human Rights (E.C.H .R.) is an i nternational t reaty which w as
signed on 4 November 1950 in Rome under t he auspices of the C ouncil of Europe. It s ets out a
number of fundament al rights. To date, 47 countries across the Europe an continent have rati fied
this convention, including all 2 7 E.U. countr ies. However, the E.U. itsel f is not, and cu rrently can -
not be, a part y. The fundament al r ights it protects must be respected by the na tional courts in
all states that are si gnatories, and i ndividuals can bring cases against the signatory states in the
European Court of Human Rights in St rasbourg (which is NOT an E.U. C ourt).
3 It should not be confused with the E.C.H.R. Not onl y the actors but als o the scope of the
two European texts differs in several issues. The C ouncil of Europe Convention relates solely to
civil and political rights. T he European C harter contai ns extra element s, such as the right to good
administ ration, workers social rights, personal data protection and bio-eth ics. T he E.U. Charter
also expands on the convent ions provision s on t he right of access to law and just ice. The Charter
insists that this r ight must involve bei ng heard by a judge, and not merel y by a national admini s-
trative body.
4 With some exception, it must be reminded th at the domain of inter national law has been,
to a l arge extent, t hat of stat es. St ates are t he pri mary institutions calle d upon to promote hu-
man r ights; it i s also generally st ates that are respon sible for v iolations of human right s. Although
non-state actors can also violat e human right s, for the time being, in European Law it rema ins
the responsibility of t he state to address such viola tions. The politica l debate concerning the ap -
propriateness of expanding human ri ghts scrut iny to non-state actors is dis cussed i n the book of
A. C , Human Ri ghts Obligations of Non-State Actor s, Oxford Univers ity Press, 20 06, 613 pp. For
some, extendi ng human right s to cover non- state actors triviali zes human ri ghts and allow s abusive
governments to distract us from ongoing v iolations. For ot hers, such an extension is essential if
human rights are properl y to add ress contemporary concerns. In th is book some fundamental
assumption s a bout human rights law are challenge d w ith a radical rethin k re garding who has
responsibilit ies and for what.
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba