The paradox is that the EU requires from campaigners conformity with mistily defined ‘rule of jurisprudence ‘ criterions when itself it has no competency ( art. 2-6 TFEU ) to cover with those affairs. That ‘s why it keeps on borrowing legal criterions from the Council of Europe ( CoE ) . There are fundamentally talking two countries where the CoE criterions are adopted as a footing of the EU acquis: the cardinal rights ( has the force of jurisprudence effectual from 1 December 2009 ) and the efficiency of justness ( including the disposal and quality of justness ) . We will analyse below why this is the instance, merely traveling briefly through the cardinal rights and concentrating more on efficiency of justness.
Merely to remind the reader that the CoE is non portion of the EU. Its cardinal end is, foremost and first, the protection of all human rights, at which it is really successful within the model of the ECHR The functions of the ECHR and the ECJ are frequently baffled. As stated by Lebeck, The relation between ECHR as a legal system and the system of European Community jurisprudence has ne’er been wholly clarified [ 1 ] . On one manus are all member-states of the EC/EU besides parties to the ECHR and accepting the legal power of the EctHR, on the other manus, the legal system of the European Community itself is non bound by the ECHR – in any other sense than that ECHR and the case-law of the EctHR can be seen as a portion of the common constitutional traditions of the member-states [ 2 ]In existent fact, these two tribunals are rather different in footings of their instance typology and legal power. The ECJ ‘s chief responsibility is to guarantee that the acquis is applied in the same manner in each Member State. The ECJ activityis based entirely on the acquis ; but sometimes the acquis may affect issues related to human rights.
As it has been stated in one of CoEs functionary paperss, [ th ] vitamin E Council of Europe has no institutional function in the induction of EU statute law ( even though in pattern Council of Europe activities and Instruments may function as beginning of inspiration for EU enterprises ) [ 3 ] .
of Justice, 35 CML Rev. ( 1998 ) 137ff, id. , Primus inter pares. Who is the ultimate defender of cardinal rights in Europe? 25 Euro.L.Rev.
( 2000 ) 3ff. Douglas-Scott, A Tale of Two Courts: Luxembourg, Strasbourg and the Turning European Human Rights Acquis 43 CML Rev. ( 2006 ) 629-665 ; Ress, The legal relationship between the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Communities harmonizing to the European Convention on Human Rights, in Blanke/Mangiameli ( explosive detection systems ) , Regulating Europe under a Constitution ( 2005 ) 279-295 ; Sudre, L’influence du droit international Sur La law communautaire, in Soci? T? Francaise pour lupus erythematosus Droit International( erectile dysfunction ) , Droit International et Droit Communautairem Perspectives Actuelles ( 2000 ) 169-194 ; Weiler, Methods of Protection: Towards a Second and Third Generation of Protection, in Cassese/ Clapham/Weiler ( explosive detection systems ) , Protection of Human Rights in the European Community II ( 1990 ) 555-642.
Strasbourg, 31 March 2008. Retrieved from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/CouncilofEurope.31.03.08.pdf