CYIL 2015

MONIKA FOREJTOVÁ CYIL 6 ȍ2015Ȏ will select the legal system most favorable in the given situation. Halberstam calls this situation plural constitutionalism . This model of a forum shopping can be advantageous especially for legal entities (bigger or supranational corporations) aiming to gain protection of their so-called market human rights. Individuals will continue to be free to use the Strasbourg human rights protection, if that system remains effective. The problem of overload and financial problems still remain and it is widely known that the difficult situation of the ECtHR was meant to be relieved by EU financial contributions foreseen by the draft agreement of EU accession to the Convention. Even though the EU did not accede to the Convention in the end, citizens of member states of the Council of Europe will continue to turn to their national courts and, consequently, to the ECtHR to enforce their individual human rights, regardless of whether a dispute also concerns EU law derived rights. From the point of view of international law, EU Member States remain responsible not only for individual compliance with the Convention but also for compliance of powers transferred to a supranational organization such as the EU. All powers of EU Member States will still have to be exercised in compliance with the European Convention of the Council of Europe in the protection of human rights. 25 It is the continuing dialogue between the two courts, which will form the basis for future settlement of European relations in the matter of human rights – and not only because of the migration waves, which are a European, rather than a EU, issue. 26 The European Union and the Council of Europe, each with its own tribunal, will still be expected to create an effective and consistent system of human rights protection in the big Europe. The way to formulate a special “minimum-maximum” human rights standard must be kept open, including the relation between the Convention and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Such standard will call for a careful creation of equilibrium between the “autonomy” and “authority” of the Strasbourg court and the Luxembourg court. Till this day, both courts have evaded any material conflict by accepting the premise of a sort of constitutional consensus about there being just one minimal standard for Europe. If this dialogue continues, the series of objections expressed in the last opinion given by the CJEU can be overcome via facti without threatening the European Union: Five Years After or is one catalogue of human rights enough?”, organized by the Czech Spciety of European and Comparative Law (http://csesp.cz/english/) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic (http://www.mzv.cz/jnp/en/index.html). 25 M. & Co. v. Germany ( complaint no. 13258/87); Piermont v. France ( complaint no. 15773/89 and no. 15774/89); Cantoni v. France (complaint no. 17862/91); Matthews v. United Kingdom (complaint no. 24833/94); Senator Lines GmbH v. 15 EC Member States ( complaint no. 56672/00); T. I. v. United Kingdom (complaint no. 43844/98). 26 SVOBODA, P.: Úvod do evropského práva (Introduction into European Law). Prague: C.H. Beck, 2013, p. 140

218