CYIL vol. 10 (2019)

EMIL RUFFER CYIL 10 ȍ2019Ȏ of Europe authorities ”. At the same time, it was made clear that the Commission will not enjoy voting rights and will not be involved in the CoE decision-making process. Following the approval of the CM, the SG replied positively to the Commission’s letter and thus the EU status in the CM was significantly enhanced. Participation upon invitation was still short of a standard observer status, which usually encompasses a standing / permanent invitation to participate, but nevertheless it was an important step in this direction. Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, 20 a Joint Declaration 21 was adopted, with the aim to implement measures in order to deepen the partnership and enhance the cooperation. It was stressed that the CoE and the EU “ share the same values and pursue common aims with regard to the protection of democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law ”. In this context, it was acknowledged that the joint programmes greatly benefited the member States which have joined the CoE since 1989 or have applied for CoE membership. In the Appendix to the declaration, it is clearly stated that one of the main objectives of the partnership is to assist countries applying for EU membership in meeting the standards required by the EU. This is the well known concept of the CoE as a “waiting room” for the EU accession, which immediately provokes a question as to the future of the partnership when most of the interested countries have joined the EU. 22 Otherwise the main thrust of the Appendix was the planning, management, implementation and evaluation of joint programmes, and did not bring any changes to the EU’s participation in the CM and other CoE bodies. The most recent and probably the most ambitious document so far, although still not a legally binding agreement, is the Memorandum of Understanding signed on 11 and 23 May 2007 (hereinafter as the “MoU”). 23 It is not surprising that the MoU, signed in the same year as the Treaty of Lisbon, recalls in its Preamble “ the unique contribution of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as other Council of Europe standards and instruments for the protection of the rights of the individuals ”, and at same time takes into account “ the importance of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as Article 6.2 of the European Union Treaty ”. Clearly in the context of the Treaty of Lisbon, early accession of the EU to the ECHR is mentioned as a desirable development which should be examined further. 24 Further, the MoU reiterates that “ The Council of Europe will remain the benchmark for human rights, the rule of law and democracy in Europe. ” 25 20 Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts (Amsterdam, 2 October 1997). 21 Joint Declaration on cooperation and partnership between the Council of Europe and the European Commission (Strasbourg, 3 April 2001). It was signed by Mr Chris Patten for the Commission and by the SG Mr Walter Schwimmer for the CoE. 22 This has, to a large extent, happened with the major EU enlargement in 2004 (10 new Member States joined) and inevitably led to a certain shift of focus from the CoE to the EU membership. 23 Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of Europe and the European Union (Strasbourg, 23 May 2007). It was signed both by the CM Chairman and the SG on behalf of the CoE (on 11 May 2007) and then by both the President of the EU Council and the President of the Commission on behalf of the EU. 24 MoU, para. 20. There were clearly high expectations, and despite the declared political commitment of the EU, the obligation to accede to the ECHR, contained in Article 6(2) TEU, has not been fulfilled yet, due to legal impediments (see note 15 supra ). 25 MoU, para. 10.

40