HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER

ECtHR as an independent supervisory body, tasked with ensuring uniformity and oversight in the application of human rights standards across all signatory states. The ECtHR’s role in establishing a centralized body of precedent enhances the harmonization of human rights law. It creates a robust legal framework that Member States can follow, helping to prevent fragmentation that might arise from disparate interpretations. This centralized interpretative authority promotes fair and equitable treatment across different jurisdictions, ensuring consistent applications of justice. In conclusion, the ECtHR’s interpretative primacy serves as a standard-bearer for justice, equality, and cohesive protection of human rights across Europe. In the context of European legal pluralism, the collaboration between the CJEU and the ECtHR remains essential, regardless of the outcome of EU accession to the ECHR. The two courts must work together. As A. Rosas aptly observes in his article: “As legal systems and subsystems are interacting in a pluralist Europe, courts must interact too”. 31 However, tensions persist between the two courts. Jasper Krommendijk highlights this in his analysis, noting that the CJEU has expressed dissatisfaction with the ECtHR. Specifically, the CJEU accuses the Strasbourg Court of insufficiently considering the nuances of EU law in its decisions. 32 This tension is evident in a recent trend where the CJEU has noticeably reduced its references to ECtHR rulings. From my perspective, the core issue with the EU’s potential accession to the ECHR lies in how it will integrate into European law. The ECHR has been a cornerstone for human rights protection in Europe for over 70 years, supported by a well-established system of case law and complaint procedures. Incorporating it into the EU legal framework, which was primarily designed for objectives other than human rights protection, seems incongruous. Unlike documents created specifically within the EU context, the ECHR’s long-standing purpose and structure might not align seamlessly with the EU’s legal system. From the perspective of teleological interpretation, it seems to me that granting exclusive prerogative rights to the CJEU to interpret ECHR law is not the intended outcome. The primary rationale for the CJEU’s authoritative role is to ensure clarity regarding which European institution has the ultimate authority to interpret EU law. Additionally, when an institution enacts legislation, it must designate the body empowered to provide a binding interpretation of such law, whether through autonomous, judicial, or doctrinal means. However, these justifications do not extend to the ECHR. Since the Convention is neither a document created nor negotiated 31 ROSAS, A. The European Court of Justice in Context: Forms and Patterns of Judicial Dialogue. European Journal of Legal Studies [online] . 2007, 1, 2. p. 131. Available at: https://ejls.eui.eu/wp content/uploads/sites/32/pdfs/Autumn_Winter2007/THE_EUROPEAN_COURT_OF_JUSTICE_ IN_CONTEXT_%20FORMS_AND_PATTERNS_OF_JUDICIAL_DIALOGUE_.pdf . 32 KROMMENDIJK, J. The Use of ECtHR Case Law by the Court of Justice after Lisbon: The View of Luxembourg Insiders. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law [online] . 2015, 22 (6), p. 813. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2814477.

43