[en] This paper affirms that external relations are outside the scope of Article 47 of the Charter. This does not however mean that the principle of judicial protection and the right of access to an independent tribunal have only an internal EU law dimension. In Opinion 1/17, The Court of Justice could assess the CETA’s compatibility with the right of access to an independent tribunal without having recourse to Article 47 of the Charter, on the ground either of the principle of autonomy or of the compatibility with the substantive provisions of the common commercial policy. This paper argues that while judicial protection as part of the autonomy claim could meet some conceptual limits, promoting judicial protection as part of the common commercial policy could reinforce the perception that the Union is a credible and influential actor in international trade and in international procedural law.
Disciplines :
Droit européen & international
Auteur, co-auteur :
NEFRAMI, Eleftheria ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance (FDEF) > Law Research Unit
Co-auteurs externes :
yes
Langue du document :
Anglais
Titre :
Article 47 of the Charter in the Opinion procedure
1 Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2012] states: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article. Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented. Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice”.
3 Ibid. para. 167. The Court refers to Opinion 1/15 Accord PNR UE-Canada ECLI:EU:C:2016:656 para. 70.
4 Opinion 1/17 cit. para. 190.
5 C Briere and A Navasartian, ‘Lex Generalis and the Primacy of EU Law as a Source of the EU's Duty to Respect Human Rights Abroad: Lessons Learned from the Case-Law of the CJEU' in E Kassoti and R Wessel (eds), ‘EU Trade Agreements and the Duty to Respect Human Rights Abroad' (CLEER Papers 1-2020) 18; T Destailleur, ‘La Charte et l'action extérieure de l'Union européenne. Du déni à l'acceptation ?‘ in R Tinière and C Vial (eds), Les dix ans de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne (Bruylant 2020) 155; P Cruz Villalon, ‘Un principe de continuité? Sur l'effet extraterritorial de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'UE’ in J Wildermeersch and P. Paschalidis (eds), L'Europe au présent! Liber Amicorum Melchior Wathelet (Bruylant 2018) 317; E Neframi, ‘La Charte dans l'action extérieure de l'Union européenne' in A Iliopoulou-Penot and L Xenou (eds) La Charte des droits fondamentaux, source de renouveau constitutionnel européen? (Bruylant 2020) 149.
6 See Opinion 1/15 cit. note 3. M Mendes, ‘Opinion 1/15: The Court of Justice Meents PNR Data (Again!)‘ (2017) European Papers www.europeanpapers.eu 803; A Vedaschi, ‘The European Court of Justice on the EU-Canada Passenger Name Record Agreement’ (2018) EuConst 410.
7 Opinion 1/17 cit. para 113.
8 A Hervé, ‘Défendre l'ordre juridique de l'Union en exportant ses valeurs et instruments fondamentaux' (2020) RTDE 121; C Vajda and S Mair, ‘The Applicability of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to International Agreements to which the Union is a Contracting Party' in D Petrlik, M Bobek, J Passer and A Masson (eds) Evolution des rapports entre les ordres juridiques de l'Union européenne, international et nationaux, Liber amicorum Jiri Malenovsky (Bruylant 2020) 551.
9 M Bungenberg and A Reinisch, From Bilateral Arbitral Tribunals and Investment Courts to a Multilateral Investment Court (Springer 2020) 3; G Sangiulo, ‘An International Court System for a Transformative Europe?‘ in I Bosse Platiere and C Rapoport (eds), The Conclusion and Implementation of EU Free Trade Agreements (Edward Elgar 2019) 271; E Sardinha, ‘Towards a New Horizon in Investor-State Dispute Settlement? Reflections on the Investment Tribunal System in the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA)‘ (2016) ACDI 311.
10 Negotiating Directives of the Council of the European Union for a Convention Establishing a Multilateral Court for the Settlement of Investment Disputes EU Doc 12981/17 ADD 1.
11 H Hoffmann, ‘Article 47' in S Peers, T Hervey, J Kenner and A Ward (eds), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, A Commentary (Oxford Hart Publishing 2014) 1211. See for example, case C-682/15 Berlioz Investment Fund ECLI:EU:C:2017:373 para. 49.
12 Art. 216(2) TFEU. Case 181/73 Haegeman v Belgian State ECLI:EU:C:1974:41 para. 5; case 104/81 Hauptzollamt Mainz v Kupferberg & Cie. ECLI:EU:C:1982:362 para. 13.
13 H Van Harten ‘(Re)search and Discover: Shared Judicial Authority in the European Union Legal Order' (2014) Review of European Administrative Law 20; K Lenaerts, ‘L'apport de la Cour de justice à la construction européenne' (2017) Journal de droit européen 134; A Rosas, ‘The National Judge as EU Judge: Opinion 1/09‘ in P Cardonnel, A Rosas and N Wahl (eds), Constitutionalising the EU Judicial System, Essays in Honor of Pernilla Lindh (Hart Publishing 2012) 105. C Vajda and S Mair in ‘The Applicability of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to International Agreements to which the Union is a Contracting Party’ cit. underline also the difference between the remedies regime in the CETA and the rights stemming from EU law that the right to an effective remedy is supposed to preserve.
14 Opinion 2/15 Accord de libre-échange avec Singapour ECLI:EU:C:2017:376.
15 Ibid. para. 292.
16 In principle, provisions related to dispute settlement between the parties “form part of the institutional framework for the substantive provisions of the envisaged agreement” and as such, they “are of an ancillary nature and therefore fall within the same competence as the substantive provisions which they accompany”. Ibid. paras 303 and 276.
17 The Court of Justice highlighted that the obligation of the Member States to establish a system of legal remedies ensuring effective judicial review in the fields covered by EU law stems from the obligation of loyal cooperation to ensure the application and respect of EU law, following art. 4(3) TEU (See case C64/16 Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses ECLI:EU:C:2018:117 para. 34). This obligation corresponds to the Member States' implementing competence following art. 291(1) TFEU (“Member States shall adopt all measures of national law necessary to implement legally binding Union acts”).
18 The Court of Justice acknowledged that “the competence of the European Union in the field of international relations and its capacity to conclude international agreements necessarily entail the power to submit to the decisions of a court which is created or designated by such agreements as regards the interpretation and application of their provisions” (Opinion 2/15 cit. para. 298).
19 In its judgment Germany v Council (Case C-600/14 ECLI:EU:C:2017:935) the CJEU referred to the shared competence to approve provisions concerning other types than foreign direct investments, but not to the shared competence to approve ISDS provisions, when it held that the Union's shared competence can be exercised directly in the external field and that the conclusion of a mixed agreement is not mandatory (para. 68).
20 Opinion 1/17 cit. para. 113.
21 In Berlioz Investment Fund cit. the Court of Justice held that: “According to art. 47 of the Charter, entitled ‘Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial', everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal. The obligation imposed on the Member States in art. 19(1)(2) TEU, to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law, corresponds to that right“ (para. 44). In Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portuguese cit. the Court held that: “[T]he principle of the effective judicial protection of individuals' rights under EU law, referred to in art. 19(1)(2) TEU, is a general principle of EU law stemming from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, which has been enshrined in arts 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, and which is now reaffirmed by art. 47 of the Charter“ (para. 35).
22 Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portuguese cit. para. 37.
23 E Neframi, ‘La portée intégrative du système juridictionnel de l'Union européenne sous le prisme des obligations incombant aux Etats membres' in A Kämmerer, M Kotzur and J Ziller (eds), Integration und Desintegration in Europa (Nomos 2019) 147.
24 Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portuguese cit. para. 40.
25 Ibid. para. 41.
26 For a recent example of the application of art. 47 with regard to the CJEU, see joined cases C-542/18 RX-II and C-543/18 RX-II ECLI:EU:C:2020:232.
27 Case C-284/16 Achmea ECLI:EU:C:2018:158.
28 Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portuguese cit. para. 43.
29 Achmea cit. para. 58.
30 Opinion 1/17 cit. para. 128.
31 On the impact of the judgment in Achmea, see C Contartese and M Andenas, ‘Case C-284/16‘ (2019) CMLRev 157; M Gatti ‘Opinion 1/17 in Light of Achmea: A Chronicle of an Opinion Foretold?‘ (2019) European Papers www.europeanpapers.eu 109. On the distinction between Achmea and Opinion 1/17 see the Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar in case C-741/19 République de Moldavie ECLI:EU:C:2021:164 paras 84 ff. Advocate General Szpunar argues that, following Achmea, the arbitration mechanism of the Energy Charter Treaty is not compatible with Union law as far as it applies to an intra-EU dispute, while there is no issue of compatibility concerning disputes involving a Union investor and a third country.
32 Opinion 1/17 cit. para. 129.
33 On the function of art. 47, see for example, M Safjan and D Düsterhaus, ‘A Union of Effective Judicial Protection: Addressing a Multi-level Challenge Through the Lens of Article 47 CFREU' (2014) YEL 3; S Prechal, ‘Effective Judicial Protection: Some Recent Developments - Moving to the Essence' (2019) Review of European Administrative Law 175.
34 O Dubos, ‘The Origins of the Proceduralisation of EU Law: A Grey Area of European Federalism' (2015) Review of European Administrative Law 18.
35 See case C-619/18 Commission v Poland ECLI:EU:C:2019:531; Case C-824/18 A.B. and Others (Nomination des juges à la Cour suprême - Recours) ECLI:EU:C:2021:153.
36 Case 33/76 Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG et Rewe-Zentral AG c Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland ECLI:EU:C:1976:188. See among others, A Arnull, ‘Remedies Before National Courts' in R Schutze and T Tridimas (eds), Oxford Principles of European Union Law (OUP 2018) 1011.
37 S Prechal and R Widdershoven, ‘Redefining the Relationship between Rewe-Effectiveness and Effective Judicial Protection' (2011) Review of European Administrative Law 31.
38 See joined cases C-439/14 and C-488/14 Star Storage, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, ECLI:EU:C:2016:307 para. 37.
39 See, e.g., case C-300/17 Hochtief AG ECLI:EU:C:2018:635 para. 58. R Caranta, ‘The Interplay between EU Legislation and Effectiveness, Effective Judicial Protection and the Right to an Effective Remedy in Public Procurement Law' (2019) Review of European Administrative Law 63.
40 Joined cases C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18 A.K. (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court) ECLI:EU:C:2019:982 paras 157-162.
41 See case C-562/12 Liivimaa Lihaveis ECLI:EU:C:2014:2229 para. 71; case C-414/16, Egenberger ECLI:EU:C:2018:257 para. 78.
42 A.K. (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court) cit. para. 154.
43 The Court of Justice confirmed that, beyond the case of systemic deficiency in the rule of law, the requirement of judicial independence of art. 19 TEU does not apply in the absence of direct link with the implementation of EU law. See, joined cases C-558/18 and C-563/18 Miasto Łowicz (Régime disciplinaire concernant les magistrats) ECLI:EU:C:2020:234 para. 49.
44 Opinion 1/17 cit. para. 167.
45 S Adam, La procédure d'avis devant la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne (LGDJ 2011) 265 ff.
46 Opinion 1/17 cit. paras 171-178. See also Opinion 1/15 cit., as well as the application of the Charter in the Front Polisario case (Case C-266/16 Western Sahara Campaign UK ECLI:EU:C:2018:118). See K Szepelak, ‘Judicial Extraterritorial Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and EU Trade Relations- Where We Stand Today?‘ in E Kassoti and R Wessel (eds), ‘EU Trade Agreements and the Duty to Respect Human Rights Abroad’ (CLEER Papers 2020) 52.
47 See infra, under III.2, as well as the negotiating directives for the Convention establishing a MIC, cit.
48 The case law related to the judicial review of restrictive measures in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy refers indeed to the need to preserve the principle of effective judicial protection and not to art. 47 of the Charter. See L Leppavirta, ‘Procedural Rights in the Context of Restrictive Measures: Does the Adversarial Principle Survives the Necessity of Secrecy?' (2017) European Papers www.euro-peanpapers.eu 649.
49 See the opinion of AG Bot in Opinion 1/17 Accord ECG UE-Canada ECLI:EU:C:2019:72 para. 94.
50 K Lenaerts, ‘Modernising Trade whilst Safeguarding the EU Constitutional Framework: An Insight into the Balanced Approach of Opinion 1/17' (2019) Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs-Brussels diplo-matie.belgium.be.
51 Opinion 1/17 cit. paras 106-161. See C Eckes, ‘The Autonomy of the EU Legal Order' (2020) Europe and the World: A Law Review; L Leonelli, ‘CETA and the External of the EU Legal Order: Risk Regulation as a Test' (2020) Legal Issues of Economic Integration 43.
52 J Klett, ‘National Interest vs. Foreign Investment - Protecting Parties through ISDS' (2016) TulJIntl&CompL 213; C Titi, ‘Opinion 1/17 and the Future of Investment Dispute Settlement: Implications of the Design of a Multilateral Investment Court' (2020) SSRN ssrn.com.
53 See case T-292/19 Pshonka v Council ECLI:EU:T:2020:449 paras 81 ff. L Grzegorczyk, ‘Contentieux des mesures restrictives: le contrôle des faits par le juge de l'Union, entre règles spécifiques et principes transversaux' (2016) Revue des affaires européennes 479; I Govaere, ‘The Importance of International Developments in the Case Law of the Court of Justice: Kadi and the Autonomy of the EU Legal Order' (2009) Research Papers in Law College of Europe aei.pitt.edu.
54 Opinion 1/17 cit. para.192.
55 Supra, footnote 49.
56 Supra, footnote 10.
57 Opinion 1/17 cit. para. 199.
58 Ibid. para. 200.
59 Indeed, Belgium asked the Court whether Section F of Chapter 8 is compatible with art. 47 of the Charter, considered in isolation or in conjunction with the principle of equal treatment.
60 Opinion 2/15 cit. para. 244.
61 Proposal COM(2019) 457 final of the Commission of 11 October 2019 for a Council Decision on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union in the CETA Joint Committee established under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part as regards the adoption of a decision setting out the administrative and organisational matters regarding the functioning of the Appellate Tribunal; Proposal COM (2019) 458 final of the Commission of 11 October 2019 for a Council Decision on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union in the CETA Joint Committee established under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part as regards the adoption of a decision on the procedure for the adoption of interpretations in accordance with arts 8.31.3 and 8.44.3(a) of CETA as Annex to its Rules of Procedure; Proposal COM (2019) 459 final of the Commission of 11 October 2019 for a Council Decision on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union in the CETA Joint Committee established under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part as regards the adoption of a decision setting out the administrative and organisational matters regarding the functioning of the Appellate Tribunal; Proposal COM (2019) 460 final of the Commission of 11 October 2019 for a Council Decision on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union in the Committee on Services and Investment established under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part as regards the adoption of rules for mediation for use by disputing parties in investment disputes.
