Source: German Law Journal, Vol 20, Pp 794-816 (2019) ; Description: Article 52(1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights lays down respect for the essence of right as one of the requirements that limitations on rights must respect. This provision is not innovative, as it formalizes into EU law the distinction between \textquotedblleftcore\textquotedblright and \textquotedblleftperiphery\textquotedblright of rights present in many national constitutions and in the ECJ and ECtHR case law. Nonetheless, the express reference to essence has given unprecedented resonance to that concept. Essence as the \textquotedblleftlimit of limits\textquotedblright has a Janus-like character. On the one hand, it pronounces that every fundamental right bears a minimum content which is ringfenced from interference by public and private actors. On the other hand, it stresses the malleability of rights and their social function. The core/periphery dichotomy reflects a balancing act moored in European legal tradition whose symbolism outperforms its utility as a judicial tool. This Article examines the essence clause of the Charter in light of the ECJ case law and the constitutional traditions of the Member States and assesses its role in the framework of fundamental rights protection in EU law. The Article first attempts a classification of rights limitations clauses in national constitutions, following which it discusses the interpretation of essence by the Spanish and the Italian Constitutional Courts. The Article then engages with a theoretical discussion of the concept of essence and examines the case law of the ECJ. Lastly, it looks at the limitations of the concept as a rights protection instrument in EU law.
See Takis Tridimas, Fundamental Rights, General Principles of EU Law, and the Charter, 16 CAMBRIDGE Y.B. EUR. LEGAL STUD. 361 (2014).
Draft Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Oct. 11, 2000, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/04473_en.pdf.
Maja Brkan, In Search of the Concept of Essence of EU Fundamental Rights through the Prism of Data Privacy, 1 MAASTRICHT WORKING PAPERS FACULTY OF LAW, 4 (2017).
Draft Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union art. Y, Feb. 11, 2000, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/activities/docs/pdf/convent05_en.pdf.
Draft Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union art. 50, July 28, 2000, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/activities/docs/pdf/convent45_en.pdf.
See HESSEN CONSTITUTION, Dec. 1, 1948, art. 63(1).
See e.g., BERLIN CONSTITUTION, Sept. 1, 1950, art. 23(2) (now art. 36(2), amended Nov. 23, 1995 & Mar. 22, 2016);
BRANDENBURG LAND CONSTITUTION, Aug. 20, 1992, art. 5(2).
EESTI VABARIIGI PÕHISEADUS [CONSTITUTION] June 28, 1992, ch. II, para. 11 (Est.).
MAGYARORSZÁG ALAPTÖRVÉNYE [THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF HUNGARY], ALAPTÖRVÉNY Apr. 25, 2011, art. 8(2).
CONSTITUTION OF THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC Apr. 25, 1976, art. 18(3) (prohibiting laws which “reduce the extent or scope of the essential content of the provisions of this Constitution”).
KONSTYTUCJA RZECZYPOSPOLITEJ POLSKIEJ [CONSTITUTION] Apr. 2, 1997, arts. 31, 53(2).
CONSTITUŢIA ROMÂNIEI [CONSTITUTION] Dec. 8, 1991, art. 53(2) (referring to the requirement that restrictions must be “without prejudice to the existence ['existenţ'] of the right or freedom in question”).
ÚSTAVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY [CONSTITUTION] Oct. 1, 1992, art. 13(4) (Slovk.).
Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucija [Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania] Oct. 25, 1992, art. 28.
See A.G. RAIKOS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, Vol. III, 167 (Law Library Press, Athens, 4th ed., 2011).
See CONSTITUCIÓN POLÍTICA DE LA REPÚBLICA DE CHILE [C.P.] [CONSTITUTION] art. 26.
See INDIA CONST. art. 13(2).
S. AFR. (INTERIM) CONST., 1993., § 33(1)(b).
see The Constitution of Sweden (2016), available at .
ROBERT ALEXY, A THEORY OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 192 (2nd ed. 2010).
See Konrad Lachmayer, The Austrian Constitutional Court, in COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL REASONING (András Jakab et al. eds., 2017);
Stephan G. Hinghofer-Szalkay, The Austrian Constitutional Court: Kelsen's Creation and Federalism's Contribution?, 17 FÉDÉRALISME RÉGIONALISME (2017) (https://popups.uliege.be:443/1374-3864/index.php?id=1671).
I.R. Coelho (Dead) By Lrs v. State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors (2007) AIR 2007, SC 861, 23 (India) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/322504/.
Marian Ahumada Ruiz, The Spanish Constitutional Court, in COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL REASONING 606 (András Jakab et al. eds., 2017).
ECJ, Case C-399/11, Stefano Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal, ECLI:EU:C:2013:107, Judgment of 26 Feb. 2013. See infra Section H.
For a more general discussion on the case law of the Italian Constitutional Court, see Claudia Marchese, Diritti Sociali E Vincoli Di Bilancio, Ricerca di dottrina (2014) (https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/convegni_seminari/STU_272. pdf);
Maria Fierro et al., I Diritti Fondamentali nell'ordinamento giuridico comunitario e negli ordinamenti nazionali (2017) (https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/convegni_seminari/STU_306_Diritti_fondamentali_2017.pdf).
Loris Iannucci, L'interpretazione Secundum Constitutionem Tra Corte Costituzionale E Giudici Comuni Brevi Note Sul Tema, “Corte costituzionale, giudici comuni e interpretazioni adeguatrici,” Roma, Palazzo della Consulta (2009) (https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/convegni_seminari/Interpretazione_quaderno_stu.pdf).
See Tania Groppi, The Italian Constitutional Court: Towards a 'Multilevel System' of Constitutional Review? JCL 3:2 THE ITALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT 105 (http://www.astrid-online.it/static/upload/protected/Ital/Italy-constitutional-CourtJCL_T_Groppi.pdf). See also Ruiz, supra note 41.
See Marco Ruotolo, Interpretazione conforme a Costituzione e tecniche decisorie della Corte costituzionale, GRUPPO DI PISA (2011) (https://www.gruppodipisa.it/images/rivista/pdf/MarcoRuotolo-Interpretazione-conforme-a-Costituzione-e-tecniche-decisorie-della-Corte-costituzionale.pdf).
See Joseph Esser, GRUNDSATZ UND NORM: IN DER RICHTERLICHEN FORTBILDUNG DES PRIVATRECHTS. (Tubingen: Mohr, 3rd ed. 1974);
Robert Alexy, On the Structure of Legal Principles, 13 RATIO JURIS 294 (2002) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-9337.00157.
For an account of the adjudication style of the Italian Constitutional Court, see Marta Cartabia, Of bridges and walls: The “Italian Style” of Constitutional Adjudication, 1 IT. J. PUB. L 1 (2016), https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/relazioni_internazionali/Bled_Juned_23_2016_fin.pdf.
ECJ, Case C-4/73, Nold KG v. Comm'n, ECLI:EU:C:1974:51, para. 14, Judgment of 11 Jan. 1977.
See e.g., ECJ, Case C-548/09, Bank Melli Iran v. Council, ECLI:EU:C:2011:735, para. 114, Judgment of 16 Nov. 2011;
ECJ, Case C-539/10, Stichting Al-Aqsa v. Council, ECLI:EU:C:2012:711, para. 121, Judgment of 15 Nov. 2012.
ECJ, Case C-5/88, Wachauf v. Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft, ECLI:EU:C:1989:321, Judgment of 13 July 1989.
Note, however, that in his opinion in Case C-353/99, Council v. Hautala, ECLI:EU:C:2001:392, Judgment of 6 Dec. 2001
see e.g., Joined Cases 20 & 64/00, Booker Aquaculture v. The Scottish Ministers, per Mischo AG, ECLI:EU:C:2003:397, Judgment of 10 July 2003.
See Case “Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium” v. Belgium, App. Nos. 1474/62; 1677/62; 1691/62; 1769/63; 1994/63; 2126/64 (July 23, 1968), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57524.
The first reference to essence was made in Winterwerp v. The Netherlands, App. No. 6301/73 (Oct. 24, 1979), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng? i=001-57597.
George Letsas, Strasbourg's Interpretive Ethic: Lessons for the International Lawyer, 21 EUR. J. INT'L L. 509 (2010).
See Young, James and Webster v. United Kingdom, 11 Eur. Ct. H.R. 439, para. 55. (1989).
For a discussion in English of German theories on the essence of right, see INGRID LEIJTEN, CORE SOCIO-ECONOMIC RIGHTS AND THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 126-41 (2018).
See Re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's Application for Judicial Review [2018] UKSC 27 (Ire.) para. 338, per
State v. Makwanyane 1995 (6) BCLR 665 (CC) (S. Afr.).
For a discussion, see Natasa Mavronicola, What is an absolute right? Deciphering Absoluteness in the Context of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 12 HUM. RIGHTS L. REV. 723 (2012).
ECJ, Tele2 Sverige AB v. Postoch telestyrelsen, Joined Cases 203 & 698/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:970, Judgment of 21 Dec. 2016;
ECJ, Case C-362/14, Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner, ECLI:EU:C:2015:650, Judgment of 6 Oct. 2015.
ECJ, Case C-291/12, Schwarz v. Stadt Bochum, ECLI:EU:C:2013:670, Judgment of 17 Oct. 2013.
see e.g., ECJ, Case T-545/13, Fahed Mohamed Sakher Al Matri v. Council, ECLI:EU:T:2016:376, Judgment of 30 June 2016, para. 163 (right to property, freedom to conduct a business);
ECJ, Case T-593/11, Al-Chihabi v. Council, ECLI:EU:T:2015:249, Judgment of 30 Apr.l 2015, para. 38 (right to defense).
See e.g., ECJ, Case T-245/15, Klymenko v. Council, ECLI:EU:T:2017:792, Judgment of 8 Nov. 2017, para 208 (right to property);
ECJ, Case T-215/15, Mykola Yanovych Azarov v. Council, ECLI:EU:T:2017:479, Judgment of 7 July 2017, para. 75 (right to property);
ECJ, Case T-149/15, Sirine Bent Zine El Abidine Ben Haj Hamda Ben Ali v. Council, ECLI:EU: T:2017:693, Judgment of 5 Oct. 2017, para. 160 (right to property);
ECJ, Case T-720/14, Rotenberg v. Council, ECLI:EU: T:2016:689, Judgment of 30 Nov. 2016, para. 169 (right to property, right to privacy, and freedom to conduct a business).
See e.g., ECJ, Case C-134/15, Lidl GmbH & Co. KG v. Freistaat Sachsen, ECLI:EU:C:2016:169, Judgment of 26 Aug. 2016, per Bobek AG, para. 31 (freedom to conduct a business);
See e.g., ECJ, Joined Cases 584, 93 & 595/10 P, Commission v. Kadi (Kadi II), ECLI:EU:C:2013:518, Judgment of 18 July 2013, paras. 101, 134;
ECJ, Case T-545/13, Fahed Mohamed Sakher Al Matri v. Council, ECLI:EU:T:2016:376, Judgment of 30 June 2016, para. 130;
ECJ, Case T-593/11, Fares Al-Chihabi v. Council, ECLI:EU:T:2015:249, Judgment of 30 Apr. 2015 para. 38;
ECJ, Case C-348/12, Council v. Kala Naft, ECLI:EU:C:2013:776, Judgment of 28 Nov. 2013;
ECJ, Case C-280/12, Council v. Fulmen and Mahmoudian, ECLI:EU:C:2013:775, Judgment of 28 Nov. 2013.
See e.g., ECJ, Case C-630/13, Anbouba v. Council, ECLI:EU:C:2015:247, Judgment of 21 Apr. 2015;
ECJ, Case C-176/13, Council v. Bank Mellat, ECLI:EU:C:2016:96, Judgment of 18 Feb. 2016.
See e.g., ECJ, Case C-249/13, Khaled Boudjlida v. Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2032, Judgment of 25 June 2014, per Wathelet AG, para. 57 of the Opinion (rights of defense).
See ECJ, Case C-279/09, DEB Deutsche Energiehandels- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, ECLI:EU:C:2010:811, Judgment of 22 Dec. 2010, para 60.
ECJ, Case C-4/11, Bundesrepublik Deutschland v. Kaveh Puid, ECLI:EU:C:2013:244, Judgment of 14 Nov. 2013, at para 49 of the Opinion.
This was confirmed in ECJ, Case C-619/18, Commission v. Poland, ECLI:EU:C:2018:1021, Judgment of 17 Dec. 2018, para. 21.
ECJ, Case C-131/12, Google Spain v. AEDP, ECLI:EU:C:2014:317, Judgment of 13 May 2014.
ECJ, Case C-580/13, Coty Germany GmbH v. Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg, ECLI:EU:C:2015:485, Judgment of 16 July 2015.
ECJ, Joined Cases 402 & 415/05 P, Kadi & Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council and Commission, ECLI:EU: C:2008:461, Judgment of 3 Sept. 2008, paras. 357-358
See ECJ, Case C-584/10, Commission v. Kadi, ECLI:EU:C:2013:518, Judgement of 18 July 2013, para. 134;
ECJ, Case C-239/12 P, Abdulrahim v. Council and Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2013:331, Judgment of 28 May 2013 paras. 67-84.
See e.g., in relation to the right to judicial protection, ECJ, Case C-222/84, Johnston v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, ECLI:EU:C:1986:206, Judgment of 15 May 1986.
Cf. ECJ, Joined Cases 92 & 93/09, Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut Eifert v. Land Hessen, ECLI:EU:C:2010:662, Judgment of 9 Nov. 2010, (right to personal data);
ECJ, Case C-544/10, Deutsches Weintor v. Land Rheinland-Pfalz, ECLI:EU:C:2012:526, Judgment of 6 Sept. 2012
see among others, Maja Brkan, The Concept of Essence of Fundamental Rights in the EU Legal Order: Peeling the Onion to its Core, 14 EUR. CONST. L. REV. 332-68 (2018).
See Joined Cases 104/89 & 37/90, Mulder II, 1992 E.C.R. I-3061.
ECJ, Case C-34/09, Zambrano v. Office national de l'emploi, ECLI:EU:C:2011:124, Judgment of 8 Mar. 2011.
ECJ, Joined Cases 411 & 493/10, N.S. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ECLI:EU:C:2011:865, Judgement of 21 Dec. 2011.
The case came in the aftermath of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, App. No. 30696/09 (Jan. 21, 2011), http://hudoc.echr. coe.int/eng?i=001-103050
see Takis Tridimas, Competence, Human Rights, and Asylum: What Price for Mutual Recognition?, in THE DIVISION OF COMPETENCES IN THE EU LEGAL ORDER-A POST-LISBON ASSESSMENT 151-70 (Sacha Garben & Inga Goevare eds., 2017).
Randy E. Barnett, Why Popular Sovereignty Requires the Due Process of Law to Challenge “Irrational or Arbitrary” Statutes, 14 GEO. J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 355, 357 (2016).
