To Written Question No. 373 by Lord Kirkhill on the Luxembourg Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights

Reply from the Committee of Ministers

Doc. 7917

22 September 1997

I. Written Question No. 373 of 26 June 1997

Lord KIRKHILL,

1. Referring to Recommendation 1324 on the Parliamentary Assembly contribution to the Second Summit of the Council of Europe where the Assembly reaffirmed that it rests within the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and no other body to give authentic interpretations of the standards embodied in the European Convention on Human Rights and thus to define the extent of the obligations incurred by the state parties;

2. Taking account that according to the draft Amsterdam Treaty it would appear that the Luxembourg Court of Justice will be explicitly empowered to deal with the respect of fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to action of the EC institutions insofar as the Court has jurisdiction under the Treaties establishing the EC and under the Maastricht and the future Amsterdam Treaty,

3. To ask the Committee of Ministers:

i. If it considers that this could incite the Luxembourg Court of Justice to extend its existing case law regarding respect for fundamental rights in Community law;

ii. If it agrees that it would be even more worthwhile to introduce a proper mechanism for consultation between the Luxembourg Court of Justice and the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights;

iii. If it will take these matters into account in preparing the Second Council of Europe Summit.

II. Reply from the Committee of Ministers (17 September 1997)

The Committee of Ministers is fully aware of the importance of the question raised by the Honourable Member, having regard to the construction of a common legal space for the protection of human rights which includes all member States of the Council of Europe.

In regard to the first issue, the Committee of Ministers considers that it concerns the interpretation of the Treaty of Amsterdam, drawn up in the framework of the Intergovernmental Conference of the member States of the European Union. As such it is not for the Committee of Ministers to express its views on the possible effects of the Amsterdam Treaty on the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities.

With respect to the second issue, the Committee of Ministers wishes to stress that any contacts between the Luxembourg Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights are a matter to be determined by the two bodies concerned. It notes that exchanges of views between the two courts have taken place in the past, the most recent exchange dating from June 1997. It would welcome a continuation of such exchanges of views after the new Court has been set up under Protocol 11, but this is an issue for the new Court and the Luxembourg Court to decide.

In reply to the third issue, the Committee of Ministers takes the view that the next Council of Europe Summit should concentrate on the political priorities which concern the Organisation’s own activities. Thus, the Heads of State and Government are unlikely to intend to take up this particular aspect of the relations between the European Union and the Council of Europe.