INFODOC

On 2 October 2000, after ten months’ intense and difficult negotiation, the Convention responsible for drafting the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights formally adopted the text.

The EPP-ED Group welcomes the adoption of this text since the Charter will make it possible to improve the current system of protection of fundamental rights in the European Union. The present system is characterised by an indirect form of protection essentially provided by case law on the basis of the general legal principles applying in the Member States. The Charter will make protection of Community fundamental rights more visible for its beneficiaries.

Under the mandate given to it by the Cologne European Council, the Convention was intended not to create new rights but to codify the Union’s established moral principles and the rights contained in a disparate range of legal sources (Treaty on European Union, European Convention on Human Rights, European Social Charter, decisions of the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, etc.). However, the Convention codified a number of contemporary rights, in areas such as bioethics and protection of personal data, to take account of developments in the fields of information technologies and genetic engineering.

The fact that we see the Charter’s aim as being consolidation rather than innovation, however, in no way detracts from its political importance: the EPP-ED Group believes that the Charter will be a vital step towards the political integration of the European Union which is currently in the process of forming an area of freedom, security and justice, going hand in hand with citizenship.

THE EPP-ED GROUP EMPHASISES THAT THE CONVENTION’S STRUCTURE AND WORKING METHODS HAVE BEEN A SUCCESS

In accordance with the mandate given to it by the European Council, the Convention was made up of representatives of the national parliaments (two representatives from each of the 15 parliaments and as many alternate Members), personal representatives of the Prime Ministers of the Member States, one representative of the President of the European Commission and a delegation of 16 Members of the European Parliament (and as many alternate delegation members).

During the ten months of negotiations, the Convention’s meetings were regularly attended by representatives of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and of the Council of Europe, as observers. Furthermore, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Ombudsman, as EC bodies, were asked to submit their opinions on the Charter. Two extraordinary sessions were held, one with representatives of the applicant states and the other with representatives of other bodies, social groups, non-governmental organisations and representatives of civil society.

Through a computer support system, coordinated at the Council General Secretariat, a mechanism was set up to enable all those who so wished to send their contributions (several hundreds were received), for distribution to members of the Convention, thereby allowing direct and transparent participation.


This working method, encouraging consultation and consensus, led to the drafting of a balanced text which, though far from representing a minimalist approach, was endorsed by virtually all the members of the Convention.

On the basis of this success, the chairman of the European Parliament’s delegation, Iñigo Mendez de Vigo, suggested that the Convention mechanism could in future be used to bring certain matters forward on a consensual basis, thereby breaking with the traditional method of intergovernmental conferences or diplomatic conferences which now tended to be rather complex.

THE DRAFTING OF THE CHARTER WAS SUBSTANTIALLY INFLUENCED BY THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE EPP-ED FAMILY

Thanks to this working method, the Charter’s drafting was a clear success for the European Parliament, which was able to have its views accepted and to make a positive impact on the drafting work.

As an example, the Convention decided very early on to draft the text which was to be submitted to the European Council as if it were to be incorporated at a later stage into the Treaties. This assumption had been introduced by the European Parliament delegation, which had supported the idea on several occasions in its resolutions (see, in particular, the Duff/Voggenhuber report).

It must be said that the European Parliament delegation had a significant advantage over other delegations in the Convention. The European Parliament’s ordinary part-sessions, which provided opportunities, both in Strasbourg and in Brussels, for the necessary contacts and meetings to prepare the Convention’s business in as coordinated a manner as possible and encouraged dialogue and negotiation, gave the delegation added homogeneity.

The Charter opens with a preamble, which summarises its basic raison d’être and sets out its underlying values and principles, which are the same as those underpinning the process of European integration.

Six chapters, relating to DIGNITY, FREEDOMS, EQUALITY, SOLIDARITY, CITIZENS’ RIGHTS and JUSTICE, precede Chapter VII on GENERAL PROVISIONS, relating to the scope of guaranteed rights, the Charter’s scope, the level of protection and the prohibition of abusive rights.

The Charter as a whole, from its preamble to the final articles, was strongly influenced by the European Parliament’s delegation and the EPP-ED family. The fact that the Convention decided, irrespective of the decision to be taken by the European Council, to proceed 'as if the Charter were to be incorporated into the Treaty' was due to the initiative of the European Parliament delegation and its chairman, Mr Méndez de Vigo.

The EPP-ED family was able to influence the work of the Convention thanks to the coordination of the EPP-ED Group in the European Parliament delegation.

An analysis of the text shows that, although the EPP-ED represented no more than a third of the 62 full members of the Convention, it had a decisive influence on the final result thanks to the commitment and coordination of its full and alternate members. Before, and sometimes during, each of the Convention’s meetings, the EPP-ED family were able to meet in order to coordinate contributions and seek to reach agreement with a view to defending common positions.

As a result, the EPP-ED family submitted its own documents on the preamble and economic, social and cultural rights. Although the final text was the result of a compromise and, as in any negotiation process, concessions had to be made, inevitably causing a degree of frustration, the EPP-ED family’s influence was crucial.

The seven paragraphs of the preamble, for instance, set out the values and principles underlying the EPP’s policies, as stated in successive documents adopted at the Athens, Toulouse and Brussels Congresses.

The reference to common values and an ever-closer Union came straight from the EPP-ED. Other concepts, such as dignity, freedom, equality, solidarity, democracy and the rule of law enjoy broad support in all the EU Member States. The reference to the promotion of common values, respect for diversity and the national identity of Member States at all levels – national, regional and local – are also the result of a proposal from the EPP-ED, as is the wording of paragraph 5 of the preamble, referring to the European Union’s spiritual and moral heritage. This reference was included at the insistence of the EPP-ED Group in the European Parliament and was the subject of in-depth discussions until a satisfactory wording could be found, the German version of which is ‘geistig-religiös’.

The rights contained in CHAPTER I, namely dignity, the right to life, the right to the integrity of the person, the prohibition of torture and the prohibition of slavery, enjoy broad support at all levels of the European Union. Clearly, in the article on the right to the integrity of the person, the Convention did not follow the advice of the EPP-ED family, which wished to extend the ban on reproductive cloning of human beings to therapeutic cloning. Nevertheless, the degree of protection of the integrity of the person is extremely high insofar as the free and informed consent of the person concerned is always required, in strict compliance with the legal framework which may go beyond the minimum framework established by the Charter, and insofar as the Charter confirms the prohibition of eugenic practices and on making the human body and its parts a source of financial gain. This right is an innovation, which has gradually emerged from improvements in the fields of medicine and biology.

CHAPTER II, on freedoms, owes its inclusion in the Charter to the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, emphasising in particular the family and the right to marry and reaffirming basic freedoms, on whose wording the EPP-ED Group had a decisive influence. Examples include Article 11(2) on respect for freedom and pluralism of the media, Article 13 on academic freedom, Article 14(3) on the freedom of education and the freedom to found educational establishments, as well as the right of parents to choose their children's education.

Other examples include Article 15 on the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen occupation and, above all, Article 16, which recognises the freedom to conduct a business, an extremely controversial article, which was included in the Charter only thanks to the tenacity and negotiating skills of the EPP-ED.

Furthermore, the final wording of the article on the right to ownership was in line with the wishes of the EPP-ED Group as regards 'fair compensation being paid for losses in the case of expropriation in the public interest'.

Finally, it must be pointed out that Article 10(2) on the right to conscientious objection was introduced at the insistence of the European Parliament delegation.

In keeping with modern day texts, the right to protection of personal data was included as one of the inviolable individual freedoms.

In CHAPTER III, on EQUALITY, the references to the prohibition of all forms of discrimination against minorities were originally demands made by our Group, in addition to the recognition of cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. The EPP women members also fought tooth and nail for recognition and inclusion in the text of equality between men and women and the rights of the child and the integration of persons with disabilities.

CHAPTER IV, entitled SOLIDARITY, which has considerable social and economic implications, is probably one of the most sensitive sections owing to the inevitable antagonisms between the EPP-ED positions and traditional populist demands of the Left, which are unrealistic in the economic situation faced by the Member States.

The EPP-ED delegation felt that this chapter was so important that it submitted to the Presidium its own contribution on the wording which it recommended for these guiding social, economic and cultural rights and principles. Most of its proposals were included in the present text. This was the case with regard to the wording of articles on workers' right to information, collective bargaining and action and protection in the event of unjustified dismissal, which in some cases rectify and in others moderate the radical and excessive approach of certain unduly 'socialistic' demands.

A major role was also played in establishing the text on working conditions for young people, reconciling family and professional life and the articles on environmental and consumer protection.

The inclusion of the concept of 'services of general economic interest' was due to the insistence of the French delegation.

CHAPTER V, on CITIZENS' RIGHTS, is based on the recognition of the rights incorporated in the 'acquis communautaire' as a result of the reform introduced by the Maastricht Treaty, and covers the existing rights to vote and to stand in elections to the European Parliament and municipal elections, the right to refer to the Ombudsman of the Union cases of maladministration, the right to petition the European Parliament, freedom of movement and of residence and diplomatic protection. Moreover, in an excessive concern for transparency, the Charter recognises the right of access to the documents of Community institutions. An innovative aspect is the right to good administration, which comprises strong procedural guarantees with which the Community administration must comply.

CHAPTER VI, on JUSTICE, incorporates the rights relating to respect for the rule of law, such as the right to an effective remedy, presumption of innocence, respect for the principle of legality, the right not to be tried or punished twice for the same criminal offence (non bis in idem). These rights are endorsed by the advanced list of procedural guarantees obtaining in the national judicial systems.

Finally, the GENERAL PROVISIONS of CHAPTER VII lay down the scope and limits of the powers of the Union and the Community, without creating any new jurisdiction, specify the scope and possible limitation of the rights recognised by the Charter, contain a provision to deal with any conflicts of jurisdiction that might arise with the Council of Europe's European Convention on Human Rights and allow for the possibility of more extensive protection under EU law.

No reference is made in the horizontal clauses to the European Social Charter. This is to avoid possible disruptive consequences and confusion that might thereby arise. The Charter ends with an article on the prohibition of abuse of rights provided for therein.

THE EPP-ED GROUP FAVOURS A LEGALLY BINDING CHARTER

The President of the Convention, Mr Herzog, who was absent for health reasons, asked the chairman of the European Parliament delegation, Mr Méndez de Vigo, to present the text to the Biarritz European Council on 13 and 14 October.

Mr Iñigo Méndez de Vigo undertook to do everything within his power to ensure that the Charter was made binding and that it was incorporated into the Treaty, for example in the form of a preamble.

In the same spirit, the EPP-ED Group voted in favour of an EP resolution on 3 October 2000 calling on the Biarritz European Council to submit the Charter to the IGC with a view to its incorporation into the Treaty at the Nice European Council.

As planned, the Biarritz European Council (13 and 14 October 2000) discussed the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. The text of the Charter was unanimously endorsed and the Charter will be formally proclaimed in Nice in the form of a political declaration. However, views continue to differ on its legal status. While some Member States (in particular France, Germany, Benelux, Greece and Portugal) supported the view of the European Parliament and the Commission that the Charter should rapidly be incorporated into the Treaty so as to make it legally binding, others, such as Finland, raised the question of EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. It will therefore be up to the Swedish Presidency to seek a position that is agreeable to the Fifteen on the subject.

ANNEX: COMPOSITION OF THE EPP-ED GROUP

Full members	Mrs Charlotte CEDERSCHIÖLD Mr Thierry CORNILLET Mr Ingo FRIEDRICH Mr Timothy KIRKHOPE Mrs Hanja MAIJ-WEGGEN Mr Iñigo MENDEZ DE VIGO Y MONTOJO
Alternate members	Mrs Teresa ALMEDIA GARRETT Mr Rocco BUTTIGLIONE Mr Konstantinos HATZIDAKIS Mrs Marie-Thérèse HERMANGE Mr Peter Michael MOMBAUR Mr Reinhard RACK

Official responsible for publication: Pascal FONTAINE
Editors: Juan Salafranca / Christine Detourbet
Or.: FR

Research and Documentation Service
EPP-ED Group - European Parliament
47-53, rue Wiertz
B-1047 BRUSSELS