European Day of Languages 26 September 2011 is Bloggingportal day

It is time to remember the annual 26 September European Day of Languages, now into its 10th edition. Language learning is at the heart of the objectives, so become inspired.

The European Day of Languages is arranged jointly by the Council of Europe and the European Union, as well as by a plethora of organisers in the member states.

Why not make a good resolution by starting a daily check of the multilingual aggregator of euroblogs, Bloggingportal.eu, with 853 blogs already listed? A fun and profitable way to learn languages while getting to know Europe from new angles.

Today, 2011 CE could also be your Day of Multilingual Blogging.



Ralf Grahn

European values and Hungarian media law: ECHR

The discussion about the Hungarian media law prone to arbitrary implementation has revealed profound ignorance about or lack of care for European values, even outright denial of their existence.

For the legal text (to the extent that the Act has been translated) you can go to Politics.hu:

Act CLXXXV of 2010 on media services and mass media (in English)

The text on Politics.hu is followed by a lot of comments discussing the law (48 by now), even if they reflect only a tiny proportion of an ongoing discussion in many media articles and blog posts.


Grahnlaw

I have tried to shed some light on political and legal aspects of freedom of speech in Europe in earlier blog posts:

Help EPP group leader Joseph Daul defend media freedom (5 January 2011)

EPP president Wilfried Martens versus Free Press for Hungary (5 January 2011)

Hungarian media law and EU Council presidency: Evolving European opinion (8 January 2011)

Hungary: Is free speech a socialist issue? (9 January 2011)

Presidency or Troll? Describing itself as the unofficial troll blog of the Hungarian presidency, EUphobia made its confused and confusing appearance on the Euroblog scene: The Party has Started (8 January 2011). If I understand the blog entry and the following discussion correctly, the Hungarian media law is bad, but press freedom needs to be suppressed in Hungary for partisan reasons. EUphobia seems to imply that there are no European standards to uphold.


Council of Europe (CoE)

All the members of the European Union (EU) are members of the pan-European Council of Europe (CoE) and thus parties to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), an evolving system of protection of the rights of citizens against abuse by governments and public authorities, as shown by the preamble:

The governments signatory hereto, being members of the Council of Europe,

Considering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th December 1948;

Considering that this Declaration aims at securing the universal and effective recognition and observance of the Rights therein declared;

Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is the achievement of greater unity between its members and that one of the methods by which that aim is to be pursued is the maintenance and further realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms;

Reaffirming their profound belief in those fundamental freedoms which are the foundation of justice and peace in the world and are best maintained on the one hand by an effective political democracy and on the other by a common understanding and observance of the human rights upon which they depend;

Being resolved, as the governments of European countries which are like-minded and have a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law, to take the first steps for the collective enforcement of certain of the rights stated in the Universal Declaration,

Have agreed as follows: ---

The ratifying states have not only declared their profound belief in the fundamental freedoms, but pledged a common understanding and observance of human rights, which are legally binding in every member state of the CoE.

In short, the purpose is to give citizens' rights and freedoms teeth:

Article 1 – Obligation to respect human rights

The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.

Key word ”secure”.


Freedom of expression

Section 1 of the ECHR contains Article 10, which enshrines the freedom of expression:

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1.Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2.The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

This text binds national legislators, governments and public administrations, as well as Courts. Ultimately observance of the engagements undertaken by the member states is ensured by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). (See Article 19)

As we see, some restrictions are possible on freedom of expression, but they have to be strictly justifiable. Let me make just two points: 1) ”Interference” by public authority is a much wider concept than crude prior censorship; 2) Conditions have to be prescribed by law, ”necessary in a democratic society” and they have to be based on the enumerated grounds.

Rich pickings are available on the ECtHR's search portal Hudoc for those who are interested in case law can find. I link to newer cases concerning ECHR Article 10.


The good fight

In the end governments miss the whole purpose of protecting the health of their democratic system and the rights of individuals if they propel themselves into a race to the bottom and a competition who can get away with the least.

We are, at least hopefully, dealing with the rights of humans, not maximising those of governments at the expense of citizens, despite the obvious temptations.

Individual politicians, politcal parties at national and European level, legislatures, governments and public authorities should compete to improve the standards and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including free speech, in order to be able to claim at the end of the day: I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith.

This is what European values are about.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Anarchic in spirit, but vigilant for the rights of EU netizens is @telecomix on Twitter, describing itself in the following terms: The Telecomix News Agency aims to inform about the telecoms package, ACTA, data retention, net neutrality and censorship within EU and the rest of the world. Worth following.

Brush up your Shakespeare, Goethe, Molière, Dante, Cervantes or whoever: Day of Multilingual Blogging

Yes, brush up your Shakespeare, Goethe, Molière, Dante, Cervantes or whoever, or start learning a new language.



Tomorrow, Sunday 26 September 2010, people all over Europe celebrate the European Day of Languages, organised by the Council of Europe and the European Union as an inspiration to language learning.



For bloggers in Europe there is a special event on the Internet tomorrow: the Day of Multilingual Blogging. The blog post behind the link offers some suggestions how you can participate, as well as information about the event, the Facebook page and the Twitter hashtag #babel. Because the event is arranged by the Commission Representation in London, and the information is in English, it is especially important that bloggers spread the word in other languages too.

For a richer life, knock aside a few linguistic or national borders and join the blogging carnival!




Ralf Grahn

Join European Day of Languages 26 September 2010

Here is something for teachers, students, bloggers, Twitterers, Facebookers and many more in Europe.



The European Day of Languages is celebrated each 26 September, officially organised by the Council of Europe and the European Union, but the real purpose is to inspire you to learn a foreign language.



You can find information about the purpose of the European Day of Languages, participation, possible actions and past activities.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued comment appears.

It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across borders and between linguistic communities. Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:

I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.

Death penalty unconditionally abolished by 25 EU member states

Twenty five of 27 EU member states have abolished the death penalty in all circumstances, and even the recalcitrant two have done away with capital punishment during peaceful times.


What do Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom have in common?





Final step

As of 25 August 2010, these 25 member states of the European Union were among the 42 members of the Council of Europe, which have ratified Protocol No. 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances (CETS No.: 187).



Protocol No. 13 to the ECHR expresses the resolve to take the final step in order to abolish the death penalty in all circumstances, which is stated in unequivocal terms:

Article 1 – Abolition of the death penalty

The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.


Article 2 – Prohibition of derogations

No derogation from the provisions of this Protocol shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention.


Article 3 – Prohibition of reservations

No reservation may be made under Article 57 of the Convention in respect of the provisions of this Protocol.

Protocol No. 13 is in force between the 42 ratifying states:

Article 5 – Relationship to the Convention

As between the States Parties the provisions of Articles 1 to 4 of this Protocol shall be regarded as additional articles to the Convention, and all the provisions of the Convention shall apply accordingly.

Two missing EU



We note that some progress has been made. When I published the blog post EU reintroducing the death penalty? (25 April 2008), four EU members had signed but not ratified Protocol No. 13 to the ECHR. Since then, Italy ratified 3 March 2009 and Spain 16 December 2009, so this latest ratification came into force as recently as 1 April 2010, during the Spanish presidency of the Council of the European Union.

Instead of four, only two of the 27 member states of the European Union still mar the picture of unity in Europe and abroad. Latvia and Poland have signed but not ratified Protocol No. 13.

Let us hope that soon Latvia and Poland lend their weight to the efforts of the Council of Europe and the European Union to abolish the death penalty globally.



Five missing CoE

The adoption of Protocol No. 13 to the ECHR is almost universal among the CoE’s 47 members. In addition to the two EU laggards, only three member states of the pan-European organisation have not brought the unconditional ban on capital punishment into force.

Armenia has signed but not ratified. Azerbaijan and Russia have neither signed nor ratified.



In peaceful times



All 46 CoE members but Russia have, however, ratified the earlier Protocol No. 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty (CETS No.: 114).



Protocol No. 6 to the ECHR abolishes the death penalty (Article 1), but leaves open the right to enact a law on capital punishment for acts committed in times of war or imminent threat of war:

Article 2 – Death penalty in time of war

A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions. The State shall communicate to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe the relevant provisions of that law.

In other words, all EU states (and all other CoE members, except Russia) have abolished the death penalty with regard to peaceful times.



According to Wikipedia, 58 nations in the world still maintain the death penalty in both law and practice, while 95 have abolished it.



ECHR turns 60



The 60th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights is on 4 November 2010. During this time human rights protection in Europe has developed:

Over half a century, the rights enshrined in the Convention have gradually evolved, thanks to the way the European Court of Human Rights has interpreted it – its so-called case-law – and to various protocols that have established new rights relating to circumstances that could not have been anticipated when it was first adopted.

One part of this gradual evolving body of law has been the abolishment of the death penalty, described on the thematic web page The Council of Europe is a death penalty free area, with links to legal and political documents (including the Fact Sheet with main points).



The European Day against the death penalty is held annually; the next one on 10 October 2010.



EU Charter

Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union echoes the ban on the death penalty (as published in the consolidated version OJEU 30.3.2010 C 83/392):

Article 2
Right to life

1. Everyone has the right to life.

2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.

The EU Charter builds on the ECHR as well as other human rights documents, making it the most modern and comprehensive “bill of rights” in Europe with regard to its contents. The Charter applies to the European Union, but to the member states only when they implement EU law.



Among the EU members, only the United Kingdom and Poland break ranks by opt-outs from the EU Charter.




Addition 26 August 2010: I forgot to mention that there is political agreement with the Czech Republic that it will opt out of the EU Charter, but legally this will be piggy-backed on the next accession treaty.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued comment appears.

It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across borders and between linguistic communities. Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:

I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.



Antonia on the Euonym blog (Talking about the EU) tells us that the European Commission in the UK arranges a Day of Multilingual Blogging on 26 September 2010, and the UK Representation has been joined by the multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu and individual Eurobloggers. Join the event page on Facebook, spread the word through social media and personal contacts, begin preparing your blog posts and start learning a new language.

Council of Europe and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

This is an introductory post for those who need basic information about the Council of Europe, which is separate from the European Union.



Human rights, democracy and the rule of law are the hallmarks of the pan-European Council of Europe (CoE; Wikipedia). The Council of Europe has 47 member states with some 800 million citizens.



The CoE houses the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR; Wikipedia), which pronounces on alleged human rights violations by member states.



The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) can be described as the mother of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which became legally binding when the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force on 1 December 2009 (latest publication in the Official Journal of the European Union OJEU 30.3.2010 C 83/389).



Somewhat asymmetrically, we can call the first European Convention (1999-2000; Wikipedia) the father of the EU Charter, which integrates the constitutional traditions and international obligations common to the Member States, the Social Charters adopted by the Union and by the Council of Europe and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of the European Court of Human Rights, with the ECHR.

The ECHR is also the mother of the provisions on human rights and fundamental freedoms in 47 national legal orders, but here we leave the questions of paternity without further comment.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. The Grahnlaw blog invites comments relevant to the topics discussed, but the number and the variety of spam comments seems to be increasing steadily. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your pertinent comment appears.

It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across borders and between linguistic communities. Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:

I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.

Pocket-size European Human Rights

The Council of Europe (CoE) has published a small and convenient booklet with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as amended by the provisions of Protocol No. 14 which entered into force on 1 June 2010.



The Online Bookshop of the Council of Europe offers the new publication in English or French, but in each case it looks as if you have to order a set of five books (of 61 pages).

In Strasbourg the euro is strong, relatively speaking, since you get your five A6 sized booklets for EUR 5 (plus handling and postage), but the user of greenbacks has to fork out USD 10 for the same lot.



Given the smaller margins in forex markets generally, does anyone sniff opportunities for arbitrage?



The pocket-sized hard copy is easy to carry along and for quick reference, but you can still access more detailed information online for free at the CoE Treaty Office, which offers the text of all Council of Europe treaties, their explanatory reports, the status of signatures and ratifications, the declarations and reservations made by States, as well as the notifications issued by the Treaty Office since 2005.



Here you can access the text of the updated Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the official name; CETS No. 005), as well as additional information.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. The Grahnlaw blog invites comments relevant to the topics discussed, but the number and the variety of spam comments seems to be increasing steadily. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your pertinent comment appears.

It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across borders and between linguistic communities. Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:

I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.

My Europe Week: 61st anniversary of the Council of Europe

Call it low key …


One line in The Week in Brief is what I found on the Council of Europe website by the time of writing:

5/05, Strasbourg - 61st anniversary of the Council of Europe

The latest Grahnlaw entries with remarks on the Council of Europe were the Trivium and Quadrivium blog posts yesterday.



Still, I think that the important and patient work of the 47 member Council of Europe is worth more attention and discussion by the CoE itself, in Europe in general and the Euroblog community in particular, especially during My Europe Week.

The rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms are universal values, but they have made their home in Europe.




Ralf Grahn

My Europe Week: Trivium of European integration: Council of Europe at 61

In the 5th century the seven liberal arts were set as the basis for the new school curriculum. First came Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric (later known as the Trivium). (Source: Keith Sidwell: Reading Medieval Latin; Cambridge University Press)



Council of Europe

The Council of Europe was established on 5 May 1949 by Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom.



According to the Statute of the Council of Europe, every member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms (Article 3).

Each member must collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realisation of the aim of the Council:

Article 1

a. The aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress.
b. This aim shall be pursued through the organs of the Council by discussion of questions of common concern and by agreements and common action in economic, social, cultural, scientific, legal and administrative matters and in the maintenance and further realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
c. Participation in the Council of Europe shall not affect the collaboration of its members in the work of the United Nations and of other international organisations or unions to which they are parties.
d. Matters relating to national defence do not fall within the scope of the Council of Europe.

The United Kingdom and the Nordic countries fended off attempts to endow the Council of Europe with supranational powers, so it remained an expression of primary level international cooperation, an intergovernmental organisation.

The Committee of Ministers makes the decisions, regarding all important matters by unanimity.

The Consultative Assembly, nowadays called the Parliamentary Assembly, is allowed to discuss matters and to make recommendations to the Committee of Ministers. The members of the Parliamentary Assembly are elected indirectly, by the national parliaments among their members.



In the area of human rights, the Council of Europe has become a pioneer internationally. The groundbreaking 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) has been developed further by amending protocols, and especially the establishment in 1959 of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), now issuing binding judgments, has offered Europeans an important and evolving instrument for the protection of the rule of law.

The CoE has widened into a pan-European organisation, with 47 members hosting about 800 million people. Some of the members were admitted on fairly optimistic assumptions about future progress. The ECtHR has become the victim of deep-rooted structural human rights problems in a number of CoE member states, leading to a huge backlog of cases.


A great number of treaties have been concluded within the European Council.

There are reasons to take note of the Council of Europe during My Europe Week. Tomorrow, 5 May 2010, the Council of Europe turns 61. It is worthy of our respect and felicitations, but the limits of intergovernmental cooperation have left its academic achievements at primary level.


My European vision is on the lookout for more: Is there a Quadrivium out there?




Ralf Grahn



P.S. I noticed that the website of the European Council had succumbed to multimedia temptations, making it harder to find solid and useable material without being dragged into picture shows.

4th Data Protection Day 28 January 2010 in Europe

On the fourth Data Protection Day the Council of Europe issued a communication highlighting the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (Strasbourg, 28.I.1981).




Europeans' privacy will be big challenge in the next decade, said Commissioner Viviane Reding for the European Union in an informative press release, which set out both the existing rules (with useful links) and the challenges ahead (IP/10/63).

However, Reding did not mention specific dark clouds on the horizon, such as the SWIFT agreement, the ACTA negotiations or the possible resurrection of IPRED2.




Just one example, for starters; here are some questions where the Council and the Commission should respond in a more constructive manner than what we have seen to date:




MEP Alexander Alvaro (ALDE) on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)


Citizens’ rights should be remembered and protected every day of the year.




Ralf Grahn







P.S. Cross-border communication is a necessity in the European Union and beyond, with scrutiny by active citizens. At the same time Euroblogs are an agreeable way to brush up one’s skills in foreign languages.

Turkish blogger Erkan Saka collects and comments on a plethora of issues relevant to contemporary life, politics and culture, offline and online. Erkan’s Field Diary (in English) is a must read among Euroblogs.

Erkan’s Field Diary is listed among 522 great Euroblogs (at the latest count) on growing multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, your useful one-stop-shop for fact, opinion and gossip on European affairs, i.a. politics, more than thirty policy areas, communication, economics, finance, business, civil society and law.

If you are interested in the EU or the euroblogosphere, you can also subscribe to the RSS feed for new blog posts appearing on Bloggingportal.eu.

By the way, I also discuss European issues in Finnish on Eurooppaoikeus and in Swedish on Grahnblawg.

Minaret-banning Switzerland chairing the Council of Europe

Twittering Julien Frisch was the first to make me aware of the matter, and later I saw Carl Bildt mention it on his blog, Alla dessa dagar. I decided to take a look at the web pages of the Council of Europe:

Switzerland has taken over the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, the principal decision-making body of the Council of Europe, for a period of 6 months. From 18 November 2009 to 11 May 2010, Switzerland will focus on 3 main areas: protection of human rights and the primacy of law, strengthening of democratic institutions, and increasing the transparency and the effectiveness of the Council of Europe.

The priorities of the Swiss chairmanship are introduced in the following terms:

Switzerland attaches paramount importance to respect for the values underlying the European identity. Continuing the previous Chairmanships’ efforts, Switzerland will maintain the emphasis on respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law, identified at the Warsaw Summit in 2005 as the Council of Europe’s core objective.

It must be pretty embarrassing for representatives of the Swiss government to chair the decision-making body of the CoE, when the government’s good intentions have been disavowed by its own people.

The other member states may think twice when they hear suggestions along these lines:

Switzerland, a country which possesses a long experience of participatory democracy, undertakes to strengthen democratic structures for citizen participation.

A pretty helvetic confederation, if I may say so.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts on the Posts page, or concentrate on the editors’ choices on the Home page. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.

Ethics and law of Swiss minaret ban

First, a few thoughts on how we should try to approach difficult questions concerning freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The general understanding in Europe has been that there are universal rights. In Europe the secular state does its best to guarantee that the rights of all are respected, as long as they do not harm the freedom of others to practice their beliefs. Outside Europe we try to promote human rights.

The Council of Europe and the European Union are built on the premises of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Membership requires respect for fundamental rights.

Switzerland is still a member of the Council of Europe, party to the European Convention on Human Rights and subject to the European Court of Human Rights. The Swiss can contravene the European Convention only by renouncing their membership.

The exact scope for different rights is a difficult issue, where we need discussion at European level to find satisfactory solutions. It is not easy, and we will probably see trial and error.

If we want to find principles applicable to all on issues concerning religious symbols (headscarves or crucifixes in secular state schools, for instance), we have to look towards ethical rules:

The Golden Rule, reciprocity, Kant’s categorical imperative.


Did the Swiss ban church towers and belfries as well? If not, then their vote is discriminatory.


Legal analysis

Here are a few examples of lawyers who have analysed the Swiss minaret ban on their blogs:



Actualités du droit, Gilles Devers: Minarets: C’est illégal, et la Suisse devra renoncer (30 November 2009)



Verfassungsblog, Max Steinbeis: Schweiz: Diktatur der Mehrheit (30 November 2009)




European Union Law, Vihar Georgiev: The Swiss Ban on Minarets: Legal implications (30 November 2009)


***


The blogs discuss the matters from different angles (Swiss, European and international law; referendums and minority rights), but their conclusions are clear. There is a contradiction between the Swiss referendum result and the international obligations of Switzerland.

Let the corrective mechanisms take over. They can at least right the wrong in a legal sense, although they can do little to improve the image of Switzerland and the Swiss.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts on the Posts page, or concentrate on the editors’ choices on the Home page. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.

Freedom from religion and crucifixes in the classroom

Sometimes you are confronted with a dilemma, and you find that you lack firm answers.



The Vatican regards the Strasbourg court’s ruling as short-sighted and wrong-headed, reports Corriere della Sera (4 November 2009).

The Catholic Church would hardly have reacted as clearly, if the crucifix was only a state symbol (in Italy).

***

Lautsi v Italy

Many have reacted without reading the judgment.



European Court of Human Rights, press release on Lautsi v Italy, 3 November 2009. The whole judgment is available in French (application 30814/06), in doc format.

(Note to English media: The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. They are not European Union institutions.)




For a comment, see the ECHR blog: Crucifix in the Classroom Judgment (4 November 2009).

***

Feelings, not law

The Lautsi v Italy case has caused uproar, from the Vatican, from Italian politicians and many believers.

On the other hand, there is satisfaction for the defenders of the secular state (“laïcité” as they say in France).

I have to admit that I feel torn, and I have no desire to analyse the judgment from a legal standpoint, but it makes me ask something about how humans are meant to live side by side.

Generally, I prefer the state and the public sector more broadly to be secular and non-discriminatory, but I think that tolerance is sometimes more valuable than a stubborn application of principle.

The judgment raises questions about Nativity plays, Christmas, hymns, carols, state funerals, national flags with crosses, as well as headscarves etc. if enforcement of unitary standards is sought from above.

The Council of Europe joins 47 countries, with vastly varying cultural and religious traditions. I wonder if it would not be better to let individuals and (local) societies evolve at their own pace, as long as they avoid real discrimination.

Religious symbols might be an area, where the principle of subsidiarity, originally from Catholic social teaching (and adopted by the European Union) could be applied, in a spirit of tolerance, allowing room for individuals and local communities.

Often the best politics is not to meddle, but are there any good universal solutions?

What do you think?


Ralf Grahn




P.S. Read about the real EUSSR through the good, the better and the best Euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu.

Europe against the death penalty

The Council of Europe and the European Union work to eradicate the death penalty, elsewhere as already in Europe.

As a reminder this Saturday, 10 October 2009, the World Day Against the Death Penalty, the joint statement by these European organisations:



Joint Statement by the Presidency of the European Union and the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe


Recognising the importance of the "World Day Against the Death Penalty", which has taken place on 10 October every year since 2003, the Swedish Presidency of the European Union and the Slovenian Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe welcome the celebration of the third European Day Against the Death Penalty.

The Presidency of the European Union and the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recall that the death penalty is contrary to the fundamental rights on which the European Union and the Council of Europe are founded.

The abolition of the death penalty is enshrined in Protocols Nos 6 and 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and reflected in Article 2 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights. Abolition is a condition which States are required to meet in order to become members of the Council of Europe or the European Union.

The Presidency of the European Union and the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe share the vision of a death penalty-free European continent as a further step towards global abolition and stress the importance of persevering in the pursuit of actions aimed at abolishing the death penalty throughout the world, by making representations to third countries, acting within multilateral arenas and supporting the action of civil society towards this end.

***

Council of Europe


Here are two extracts from the Council of Europe’s Factsheet on the death penalty:


The Council of Europe was created to unite Europe around the shared principles of the rule of law, respect for human rights and democracy. The European Convention on Human Rights, which was adopted in 1950, states that everyone’s life shall be protected by law and no one shall be deprived of life. However, the Convention did allow the death penalty to be imposed when it was provided for by law.

In the early 1980s, the Council of Europe became a pioneer for the abolition of capital punishment, considering it to be a grave violation of human rights. The organisation’s Parliamentary Assembly gradually persuaded governments to help Europe become the first region in the world to permanently outlaw the death penalty. In 1982, the Council of Europe adopted Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which became the first legally-binding instrument abolishing the death penalty in peacetime. The protocol has today been ratified by 46 of the Council’s 47 member states; the one exception – Russia – has committed itself to ratification.

In 1989, abolition of the death penalty was made a condition of accession for all new member states. Since then, all countries are committed to introducing an immediate moratorium on executions and ratifying Protocol No. 6 when joining the organisation. A number of mechanisms have been set up to monitor the respect of those commitments while assisting governments with their implementation.

In 2002, an important step was taken by the Council to ban the death penalty in all circumstances with the adoption of Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires the complete abolition of capital punishment - even for acts committed in time of war.

As a result, there has not been a single execution in any of the member states of the Council of Europe for 10 years. Across Europe, only Belarus - which is not a member of the organisation - still uses capital punishment. The Parliamentary Assembly now wishes to extend prohibition to countries enjoying observer status with the Council, including Japan and the United States.

A resolution calling for a global moratorium on executions will be introduced at the 62nd session of the United Nations General Assembly, which begins on 18 September 2007. Its adoption would be a milestone towards the abolition of the death penalty worldwide.

-----------


What are the main points of Protocols No. 6 and No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights?

Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights abolishes the death penalty in peacetime. It came into force on 1 March 1985. With Protocol No. 6, Europe’s position changed from tolerating to prohibiting statutory killing. Protocol No. 13, which entered into force on 1 July 2003, bans the death penalty in all circumstances, including for crimes committed in times of war and imminent threat of war.

***


Fundamental rights in Europe


The Council of Europe has been a pioneer of human rights in Europe, most notably through the amended European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the European Court of Human Rights. .

The European Union has gradually adopted human rights principle, for instance by adopting the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as a politically binding document on 7 December 2000.

The EU Treaty of Lisbon would make the EU Charter legally binding, and the European Union would accede to the pan-European Convention.



Ralf Grahn

United Kingdom: European elections and EU membership

The United Kingdom has the third largest population among the EU member states. It is an important trading nation and financial centre. A constructive UK could be important for the foreign and security policies and defence of the European Union.

But Britain has been an awkward partner in Europe for three and a half decades, and the next general election seems destined to bring in a Conservative government with even less consideration for its European partners. The Tories have promised to put European integration in reverse, and they would most probably use the UK’s factual importance and veto powers to block EU progress for a long time.

***

CAP München

Ahead of the European Parliament elections the Centrum für angewandte Politikforschung (CAP; Center for Applied Policy Research) in Munich has published an impressive amount of analysis and comment on its web pages dedicated to the issues and campaigns (Themendossier zur Europawahl 2009).



***

Great Britain and Europe

Almut Möller: Europawahl 2009 in Großbritannien ─ Zwischen Desinteresse und Protest (European elections 2009 in Great Britain ─ Between lack of interest and protest; 18 May 2009; 4 pages) is a competent description of the British electoral scene and the intellectual climate with regard to Europe.


From a continental perspective, Möller describes a Britain where the European Parliament elections will make little European impact and where Europe is seen as unimportant. Even the elites show scant knowledge about Europe and the British way of handling the idea of Europe causes one to shake one’s head:


„Großbritannien und die EU: Man kennt sie nicht, man mag sie nicht – aber offenbar will man dabei sein

Die Europawahlen werden auch 2009 an Großbritannien vorbeiziehen, ohne „europäische“ Spuren zu hinterlassen. Die Briten werden entweder mit ähnlich geringem Interesse wählen wie in der Vergangenheit, und die Wahlbeteiligung wird erneut unter dem EU-weiten Durchschnitt liegen. Oder aber die Wähler gehen an die Urnen, um den Politikern in Westminster die rote Karte zu zeigen – in diesem Fall wäre zwar die Wahlbeteiligung höher, aber die Wahlentscheidung wäre eine national motivierte.

Aus britischer Perspektive bleibt die Europäische Union weiterhin ein Fremdkörper. Für das ehemalige Empire gibt es viele andere Referenzpunkte, die mehr zählen als Europa: Zunächst das eigene Land mit seiner großen Geschichte und seinen ungebrochenen Traditionslinien. Die USA, mit denen man eine ganz eigene Verbundenheit hat. Die Welt, mit der die Briten nicht nur durch eine koloniale Geschichte verbunden sind, sondern die sie auch durch ihre Sprache geprägt und sich für die Zukunft erschließbar gemacht haben. Und Europa, Europa ist, wenn überhaupt, nur ein Referenzpunkt von vielen. Als Kontinentaleuropäer reibt man sich nicht selten die Augen über die britische Sicht auf Europa. Ist erstaunt über mangelndes Wissen selbst unter den Eliten und schüttelt den Kopf über den „törichten“ Umgang der Briten mit der europäischen Idee. Vielleicht ist man als Deutscher oder Franzose aber auch nur ein wenig verärgert darüber, dass der für uns so wichtige Referenzpunkt „Europa“ auf der Insel so wenig zählt.“


***

UK membership in the European Union

Given the Euroskepticism of large parts of the population, the political elites and the media, as well as the lack of recognition for European parliamentary life, Möller finds it astonishing that there is no serious (European) debate on the membership of the United Kingdom in the European Union:




„Eines ist allerdings erstaunlich: Wenn so große Teile der Bevölkerung, der politischen Elite und der Medien europaskeptisch sind, wenn ein Land mit so großer parlamentarischer Tradition der Entwicklung des europäischen Parlamentarismus so wenig Beachtung schenkt – warum gibt es dann nicht längst eine ernsthafte Debatte über die Zukunft der Mitgliedschaft des Vereinigten Königreichs in der Europäischen Union?“


***


In a few days the UK Conservative Party will leave the European mainstream EPP-ED group in the European Parliament in order to sit with hard-line nationalists.

If we take into account the latest announcements of party leader David Cameron and look beyond the European Parliament elections to the next general election in Great Britain, Almut Möller’s question becomes even more pressing.

Why should the member states of the European Union accept continued membership for the United Kingdom if it acts according to Cameron’s hints to further diminish its attachment to the Council of Europe and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, preliminary requirements for every EU member?

If the UK repudiates the basic tenets of the European Union, ever closer union and loyal cooperation, and the next government launches renegotiations to reverse its responsibilities, why should the other member states accept?

The European Union is difficult enough without Trojan horses.



Ralf Grahn

EU reintroducing the death penalty?

Are these the words you would associate with an organisation bent on reintroducing the death penalty?

Here is the text from the Council of the European Union:

“COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
EN
Brussels, 25 April 2008
8767/08 (Presse 110)
P 57

Declaration by the Presidency on behalf of the EU concerning the death penalty in the USA

On September 11, 2007 the Ambassadors of the European Union in Washington appealed to the Governor of Kentucky, the Honorable Ernie Fletcher to spare the life of Mr Ralph Baze, whose execution would have broken a de facto moratorium that was in place within the State of Kentucky since 1999.

On 16 April 2008, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in Mr Baze's case which will allow the continued use of lethal injection as practiced by the State of Kentucky. The European Union notes with disappointment the United State Supreme Court's decision in this case and renews its call on Governor Fletcher to commute the
sentence of Mr. Baze.

The EU reiterates its longstanding position against the death penalty in all circumstances and accordingly strives to achieve its universal abolition, seeking a global moratorium on the death penalty as the first step. We believe that the elimination of the death penalty is fundamental to the protection of human dignity, and to the progressive development of human rights.

The EU recalls that on 18 December 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution on a Moratorium on the use of the death penalty, which explicitly calls upon all States that still maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty

The EU recalls that any miscarriage or failure of justice in the application of capital punishment represents an irreparable and irreversible loss of human life. No legal system is immune from mistakes and there is no reliable evidence that the death penalty provides added value in terms of deterrence.

In light of this US Supreme Court decision, we strongly encourage the continuation of the de facto moratorium in place within the United States allowing the ongoing debate on the complex issues involved to be thoroughly deliberated.

The Candidate Countries Turkey, Croatia* and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia*, the Countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidates Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, and the EFTA countries Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, members of the European Economic Area, as well as Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Azerbaijan align themselves with this declaration.

* Croatia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia continue to be part of the
Stabilisation and Association Process.”

***

The pan-European Council of Europe has pioneered the work to abolish the death penalty, and membership in the Council of Europe can be seen as part of the admission criteria for membership in the European Union. The goal has been to abolish the death penalty once and for all, but the work has advanced in stages.

First came the abolition of the death penalty in general, but left the possibility for member states to use it in war or when war was imminent.

***

The EU Charter of Human Rights was prepared by the first EU Convention led by Roman Herzog, following the conclusions of the European Council in Cologne in 1999. The Charter was declared politically binding by the EU institutions in Nice in December 2000.

***

The Council of Europe Protocol number 13 on the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances was signed 3 May 2002, and it entered into force 1 July 2003 after ten ratifications, just days before the European Convention published its final text of the draft Constitution. Anyway, the European Convention adopted the 2000 Charter and the Explanations with mainly technical modifications.

The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe took over the Charter inserted into the Treaty (as Part II), with technical adjustments and some limitations concerning its scope. Many of the EU member states ratified the Council of Europe Protocol 13 later, the latest entry into force seems to be France, 1 February 2008.

***

Today, there are still three EU members which have signed, but not ratified the Protocol numbered 13 on the abolition under all circumstances: Italy, Poland and Spain.

In other words, it has not been possible for the EU to update its reference to the European Convention on Human Rights or the Explanations (basically by the first European Union Convention in 2000), even in the context of the Treaty of Lisbon, because it would not have been covered by all members by the way of the additions (protocols) to the Human Rights Convention of the Council of Europe.

***

But if every single member state of the European Union is not yet legally bound by the Protocol 13 on the total abolition of capital punishment, it does not mean that the European Union is about to make a U-turn and start reintroducing the death penalty.

***

To conclude: 24 out of 27 member states are individually bound by their commitments to the European Human Rights Convention. There has been no opportunity to update the EU Charter or its Explanations. The EU as an organisation is dead set against the death penalty. The press release above is only the latest manifestation of the political will of the European Union.

To allege that the European Union has, on purpose, left a backdoor open in the Constitutional Treaty or the Treaty of Lisbon with the intent to reintroduce the death penalty, is contrary to facts and unsupported in law.


Ralf Grahn


P.S. Correction, 25 April 2008: There seems to be a fourth laggard among the EU member states in ratifying Protocol 13 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances: Latvia. - So 23 have ratified and four are still lagging behind. I hope that I got it right this time around. :-)

EU TFEU: Churches and non-confessional organisations

Can a member state of the European Union contemplate the death penalty for apostasy, the renunciation of a religious faith, since the relations between state and church are exclusive competences of the member states?

We take a look at what the Lisbon Treaty has to say about state powers in religious matters, and we outline the limits of these competences.

Europe is no Iran.

***

The intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) inserted a new Article 16c on churches and religions into the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL), in Part One, Principles, Title II, Provisions having general application, of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). See the Official Journal (OJ) 17.12.2007 C 306/50:

30) The following new Article 16 C shall be inserted:

Article 16c TFEU (ToL), after renumbering Article 17 TFEU

1. The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States.

2. The Union equally respects the status under national law of philosophical and non-confessional organisations.

3. Recognising their identity and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations.

***

There is no corresponding provision in the current treaties, but the first two paragraphs derive from Declaration 11 attached to the Treaty of Amsterdam. Available at:

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/en/treaties/dat/11997D/htm/11997D.html#0133040028

11. Declaration on the status of churches and non-confessional organisations

The European Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States.

The European Union equally respects the status of philosophical and non-confessional organisations.

***

The European Convention debated the place of God, churches and religion in the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, and ended up with the following provision in Part I, Title VI The democratic life of the Union (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/20):

Article I-51 Draft Constitution
Status of churches and non-confessional organisations

1. The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States.

2. The Union equally respects the status of philosophical and non-confessional organisations.

3. Recognising their identity and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations.

***

We can see that the two paragraphs of Declaration 11 were numbered, but inserted ‘verbatim’. The third paragraph, on a regular dialogue with churches as well as religious and non-confessional organisations was new.

The IGC 2004 continued the discussion on the place of God and religion in the secular Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, but as in the draft Constitution, there was no specific mention of God. The Constitution began its Preamble with the following referral:

DRAWING INSPIRATION from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law, …

***


As you can see, the Constitutional Treaty took over the provision of the draft Constitution, in Part I, Title VI The democratic life of the Union, adding ‘under national law’ to the second paragraph (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/36):

Article I-52 Constitution
Status of churches and non-confessional organisations

1. The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and
religious associations or communities in the Member States.

2. The Union equally respects the status under national law of philosophical and non-confessional
organisations.

3. Recognising their identity and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open,
transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations.

***

These provisions of the Lisbon Treaty TFEU and the Constitution are identical.

If God is universal, the relations between states and churches are manifold. The European Union recognises that these relations are within the exclusive competence of the member states.

***

On the other hand, the powers of the member states may be exclusive, but not without limits. All the EU members are members of the Council of Europe, and they are parties to the pan-European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, available at:

www.coe.int

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union expressly recognises the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes the freedom to change religion or belief (OJ 14.12.2007 C 303/4):

Article 10 Charter
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. The right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

***

The first stop for the background of Charter provisions are the Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 14.12.2007 C 303/21):

Explanation on Article 10 — Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

The right guaranteed in paragraph 1 corresponds to the right guaranteed in Article 9 of the ECHR and, in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter, has the same meaning and scope. Limitations must therefore respect Article 9(2) of the Convention, which reads as follows: ‘Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’

The right guaranteed in paragraph 2 corresponds to national constitutional traditions and to the development of national legislation on this issue.

***

Article 2 of the Charter protects the right to life, which includes the abolishment of the death penalty (OJ 14.12.2007 C 303/3):

Article 2 Charter
Right to life

1. Everyone has the right to life.

2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.

***

The European Union, which sees its values as universal, has predictably condemned the Iranian Parliament’s draft criminal code, which would sanction apostasy with the death penalty. See the CFSP Statement on the web site of the Slovenian Presidency of the EU Council, “Declaration by the Presidency on behalf of the EU concerning the consideration of a draft Penal code in the Islamic Republic of Iran”:

http://www.eu2008.si/en/News_and_Documents/CFSP_Statements/February/0225MZZiran.html

The Iranian draft code contradicts two fundamental values of the European Union (and the Council of Europe): right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to change religion or belief, and the ban on the death penalty, seen as barbarous and cruel.

The leadership of Iran has shown little concern for human rights and international public opinion, but some reader might be interested enough to sort out Iran’s commitments under international law, including conventions on human rights.

***

The amended Treaty on European Unionof (TEU), Article 8b TEU (ToL), renumbered Article 11 TEU, already provides for exchanges of views, dialogue and consultations with citizens, representative associations, civil society and parties concerned (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/14):

Article 8b TEU (ToL), after renumbering Article 11 TEU

1. The institutions shall, by appropriate means, give citizens and representative associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action.

2. The institutions shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society.

3. The European Commission shall carry out broad consultations with parties concerned in order to ensure that the Union's actions are coherent and transparent.

4. Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.

The procedures and conditions required for such a citizens' initiative shall be determined in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

***

The general TEU clause on dialogue leaves the EU institutions wide scope to select the issues and participants, whereas the specific TFEU provision on dialogue with religious and non-confessional organisations creates an obligation with some minimum content for the institutions.


Ralf Grahn

Two Treaties but one European Union

My aim is to walk through the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), step by step, as if the Reform Treaty to be known as the Treaty of Lisbon was in force. I am going to present a consolidated version of the Treaties, Article by Article. I imagine that my rudimentary comments might be helpful to students and citizens who want basic information.

***

The Treaty of Lisbon is just what it says, an international treaty between states, not a Constitution based on the people.

The Member States have chosen to underline this fact by adding the words “on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common” to the first paragraph.

On the other hand, these “competences” (powers) make the European Union unique (sui generis) among international organisations, since the Member States have created supranational institutions with legislative, executive and judiciary powers.

If the first phase, European integration was dominated by the aim to ensure peace between the Member States and to enhance living standards by creating a common market. The present main challenges of the European Union are global and transnational security and economic concerns, which the individual Member States are progressively less capable of handling on their own.

The second paragraph on “an ever closer union” is unchanged. From a citizen’s perspective it is an important principle that decisions are to be taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen, although at this stage it reflects government “for the people” rather than “of the people” or “by the people”.

The third paragraph merges the present European Union and the European Community (EC; former EEC) into one European Union (EU). The EC is replaced by the EU and thus becomes history. At the same time Community legislation and activities continue within the EU.

If the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, we are going to have one Union, but two Treaties. The first one, with amendments, is called the Treaty on European Union, as today. The second one is going to have a new name: the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Together they are “the Treaties”.

***


The consolidated Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon (CIG 14/07), Title I, General Provisions (formerly Common Provisions):

Article 1

By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a EUROPEAN UNION, hereinafter called ‘the Union’, on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common.

This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen.

The Union shall be founded on the present Treaty and on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as “the Treaties”). Those two Treaties shall have the same legal value. The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community.

***

Our next look is going to be at the founding values of the European Union.


Ralf Grahn


P.S. Readable consolidations of the new Treaties in all of the official languages are a basic necessity if the EU aims to act openly, close to the citizen and to treat all citizens equally.

There are consolidated versions of the Treaty of Lisbon, in English by the Institute of European Affairs (IIEA), in Ireland, and by professor Steve Peers (Statewatch Observatory on the Constitution/Reform Treaty), as well as in French (Assemblée nationale) and in Spanish (Real Instituto Elcano).
English http://www.iiea.com
English http://www.statewatch.org
French http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr
Spanish http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org

I am grateful for information on existing or forthcoming consolidations in different languages.

EU transparency test

The Reform Treaty or Lisbon Treaty itself of the European Union is going to be the main test of its democratic principles, especially transparency. It is generally known that it is impossible to get a general picture of the EU if you read only the amendments included in the amending treaties. Therefore, you have to compare the existing treaties with the amending treaties, paragraph by paragraph; a tedious task.

This is putting an unfair burden on interested citizens (and experts). I have called for instant publication on the web of the entire updated treaties, consolidated versions, to be made accessible to every citizen of the EU, in all the official languages.

The main responsibility lies with the Council. The following alternative (if the Commission or the European Parliament does not step in) is publication by the individual governments of the member states. If even that fails, we have to hope for civic-minded action by think-tanks and scientific research institutes.

***

The new EU Treaty should inspire the Council to do its utmost to satisfy all calls for relevant information:

“Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.” (proposed article 8a paragraph 3)

“The institutions shall, by appropriate means, give citizens and representative associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action.” (proposed article 8b paragraph 1)

“The institutions shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society.” (proposed article 8b parargraph 2)

***

The same spirit of openness permeates the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

“In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible.” (proposed article 15 paragraph 1)

***

We have seen the commendable principles the governments have endorsed on behalf of the European Union and themselves.

Consolidated versions of the new treaties are sorely needed. When do we get them? Who publishes them?


Ralf Grahn

Update

A democratic European Union is the challenge for the 21st century as the struggle for local and national representative democracy was during the 19th century.


During the last eleven days I have written in Finnish on themes concerning democracy, inter-governmentalism, European languages, the Reform Treaty, the group of wise men, Jens Peter Bonde MEP, EU politics of the Finnish government and the fault lines of the present EU structure.


The posts can be found on:

http://grahnlaw.blogs.fi



They have the following headings:


Sekavuudesta selkeyteen

Kansallisten eliittien kaappaama EU

Protektionismille huutia

Le Taurillon

Euroopan kielten päivä

Reformisopimus

Mugabelle käsipäivää?

Euroopan kielten päivänä

Suomesta löytyy viisas

Väärä oppi ojaan kaataa

Jens Peter Bonde

Hallitus terästäytyy

Vanhasen teesit

Järki ja tunteet

Kurkkudirektiivi

Pääasiat ja sivuseikat



Regards
Ralf Grahn