Help EPP group leader Joseph Daul defend media freedom

The leader of the European People's Party group in the European Parliament had this to say on Facebook with regard to fundamental rights of EU citizens, especially the Hungarian media law:

Let's see what the Commission says after it has examined the law. You remember the Roma case ? The Commission concluded that there was no breach of Eau law. But very few reported about that decision. So if this law contains dispositions contrary to EU law or international conventions, it will be changed. Let's see. But don't be naive: it is not purely because of their preoccupation for the rights of the media that socialists, liberals and greens atrack an EPP government.

Selective memory

Despite the conspicuous lack of support for the Commission, with regard to the Roma issue, Daul forgot to mention that the European Commission dropped the threat of infringement procedures after the French government submitted detailed documentation to the Commission, including draft legislative measures and a credible calendar for putting the procedural safeguards required under the EU's Free Movement Directive into French legislation by early 2011. When the demolition instruction to target Roma camps had leaked, the government had hastened to change it. France is still under Commission scrutiny.


Party political arguments - whose?

Scores of media reports and blog posts about the contents of the Hungarian gag law have seemed unequivocal enough to allow for clear condemnation long before now.

How much is still unclear after an article such as Slugger O'Toole ”Draconian press laws in the EU's new Presidency” (1 January 2011)?

Is it possible, in good faith, to avoid the impression that Daul is procrastinating or worse?

I feel offended when Daul equates criticism of the Hungarian censorship law with party political schemes to discredit an EPP government. I try to base my evaluation of the actions of the EU institutions and political actors on principles, primarily the interests of the citizens of the EU.

If various Europarties come out differently, it is not necessarily my fault.

I hope that I could see the EPP as an active protagonist for free speech, but I wonder if Daul's argument can be seen to be exempt from party political bias and cronyism. (Various Hungarian government representatives have dismissed criticism as party politically motivated.)

For me the European Convention on Human Rigths (ECHR), the founding values of the European Union (Article 2 TEU), the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rigths of the European Union (Article 6 TEU) and the process to determine a serious breach of the founding values (Article 7 TEU) are the cornerstones of European integration and for the citizens of the European Union.

I would like to see the biggest Europarty, the EPP, taking the greatest responsibility for our basic values.

Dear readers, even if we are aware of the troubled history of the rule of law in France regarding freedom from political interference, please enlighten EPP group leader Joseph Daul about founding principles, non-discrimination and fundamental rights, as if the EU was intended to serve its citizens first.


Non-discrimination

Since the Treaty of Rome (1957), any discrimination on grounds of nationality is prohibited (now Article 18 TFEU).

Time enough for the basic principle of non-discrimination to sink in, methinks.

The Hungarian government of Viktor Orban is under fire for a number of controversial policies, including Commission scrutiny for alleged discrimination. According to the Wall Street Journal, thirteen large companies from France (Daul's country of origin, a founding member of the EEC), Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic complained to the EU Commission, saying Hungary is targeting "select sectors and foreign companies in particular, to balance the state budget."

You can comment on this blog, tweet @JosephDaul or comment on Daul's new year wishes on Facebook for 2011 to become a better year.



Ralf Grahn


P.S. The Swedish MEP Gunnar Hökmark has shown that high profile EPP members can take a principled approach, as he has done in his blog posts ”Det blev ett nytt år – om Ungern, Estland och Sarkozy” with regard to the media law and ”Dåliga signaler från EU:s ordförandeland” concerning discrimination. Respect.

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.

UK versus USA and EU: Oceans apart on fundamental rights

After yesterday’s blog posts on a new pocket-sized version of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and basic information about the Council of Europe and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, it is time to turn to the odd man out among civilised nations: the United Kingdom.



In the Declaration of Independence (1776), by the Second Continental Congress, the thirteen united States of America turned the tables on King George III:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ─ That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, ...

Principles of the English Bill of Rights (1689) and Enlightenment philosophy also flowed into the Constitution of the United States of America (1787), including the first ten amendments known as the United States Bill of Rights, which came into effect in 1791.



In the United Kingdom, absent the notion of citizenship and a codified constitution, subjects of the Crown enjoy certain rights based on a patchwork of domestic statutory provisions and common law rules.



The set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed form the uncodified constitution. According to the fundamental doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty, the UK Parliament can change any law including the constitutional rules by a simple Act of Parliament, so domestically the rights of a British subject hang by a thread, subject to the whims of each Parliament in Westminster.



English nationalists seem to worship a ragtag bag of domestic documents from Magna Carta onwards with fervour, as if these parchments and papers somehow conferred superior protection for Englishmen compared to the human rights enshrined in other EU countries or the United States. Have these fervent Crown subjects even read the Magna Carta?



The Magna Carta is a historically important document, but so is the Code of Hammurabi.



The Conservative election manifesto 2010 still saw superior human rights and fundamental freedoms as an encroachment [on Parliamentary sovereignty] and pledged to replace the Human Rights Act with a UK Bill of Rights (page 79).



Intellectually and politically an unqualified statement like that would have placed the United Kingdom on par with Belarus with regard to European human rights standards.



The latest general election led to a coalition government between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, so the UK Coalition programme 2010 shows restraining influences on the government’s urge to gain the upper hand against judges and the people (page 11):

We will establish a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties. We will seek to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties.

Thanks to the Liberal Democrats, rights under the ECHR will be given continued protection, and there is even talk of potentially extending the rights of British subjects.

It is still amazing: Where in the civilised world of today can you, as the Conservatives, emerge as the biggest party in free and fair elections on a promise to curtail human rights?


Without UK membership in the European Union (indirectly benefiting from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights despite opting out) and the Council of Europe, with the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) finally brought into force in 2000 by the UK Human Rights Act 1998, individuals in Britain would have few guarantees against excesses by government or parliament.

The media climate and the political atmosphere in the United Kingdom are still oceans apart from the fundamental rights traditions protecting citizens across the Atlantic Ocean and the English Channel.



I wonder why.




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.

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.