DÜNYA İLİŞKİLERİNDE AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ

In the Maastricht Treaty the first incarnation of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) established that “The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States, whose systems of government are founded on the principles of democracy.” The Treaty also confirms the Union’s respect for fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).

The EU’s accession criteria (the “Copenhagen criteria”) were later established during the 1993 meeting of the European Council in Copenhagen:

Stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.

Leading European scholars of law and political science have tracked the development of various mechanisms and processes at the EU level to promote and protect the fundamental values of the EU.

In 2014, both the EU Commission and the Council introduced two new mechanisms. The Commission adopted a Rule of Law Framework and the Council undertook to organize an annual Rule of Law Dialogue among the Member States. The mechanism, or Framework, complements existing mechanisms, particularly the preventive and sanction procedures and the EU Commission’s infringement procedures.

In 2010, France expelled almost a thousand ethnic Romani back to Romania and Bulgaria, where they were citizens. The action was controversial in the EU and Commissioner Reding threatened to launch infringement procedures against the French government for what she considered forced expulsion. Although Bulgarians and Romanians, as EU citizens, had the right to enter France without a visa, they must still according to French immigration rules have a work permit or residence permit to stay longer than three months. The EU Commission regarded the French actions as collective measures based on ethnicity and consequently in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Commission issued a formal notice to France, in which it demanded full implementation of the Directive.

The prime example in this respect is Poland. The relationship to the EU has become increasingly strained since the conservative Law and Justice Party won a majority in the Polish parliament in October 2015, primarily due to several legislative measures taken and proposed on constitutional matters.

A protective mechanism that does not work or is impossible to use can harm the value it was created to protect.

The value of respect for “human dignity” corresponds verbatim to Article 1 of the Charter, just as the value of “liberty” corresponds to Article 6. The value of “equality” corresponds to Title III, Articles 20–26. The value of “democracy” has no perfect equivalent among the rights, although Article 39, “Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament” and Article 40 “Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections” are key components of democracy. However, the EU Charter says nothing about the value of the “rule of law” be broken down into various individual rights but is rather a fundamental rule among the various branches of government. Finally, as regards the sixth value, “respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities,” seeking its equivalent in the particulars of the Charter becomes something of a tautological exercise. The value of respect for “human dignity” corresponds verbatim to Article 1 of the Charter, just as the value of “liberty” corresponds to Article 6. The value of “equality” corresponds to Title III, Articles 20–26. The value of “democracy” has no perfect equivalent among the rights, although Article 39, “Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament” and Article 40 “Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections” are key components of democracy. However, the EU Charter says nothing about the value of the “rule of law” be broken down into various individual rights but is rather a fundamental rule among the various branches of government. Finally, as regards the sixth value, “respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities,” seeking its equivalent in the particulars of the Charter becomes something of a tautological exercise.

Several measures have been suggested to strengthen EU’s capacity to act. Some of these proposed measures would require amendment of the Treaty and should perhaps therefore be regarded more as general reflections. These include a proposed obligatory exit, that makes it possible to “expel” a Member State that systematically and repeatedly breaches the EU values. Another suggestion would be to make an amendment to the EU Charter, so that all fundamental rights become directly applicable in the Member States, instead of only when EU law is concerned. It carries the weakness of strengthening the opportunity to act upon breaches in isolated cases. Under this proposal, in a situation where human rights are being systematically abused in a Member State, that country’s national courts could invite EU bodies to review and deliberate on the compatibility of national measures and the fundamental values of the treaty. The idea of a new watchdog body, a kind of “Copenhagen Commission” tasked with monitoring respect for the Article 2 values, has also been raised.

If the efforts of the EU to protect the Union’s values are to have any hope of success, the Union must act in step with external forces that are working to promote the same values.

“Maastricht values” are defensively structured.

The EU’s accession criteria (the “Copenhagen criteria”) were later established during the 1993 meeting of the European Council in Copenhagen

Stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. 2. A functioning market economy and the ability to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the EU. 3. Ability to take on the obligations of membership, including the capacity to effectively implement the rules, standards and policies that make up the body of EU law (the “acquis”), and adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

It was with the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE) of 2004 that the principles were first called “values” and their number further expanded: respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.

It can be argued that the infringement proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) are the Union’s most important legal mechanism for implementing common norms and values.

There is also non-binding or “soft law” tools, including annual reports drafted by EU institutions that address issues related to the fundamental values. In 2014, both the EU Commission and the Council introduced two new mechanisms. The Commission adopted a Rule of Law Framework and the Council undertook to organize an annual Rule of Law Dialogue among the Member States.

Nice treaty entered into force on 02.01.2003

In 2010, France expelled almost a thousand ethnic Romani back to Romania and Bulgaria, where they were citizens. The action was controversial in the EU and Commissioner Reding threatened to launch infringement procedures against the French government for what she considered forced expulsion.

The measures taken and constitutional amendments made in Hungary have led to serious international criticism and the adoption of soft law measures by the European Parliament but did not trigger the treaty procedures.

This takes us to the as-yet undecided tug of war between the EU and individual Member States that are for various reasons challenging the obligations of EU membership in the matter of respect for Treaty values. The prime example in this respect is Poland.