73
Second working session — The impact
new restrictions or limits to those imposed to the institutions already by the
Treaties and the Charter. It remains within the power of the ECJ to ensure that
the allocation of powers set out in the Treaties is respected and that European
law is applied uniformly throughout the Union. Its exclusive task to decide
on the validity of European law is not affected, as are its prerogatives and the
national courts powers under Article 267 TFEU. Indeed, as can be seen from
the wording of Article 46 ECHR, the ECtHR will have no right to declare EU-
law invalid (
59
).
The ECHR, like any other international agreement within the competenc-
es of the Union to which the EU is a contracting party, are binding upon the
EU and its Member States (Article 216(2) TFEU) and its provisions become an
integral part of European law (
60
). It would be the prerogative, thus, of the ECJ
to give it the appropriate interpretation and application in any case of dispute
among parties within the EU. This exclusive jurisdiction is confirmed as re-
gards Member States by Article 344 TFEU, as the ECJ stated in case C-459/03,
MOX plant
(
61
). According to this provision Member States undertake not to
submit a dispute concerning the interpretation and application of the Treaties
to any method of settlement other than those provided for therein. As the ju-
risdiction of the ECtHR, however, is subsidiary and any other domestic rem-
edy must be exhausted before an application is admissible (Article 35 ECHR),
the autonomy of the EU legal order is not in question. Even for inter-state cas-
es between EU Member States the principles established by the judgment in
MOX plant
should apply to the effect that the ECJ has jurisdiction as a ‘domes-
tic’ court before the case may be referred to the ECHR. Its competence does
not affect that of the ECJ, it must be regarded as a supplementary instrument,
as Article 6(2) TEU suggests, for the protection of human rights in Europe.
The same is true in case if the ruling of
MOX plant
was applied similarly to
individual applications to the ECtHR.
A question seems to arise, however, regarding the binding nature of rul-
ings of the ECtHR under Article 46 ECHR with regard to provisions of the
Convention similar to those guaranteed by Union law. What the jurisprudence
of the ECJ seems to expressly exclude (supra, lit. a.), appears to be in contradic-
tion to this fundamental provision of the ECHR. The solution, however, can
be found in Article 52(3) ChFR and in Article 6(2) TEU. The former provides
(
59
) See also Lock (note 50), p. 1036.
(
60
) ECJ Case 181/73
Haegemann
[1973] ECR 449, paragraph 5.
(
61
) ECJ Case C-459/03
MOX plant
[2006] ECR I-4635, paragraph 123 et seq.
