¹ Opinion Pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU, CJEU Case C-2/13 (Dec. 18, 2014), http://curia.europa.eu/ [hereinafter Opinion 2/13].Google Scholar

² See only Douglas-Scott, Sionaidh, Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR: A Christmas Bombshell From the European Court of Justice, U.K. Const. L. Blog (Dec. 24, 2014), http://ukconstitutionallaw.org; Peers, Steve, The CJEU and the EU's Accession to the ECHR: A Clear and Present Danger to Human Rights Protection, EU L. Analysis Blog (Dec. 18, 2014), http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.de; Wendel, Mattias, Mehr Offenheit wagen! Eine kritische Annäherung an das Gutachten des EuGH zum EMRK-Beitritt, Verfassungsblog (Dec. 21, 2014), www.verfassungsblog.de; for a different view: Ulrich Haltern, Die Quittung für Verfassungsneid (Jan. 29, 2015), Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 21.Google Scholar

³ Peers, , supra note 2.Google Scholar

⁴ See only, Editorial Comments: The EU's Accession to the ECHR – a “NO” from the ECJ!, 52 Common Market L. Rev. 1, 14 (2015).Google Scholar

⁵ Protocol (No 8) Relating to Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the Accession of the Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Oct. 26, 2012, 2012 O.J. (C 326/273).Google Scholar

⁶ Id. art. 1.Google Scholar

⁷ See infra Part C.Google Scholar

⁸ See infra Part B.I.Google Scholar

⁹ Opinion 2/13 at paras. 229–334; See View of Advocate General Kokott at paras. 175–79, 180–84, 130–41, Opinion Procedure 2/13, CJEU Case C-2/13 (June 13, 2014), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See infra Part B.II.Google Scholar

¹¹ See infra Part B.III.Google Scholar

¹² See infra Part B.IV.Google Scholar

¹³ See European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 222, art. 59, para. 4 [hereinafter ECHR].Google Scholar

¹⁴ Because the EU will not accede to the Council of Europe, from whose budget the Convention system is financed, but only to the ECHR, the EU's financial contribution has to be negotiated. See Council of Europe, Draft Agreement on the Accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights, Fifth Negotiation Meeting Between the CDDH Ad Hoc Negotiation Group & the Eur. Comm'n on the Accession of the Eur. Union to the Eur. Conv. On H.R. app. 1, art. 8 (2013) [hereinafter Draft Agreement].Google Scholar

¹⁵ Moreover, a number of provisions’ formulations have to be altered to also apply to the European Union. See id. art. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁶ In detail, see Paul Gragl, The Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights 138–73, 209–56 (2013); Lock, Tobias, Walking on a Tightrope: The Draft ECHR Accession Agreement and the Autonomy of the EU Legal Order, 48 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1025, 1034–37 (2011); Jean-Paul Jacqué, The Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 48 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 995, 995-1023 (2011).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Decoupling the notion of federalism from the federal state and applying it to the EU, Christoph Schönberger, Unionsbürger. Europas föderales Bürgerrecht in vergleichender Sicht 6-12 (2005); see also Robert Schütze, European Constitutional Law 47-97 (2012).Google Scholar

¹⁸ On the complexities, in detail, Andrés Delgado Casteleiro, United We Stand: The EU and its Member States in the Strasbourg Court, in The EU Accession to the ECHR 105, 106-111 (Vasiliki Kosta, Nikos Skoutaris and Vassilis Tzevelekos eds., 2014).Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Council of Europe, Draft Agreement on the Accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights, Fifth Negotiation Meeting Between the CDDH Ad Hoc Negotiation Group & the Eur. Comm'n on the Accession of the Eur. Union to the Eur. Conv. On H.R. app. 5, para. 39 (2013) [hereinafter Draft Explanatory Report].Google Scholar

²⁰ Draft Agreement art. 3.Google Scholar

²¹ Draft Agreement art. 3, para. 2.Google Scholar

²² Draft Agreement art. 3, para. 7.Google Scholar

²³ Opinion 2/13 at paras. 229–35.Google Scholar

²⁴ Draft Agreement art. 3, para. 7.Google Scholar

²⁵ Draft Agreement art. 3, para. 233.Google Scholar

²⁶ Draft Agreement art.3, paras. 215–25.Google Scholar

²⁷ See in general, Kumm, Mattias, The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict: Constitutional Supremacy in Europe Before and After the Constitutional Treaty, 11 Eur. L. J. 262 (2005).Google Scholar

²⁸ Weiler, Joseph, The Autonomy of the Community Legal Order: Through the Looking Glass, in The Constitution of Europe: Do the New Clothes have an Emperor? 286, 322 (1999).Google Scholar

²⁹ Vaubel, Roland, Constitutional Courts as Promoters of Political Centralization: Lessons for the European Court of Justice, 28 Eur. J. of L. & Econ. 203, 218 (2009).Google Scholar

³⁰ Draft Agreement art.3, para. 6.Google Scholar

³¹ For a detailed explanation, see Gragl, supra note 16, at 209–11.Google Scholar

³² Draft Explanatory Report at para 65.Google Scholar

³³ Draft Agreement art. 3, para. 6.Google Scholar

³⁴ Opinion 2/13 at paras. 242–48.Google Scholar

³⁵ Opinion 2/13 at paras. 236–41.Google Scholar

³⁶ Broberg, Morten & Fenger, Niels, Preliminary References to the European Court of Justice 235–59 (2d ed. 2014).Google Scholar

³⁷ Weiler, Joseph, The Transformation of Europe, 100 Yale L. J. 2403 (1991).Google Scholar

³⁸ Pescatore, Pierre, Les Travaux du ‘Groupe Juridique’ dans la Négociation des Traités de Rome, 34 Studia Diplomatica 159 (1981).Google Scholar

³⁹ Rasmussen, Hjalte, The European Court of Justice 118 (1998).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Conant, Lisa, Justice Contained: Law and Politics in the European Union 209–10 (2002).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art. 15, May 9, 2008, 2008 O.J. (C 115) 47, art. 267, para. 3 [hereinafter TFEU].Google Scholar

⁴² See Bobek, Michal, Of Feasibility and Silent Elephants: The Legitimacy of the Court of Justice through the Eyes of National Courts, in Judging Europe's Judges: The Legitimacy of the Case Law of the European Court of Justice Examined 197–234 (Maurice Adams, Johan Meeusen, Gert Straetmans & Henri de Waele eds., 2013).Google Scholar

⁴³ See Stian Øby Johansen, Some Thoughts on the ECJ Hearing on the Draft EU-ECHR Accession Agreement, Øbykanalen (May 6–7, 2014), https://obykanalen.wordpress.com (describing how President Skouris pushed the agent representing the Commission on this point).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See TFEU art. 216, para. 2.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Stefano Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal, CJEU Case C-399/11 (Feb. 26, 2013), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Joined Cases, N. S. v. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't und M. E. and Others v. Refugee Applications Comm'n and Minister for Justice, Equal. and Law Reform, CJEU Cases C-411/10 & C-493/10, 2011 E.C.R. I-13905.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Internationale Handelsgesellschaft v. Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, CJEU Case C-11/70, 1970 E.C.R. I-1125.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Boer, Nik de, Addressing Rights Divergences Under the Charter: Melloni, 50 Common Market L. Rev. 1083–1103 (2013) (inserting the case into the larger picture).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See Liisberg, Jonas Bering, Does the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Threaten the Supremacy of Community Law? 38 Common Market L. Rev. 1181 (2001) (describing the discussions in the Convention that elaborated the Charter).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Melloni, CJEU Case C-399/11 at para. 60.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See id. at para. 63.Google Scholar

⁵² S.T.C., Dec. 13, 2004, Declaration 1/2004 concerning the existence or inexistence of contradiction between the Spanish Constitution and Articles I-6, II-111 and II-112 of the Treaty which lays down a Constitution for Europe, signed in Rome on 29 October 2004; an unofficial translation is available at: www.tribunalconstitucional.es.Google Scholar

⁵³ Accept in multipolar rights constellations; see Christoph Grabenwarter & Katharina Pabel, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention 13–14 (5th ed. 2012).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, ECHR App. No. 30696 (Jan. 21, 2011).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See N.S., CJEU Cases C-411/10 at paras. 78–80.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Tarakhel v. Switzerland, ECHR App. No. 29217/12 (Nov. 4, 2014).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Id. at paras. 114–15.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Id. at paras. 116–22.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See Mitsilegas, Valsamis, The Limits of Mutual Trust in Europe's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: From Automatic Inter-State Cooperation to the Slow Emergence of the Individual, 31 Y.B. Eur. L. 319 (2012).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Opinion 2/13 at para. 194.Google Scholar

⁶¹ EU Regulation 604/2013, June 26, 2013, 2013 O.J. (L 180/31).Google Scholar

⁶² See Peers, supra note 2.Google Scholar

⁶³ Opinion 2/13 at paras. 192–95.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See generally Kottmann, Matthias, Introvertierte Rechtsgemeinschaft. Zur richterlichen Kontrolle des auswärtigen Handelns der Europäischen Union 153–231 (2014).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See the contribution in this issue by Halberstam, Daniel, It's the Autonomy, Stupid!’ A Modest Defense of Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR, and the Way Forward. Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Protocol (No 8) Relating to Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the Accession of the Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Oct. 26, 2012, 2012 O.J. (C 326/273).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Id. Google Scholar

⁶⁸ See only Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. BVerfGE 111, 307, 317 or Manchester City Council v. Pinnock, [2010] UKSC 45, para. 48.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ As is well known, the ECHR and the judicial activity of the ECtHR have profoundly impacted these concepts in many European states. See Alec Stone Sweet & Helen Keller, Assessing the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, in A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems 677 (2009); Mitchel de S.-O.-L'E. Lasser, Judicial Transformations: The Rights Revolutions in the Courts of Europe (2009).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See Peters, Anne, Elemente einer Theorie der Verfassung Europas 242–43 (2001).Google Scholar

⁷¹ On the German Federal Constitutional Court, see Christoph Schönberger, Anmerkungen zu Karlsruhe, in Das entgrenzte Gericht. Eine kritische Bilanz nach sechzig Jahren Bundesverfassungsgericht 9, 59–65 (Matthias Jestaedt, Oliver Lepsius et al. eds., 2011).Google Scholar

⁷² Weiler, Joseph H.H., Federalism Without Constitutionalism: Europe's Sonderweg, in The Federal Vision. Legitimacy and Levels of Governance in the United States and the European Union 54, 56 (Kalypso Nicolaidis & Robert Howse eds., 2001).Google Scholar

⁷³ Opinion 2/13 at paras. 153–59 (paying particular attention to para. 156).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Opinion 2/13 at para. 157 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Discussion Document of the Court of Justice of the European Union on Certain Aspects of the Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms para. 5 (2010), http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2010-05/convention_en.pdf.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Protocol (No 8) Relating to Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the Accession of the Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Oct. 26, 2012, 2012 O.J. (C 326/273).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Id. Google Scholar

⁷⁸ ECHR art 35, para. 1.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ On this principle, in detail, see Tobias Lock, Walking on a Tightrope: The Draft ECHR Accession Agreement and the Autonomy of the EU Legal Order, 48 Common Market L. Rev. 1025, 1034–37 (2011).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See for instance Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy, App no. 39221/98 and others (Jul. 13, 2000), para 249.Google Scholar

⁸¹ ECHR art 35, para. 1.Google Scholar

⁸² See Draft Explanatory Report, at para. 7.Google Scholar

⁸³ See supra Part B.III.2.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ See only the contributions in Spyridωn I. Phlogaitēs, Tom Zwart, Julie Fraser (eds.) The European Court of Human Rights and Its Discontents: Turning Criticism Into Strength (2013).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ See, for instance Vajnai v. Hungary, ECHR App no 33629/06 (Jul. 8 2008) (on the principle to ban symbols representing Hungary's totalitarian past).Google Scholar

⁸⁶ See Belilos v. Switzerland, ECHR App. No. 10328/83 (Apr. 29, 1988).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ EU Regulation 604/2013, June 26, 2013, 2013 O.J. (L 180/31).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ See supra Part B.II.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ See supra Part B.III.1.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Also, Advocate General Kokott has proposed this solution. See View of Advocate General Kokott, supra note 9, at para. 120.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Id. at paras. 82–103.Google Scholar

⁹² On this problem see Weiler, Joseph, Epilogue: Judging the Judges – Apology and Critique, in Judging Europe's Judges: The Legitimacy of the Case Law of the European Court of Justice Examined 235, 253 (Maurice Adams, Johan Meeusen, Gert Straetmans & Henri de Waele eds., 2013).Google Scholar

⁹³ See, Gerards, Janneke, The scope of ECHR rights and institutional concerns, in Shaping Rights in the ECHR. The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights 84, 86-89 (Eva Brems and Janneke Gerards eds., 2013).Google Scholar