Uniformity or deference to
national constitutional traditions in the protection of fundamental rights?
As the scope of EU law expands the application of the EU fundamental rights regime as well as its relationship with
national constitutional traditions will continue to be a source of debate.
Not exact matches
Reform of the
constitutional architecture of the UK state over the past two decades has adhered to a conservative orthodoxy based on an enduring belief in the British Political
Tradition: the redistribution of power is negotiated between the state and sub-state
national and regional elites rather than with the British people.
Essentially, the
national court asks whether Simmenthal II applies to the ECHR now that article 6 (3) TEU states that «Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the
constitutional traditions common to the Member States, shall constitute general principles of the Union's law».
In this respect, he immediately excludes the relevance of
national law and practices (Art. 52 (6) CFREU) and of the
constitutional traditions common to the Member States (Art. 52 (4) CFREU) for the purpose of the interpretation of Article 50 CFREU with regard to the combination of administrative and criminal sanctions.
The question is then: why has the CJEU decided to label the interpretation of the principle of legality as a common
constitutional tradition instead of as an element of
national constitutional identity?
It is true that Article 6 (3) refers to the
constitutional traditions that are common (emphasis added) to the Member States; however, the reference to this characteristic should not prevent to inject a certain degree of pluralism in the notion of
constitutional tradition (s), as the ICC has suggested, that makes it possible to reconcile a higher standard of protection entrenched in the
national Constitution and the primacy of EU law.