II European Union
| Date | 01 March 1996 |
| DOI | 10.1177/092405199601400106 |
| Published date | 01 March 1996 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
NQHR
1/1996
Constitutional Court. In his application to the Commission the applicant complained
of
a
breach
of
Article 6( 1), as he had not had access to a tribunal within the meaning
of
that
provision. He also alleged that the refusal to grant him the emergency payment breached
Article 1
of
Protocol
No.1,
read both separately and in conjunction with Article 14 and
Article 8. In its report
of
11 January 1995 the Commission expressed the opinion that
there had been no violation
of
Article 6(1), that there had been a violation
of
Article 14
in conjunction with Article 1
of
Protocol No. 1 and that no separate issue arose under
Article 8.
Article 6(1)
ECHR:
Length of civil proceedings; Article 8
ECHR:
Right to respect
for correspondence; Article 2 of Protocol
No.4
ECHR:
Freedom
of
movement.
Ceteroni and Others vs. Italy. On 2 April 1982 the Fermo District Court simultaneously
adjudicated the applicants personally bankrupt and declared their company insolvent. Two
of
the applicants' creditors appealed against that judgment on 8 and 15 June 1983. The
preparatory stages
of
the proceedings continued until 15 and 29 October 1990, spread over
fifteen and sixteen hearings respectively. The two trials were then stayed sine die because
the investigating judge had been transferred. On 30 May 1994, following the plaintiffs
withdrawal of the proceedings, the District Court struck the first case out
of
its list. The
second set
of
proceedings ended when the Fermo District Court delivered a judgment on
11 March 1994, which was deposited at the registry on 7 July 1994. In their application
to the Commission, the applicants complained
of
(a) a violation
of
their right to a hearing
within a reasonable time (Article 6(1)); (b) an infringement
of
their right to respect for
their correspondence (Article 8); and (c) a breach
of
their right to liberty
of
movement and
freedom to choose their residence within the territory
of
a State (Article 2(1)
of
Protocol
No.4).
In its report
of22
February 1995 the Commission expressed the opinion that there
had been a violation
of
Article 6(1) and that it was unnecessary to examine whether there
had also been a violation
of
Article 8 or Article 2(1)
of
Protocol
No.4.
II
EUROPEAN
UNION
Johannes van der Klaauw
Commission Communication on the Union's
External
Dimension
of
Human
Rights
Policy
On 22 November 1995, the EU Commission published a Communication on human rights
and the Union's external relations, the second
of
its kind this year. IThe Communication
reflects an effort to outline a strategy to achieve the objectives on human rights as set out
in the Maastricht Treaty and in various EU Resolutions adopted in the past. These
objectives refer to the development and consolidation
of
democracy and the rule
of
law,
and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as an integral part
of
the Union's
common foreign and security policy as well as its development cooperation policy.
Prior to the Single European Act, there were no formal references in the founding
Treaties to human rights or relevant international human rights instruments. The criteria
'The European Union and the External Dimension
of
Human Rights Policy: from Rome to Maastricht and
Beyond', Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament (COM (95) 567
final), 22 November 1995. The other Communication, published in May, concerned the inclusion
of
human
rights clauses in EU agreements with third countries. See NQHR, 1995, Vol. 13,
No.3,
pp. 276-279.
72
To continue reading
Request your trial