II European Union
| Published date | 01 June 2005 |
| Date | 01 June 2005 |
| Author | Mielle Bulterman |
| DOI | 10.1177/016934410502300206 |
| Subject Matter | Part B: Human Rights News |
II EUROPEAN UNION
MIELLE BULTERMAN
1. THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AGENCY
In December 2003 the European Council decided that the European Monitoring
Centre on Racism and Xenophobia should be reformed into a Fundamental Rights
Agency. On 25 October 2004, the Commission opened the discussion on the FRA by
presenting its views in a public consultation paper (COM(2004)693 final).
In its public consultation document, the Commission presented its ideas about
the mandate of the FRA, the geographical scope of its activities and its relation with
existing institutions in the field of human rights protection, such as the Council of
Europe and national human rights institutions. In view of the existing mechanisms
for the protection and promotion of human rights, the Commission favours a FRA
with a limited mandate. Its mandate should be confined to the ‘scope of
Community/Union law’. In this way, the FRA could make a contribution to
ensuring that all EU legislation and policy, and all national implementing measures,
are in conformity with human rights. It would exclude, however, a role of the FRA
with respect to Article 7 EU (the treaty provision providing a basis for measures
against a EU Member State which violates human rights or democratic principles).
As regards the tasks of the FRA, the Commission considers that data collection and
analysis and advising the Institutions should be the prime tasks of the Agency.
Finally, in its public consultation document, the Commission invited all
beneficiaries of the FRA’s activities to present their views on the tasks, powers and
composition of the FRA. The numerous written contributions received by the
Commission have been published on the internet (europa.eu.int/comm/justice_-
home). There also, a report containing an analysis of all responses received by the
Commission can be found.
This report provides an interesting insight into the views of the various
contributors. In total 94 contributions were sent in by NGOs (42), national human
rights institutions (11), individuals (16), (future) Member States (13) and European
Institutions (12). The Commission’s view concerning the FRA’s competence under
Article 7 EU is shared by the vast majority of the Member States, European
Institutions and national human rights institutions. The responding NGOs and
individuals are in favour of giving the FRA a mandate with respect to Article 7 EU. A
similar difference of view prevails with respect to the question whether the FRA
should deal with individual complaints. The Member States and national human
rights institutions oppose this suggestion, while it is supported by the NGOs. The
analysis report has been drawn up by an independent agency and does not bind the
Commission. Its purpose is to ‘enable policy makers to make informed judgements
and to identify trade-offs between options for the establishment of the agency’. The
Commission plans to present its proposal for the establishment of the FRA in Spring
2005.
Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 23/2 (2005) 283
To continue reading
Request your trial