Human rights: plugging the EU’s gaps

Date: 25/11/04

THE enlargement of the EU brought charges of hypocrisy as the European Commission demanded standards in human rights and minority protection from the accession states not required of the 'old' EU-15.

The creation of an EU Human Rights Agency could go a long way towards addressing this situation.

The European Council conclusions of 4-5 November highlighted the objective of improving the capability of the Union and its member states to guarantee fundamental rights.

The planned accession of the Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the proposed EU constitution paves the way for this accession) will bring human rights into the heart of EU policymaking. It will also introduce external judicial review of its respect for human rights.

The abrupt announcement in December 2003 that a Human Rights Agency would be created, which took many by surprise, means that much work remains to be done in clarifying how exactly the agency will work and what its remit should be.

One crucial question is whether it will only deal with data collection and analysis or will make a more proactive contribution to the European policy process.

A key debate to emerge from the 25 October Commission communication on the Human Rights Agency is the areas which it will address.

A body that covers everything in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, now inserted in the EU constitution, could in the long term add coherence to the rather ad hoc Community approach to human rights.

But it risks being too broad in scope to be effective.

Amnesty International supports coverage of the entire charter but cautions that work must be prioritized.

Alternatively, focusing the agency's work on specific areas of EU policy, such as immigration, asylum or non-discrimination, risks excluding areas such as poverty reduction, it indicates.

Susie Alegre, of Amnesty International's EU office, pleads for restricting the remit of the agency to monitoring respect for fundamental rights in the EU-25.

She says that having an agency which deals with the human rights problems of the EU on the ground will contribute significantly to making policy more effective and moving away from the perception that the EU is a club with high standards for entry but, once inside, anything goes.

While the Commission communication provides two alternatives to each element of the scope and functioning of the agency, the document tends to favour one scenario over another.

The agency is likely to have a remit confined to monitoring application of community law, as a broader scope - which would include national law - would not receive support from member states.

It is essential to avoid duplication with other institutions and to identify the gaps in European human rights monitoring and policy.

The Council of Europe is preparing a position paper on the agency and its creation as filling a gap in human rights monitoring in the EU.

The council would support the agency's remit being confined to community law in order to avoid overlap with its own work.

The Council of Europe would like to have a similar, or even stronger, cooperation agreement with the new agency as exists with the Vienna-based European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC).

That would provide member states and individuals with a coherent and coordinated message on human rights and ensure that the agency does not replicate tasks which are already, or could be better, performed by the existing monitoring mechanisms of the Council of Europe.

The additional creation of a Gender Institute within the Commission may raise concerns about achieving a coherent approach to human rights. But Mary McPhail, secretary-general of the European women's lobby, argues that the institute will address wider structural impediments to gender equality across the EU.

It will also follow on from the Commission's commitment to put gender issues mainstream in all aspects of its work, rather than simply addressing the theme of anti-discrimination.

There is a suggestion that the Human Rights Agency could increase the role of the EUMC (which takes into account violations simply between individuals and governments) to include a proposal to address human rights violations also between individuals.

The agreement to establish the agency in a European Council conclusion of December 2003 means the consultation process has been shortened, limiting the input from NGOs and the public.

Single-issue groups have different needs, making it difficult to come up with common policy positions.

Dialogue on the agency was to have culminated with a hearing on 30 November, but this has now been postponed until early 2005. A new date will be fixed by the new European Commission. Contributions are being received by the EU executive until 17 December.

In 2005 the Commission will present a proposal for a regulation relating to the agency.

• Helen Morris is a Brussels-based freelance journalist.

Analysis feature in which the author suggests that the creation of an EU Human Rights Agency could go a long way towards addressing the allegations of hypocrisy the EU had to face when the European Commission demanded standards in human rights and minority protection from the accession states not required of the 'old' EU-15. The Presidency conclusions of the Brussels European Council of 4-5 November 2004 highlighted the objective of improving the capability of the Union and its Member States to guarantee fundamental rights.

• Primary Source

Council of the EU: Council: European Council: Presidency Conclusions 4-5 November 2004 http://consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/EN.pdf

---