Transnational Procedural Guarantees – The Role of Domestic Courts

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 See on procedural guarantees as part of a transnational constitutional law, Chris Thornhill, ‘Transnational Constitutional Law’ in Peer Zumbansen (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Transnational Law (OUP 2021) 135, 152.

2 For an overview of such deficiencies, see Rishi Gulati, Access to Justice and International Organisations - Coordinating Jurisdiction between the National and Institutional Legal Orders (CUP 2022).

3 ECtHR, Waite and Kennedy v. Germany, 18 February 1999, application no. 26083/94; Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland, 30 June 2005, application no. 45036/98.

4 CJEU, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, judgement of 3 September 2008, ECLI:EU:C:2008:461; CJEU, opinion 1/17 of 30 April 2019 - ECLI:EU:C:2019:341.

5 FCC, decision of 8 November 2022 - 2 BvR 2480/10 (European Patent Office).

6 The FCC does not include into this jurisprudence the legal protection in the context of judicial bodies such as the Court of Arbitration for Sport that exist outside of the context of the transfer of powers to international organisations as understood by Article 24 of the German Basic Law (depite the paralels – see below at section 3). See FCC, decision of 3 June 2022, 1 BvR 2103/16.

7 FCC, decision of 29 May 1974 - BvL 52/71 (Solange I); decision of 22 October 1986 - 2 BvR 197/83 (Solange II).

8 FCC, decision of 23 June 1981- 2 BvR 1107, 1124/77 and 195/79 (Eurocontrol I) and decision of 10 November 1981 - 2 BvR 1058/79 (Eurocontrol II).

9 FCC, decision of 24 July 2018 - 2 BvR 1961/09 (European Schools).

10 FCC, decision of 23 June 2021 - 2 BvR 2216/20, 2 BvR 2217/20 (Unified Patent Court).

11 FCC (n 9 – European Schools), para 31 (translation as in the court’s English press release).

12 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 126 (translation as in the court’s English press release), referring to the jurisprudence since the Lisbon decision, FCC, decision of 30 June 2009 - 2 BvE 2/08.

13 FCC (n 9 – European Schools), para 31 (translation as in the court’s English press release).

14 In contrast, the court does not refer to the ‘eternety clause’ in Article 79 (3) of the German Basic Law as scholars have done when discussing the requirements of Article 24. See e.g. Ondolf Rojahn, Art. 24 GG, in Ingo von Münch and Philip Kunig (eds), GG-Kommentar (C.H.Beck, 6th ed 2012), paras 58 et seq.

15 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 129.

16 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 120.

17 FCC (n 9 – European Schools), para 31; FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 130.

18 The basic thrust of this access requirement was already included FCC (n 8 – Eurocontrol I) and (n 8 – Eurocontrol II). In the German constitutional scholarship, this aspect has been emphasised even more explicitly, see e.g. Rojahn (n14), para 73.

19 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 136 et seq.

20 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 134, 137 (translation as in the court’s English press release).

21 FCC (n 9 – European Schools), para 37; FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 136.

22 See in particular FCC, decision of 22 March 2018 - 2 BvR 780/16 (Temporary Judges).

23 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 140 et seq.

24 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 142.

25 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 147.

26 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 149.

27 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 154 (my translation).

28 ibid.

29 ibid. as well as FCC (n 10 – Unified Patent Court), para 60.

30 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 166.

31 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 167 (my translation).

32 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 155.

33 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 135.

34 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 112.

35 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 135 (my translation).

36 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 156.

37 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 157.

38 The FCC already mentioned in the decision Eurocontrol I of 1981 that it is not required that the system of legal protection is equivalent to that against acts of German public authority. Yet it does not speak of a minimum standards nor does it say concretely what would be required in terms of protection.

39 FCC, decision of 22 October 1986 - 2 BvR 197/83.

40 CJEU, opinion 1/17 of 30 April 2019 - ECLI:EU:C:2019:341, in particular paras 202–203 and 223 et seq.

41 CJEU (n 4 - Kadi and Al Barakaat).

42 ECtHR, Waite and Kennedy v. Germany, 18 February 1999, application no. 26083/94, para 68.

43 ECtHR (n 3 – Bosphorus), para 155.

44 ibid.

45 ECtHR (n 3 – Bosphorus), para, 156. The subsequent jurisprudence includes inter alia ECtHR, Roland Klausecker v. Germany, 6 January 2015, application no. 415/07, para 95; ECtHR, Gasparini v. Italy and Belgium, 12.5.2009, application no 10750/03.

46 ECtHR, Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland, 21 June 2016, application no. 5809/08, para 146.

47 ECtHR (n 45 – Gasparini).

48 ECtHR (n 45 – Gasparini); ECtHR (n 45 – Klausecker), para 97.

49 See e.g. Gulati (n 2), 164 et seq., referring inter alia to ECtHR, Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica v The Netherlands, 11 June 2013, application no. 65542/12.

50 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 169.

51 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 176.

52 See e.g. the extensive references to the jurisprudence of the CJEU and of some national courts in ECtHR (n 46 – Al-Dulimi and Montana Management). An early national decision on the matter with reference to the ECtHR is, Brussels labour court, Siedler v Western European Union, JT 2004, 617, ILDC 53 (BE 2003), 17 September 2003.

53 ECtHR (n 45 – Klausecker), para 95–97; ECtHR (n 45 – Gasparini).

54 ECtHR (n 45 – Gasparini); ECtHR, Boivin v. 34 Member States of the Council of Europe, 9 September 2008, application no. 73250/01; ECtHR, Connolly v. 15 member States of the European Union, 9 December 2008, application no. 73274/01.

55 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 132.

56 FCC, decision of 30 July 2019 - 2 BvR 1685/14 (European Banking Union); FCC (n 10 – Unified Patent Court); FCC, decision of 5 May 2020 - 2 BvR 859/15 (PSPP).

57 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 131.

58 On these deficits and on the role of domestic courts in compensating these deficits, Gulati (n 2). See also August Reinisch, Challenging Acts of International Organizations before National Courts (OUP 2010).

59 On the different normative models of procedural guarantees and the values for each model when applied on the international level, Devika Hovell, The Power of Process: The Value of Due Process in Security Council Sanctions Decision-Making (OUP 2016).

60 See e.g. Gráinne De Búrca, ‘The European Court of Justice and the International Legal Order After Kadi’ (2010) 51 Harvard International Law Journal 1; Christian Tomuschat, ‘The Kadi Case: What Relationship is there between the Universal Legal Order under the Auspices of the United Nations and the EU Legal Order?’ (2009) Yearbook of European Law 654.

61 An exception to the IO immunity because of a deficient level of legal protection has been made, e.g. by the Belgian labour court in Brussels in Siedler v Western European Union, JT 2004, 617, ILDC 53 (BE 2003), 17 September 2003.

62 See e.g. Edward Chukwuemeke Okeke, Jurisdictional Immunities of States and International Organizations (OUP 2018) 231–42; PHF Bekker, The Legal Position of Intergovernmental Organizations: A Functional Necessity Analysis of Their Legal Status and Immunities (Brill 1994). See also the decision of the US court of appeal in the Haiti Cholera case against the UN: Georges v United Nations (US 2nd Cir, August 2016) no. 15-455-cv.

63 Most prominently FCC, decision 5 May 2020 - 2 BvR 859/15, 2 BvR 980/16, 2 BvR 2006/15, 2 BvR 1651/15 (PSPP).

64 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 117.

65 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 117–119.

66 The court explicitly stresses its indirect review competence (‘inzidenten Kontrollbefugnis’), FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office), para 120.

67 CJEU (n 4 – Kadi and Al Barakaat), para 286.

68 FCC (n 5 – European Patent Office) in particular paras 143–145, 150–153, 159–163.

69 See e.g. Amal Clooney and Philippa Webb, The Right to a Fair Trial in International Law (OUP 2021); Francesco Francioni, ‘The Rights of Access to Justice under Customary International Law’ in Francesco Francioni (ed), Access to Justice as a Human Right (OUP 2007) 1; Rishi Gulati, ‘An International Administrative Procedural Law of Fair Trial: Reality or Rhetoric?’ (2018) 21 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 210; Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, The Access of Individuals to International Justice (OUP 2011). See also UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure.

70 See e.g. on a ‘right to appeal’, Report of the Redesign Panel on the United Nations System of Administration of Justice, 28 July 2006, UNDoc A/61/205, para 9–10.

71 ECtHR (n 46 – Al-Dulimi and Montana Management) para 140.

72 ECtHR (n 3 – Bosphorus), para 156. On the subsequent jurisprudence, see e.g ECtHR (n 45 – Gasparini); ECtHR (n 45 – Klausecker); ECtHR (n 46 – Al-Dulimi and Montana Management).

73 ECtHR, Al-Jedda v. The United Kingdom, 7 July 2011, application no. 27021/08, para 102; ECtHR (n 46 – Al-Dulimi and Montana Management) para 140.

74 See e.g. the decisions on the ultra vires review that – at least in name – requires an obvious violation of EU competence norms – FCC, decision of 6 July 2010 - 2 BvR 2661/06 (Honeywell), para 61; FCC, decision of 21 June 2016 - 2 BvR 2728/13 (OMT), para 148 et seq.; FCC, decision of 5 May 2020 - 2 BvR 859/15 (PSPP), para 110.

75 For example, unlike a legal presumption, the instrument of linking constitutional requirements to European transnational standards does not reduce the de facto level of legal protection for the concerned right-holders.

76 Rishi Gulati, ‘Meta’s Oversight Board and Transnational Hybrid Adjudication – What Consequences for International Law?’ (2023) 24 German Law Journal 473.

77 ECtHR, Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland, 2 October 2018, application no. 40575/10, 67474/10, para 182–183.

78 FCC (n 6 – CAS), para 42 et seq.