Evropski sud pravde između ljudskih prava i borbe protiv terorizma - odnos međunarodnog i evropskog prava

Abstract

U postupcima u slučajevima Kadi i Al Barakat, vođenim zbog kršenja osnovnih prava zagarantovanih u komunitarnom pravnom poretku putem mera usvojenih u antiterorističkoj borbi od strane Saveta bezbednosti UN i implementiranih od strane komunitarnih organa putem komunitarnih akata, Prvostepeni sud i Sud pravde Evropskih zajednica, u postupku po žalbi, zauzeli su suprotne stavove. Sud pravde Evropskih zajednica je u presudi donetoj u postupku po žalbi, konstatovao da ustavne garancije osnovnih prava sadržane u komunitarnom pravu, kao autonomnom pravnom sistemu, ne smeju biti dovedene u pitanje bilo kojim međunarodnim sporazumom, pa čak ni Poveljom UN i rezolucijama Saveta bezbednosti usvojenim na osnovu Glave VII Povelje. Stoga je on poništio osporenu uredbu Saveta EU usvojenu radi primene odgovarajućih rezolucija Saveta bezbednosti. Međutim, do istog rezultata, odstranjenja iz okvira komunitarnog sekundarnog prava akta kojim se krše navedena prava moglo se doći i bez suprotstavljanja, od strane Suda, komunitarnog prava i prava Ujedinjenih nacija. Jer ova dva pravna sistema počivaju na istim vrednostima i praktično ista ljudska prava su zagarantovana u oba sistema. I organi kako UN (uključujući i Savet bezbednosti, čak i kada postupa po Glavi VII Povelje) tako i EZ (EU), dužni su da poštuju ta osnovna prava. Razlika je samo u mehanizmima zaštite.

The antiterrorist campaign undertaken by the United Nations Security Council at the end of the last century, and the obligation of transposition of punitive measures against individuals and entities related to the Al-Qaeda network into the European Communities legal system, put once again the issue of relations between the international legal system (in particular the one under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter) and the European Communities legal system on the European Court of Justice agenda. In its judgments in the cases Kadi and Al Barakaat, the Court of First Instance confirmed, in 2005 the primacy of the United Nations law, refusing to carry out any, even indirect review of the United Nations Security Council resolutions in the light of fundamental rights guaranteed by the EC law and seeing exceptionally, jus cogens norms as the only standard of review to which it would allow itself recourse in this situation. Following in principle the remarks and suggestion given by the Advocate General Poiares Maduro in January 2008, the European Court of Justice, deciding on appeal in September 2008, gave primacy to the European 'constitutional tradition' including fundamental rights. The two judicial bodies adopted thus two opposite approaches. The Court of First Instance, had adopted an approach that some scholars (e.g. G. de Burca) qualified as 'a strong constitutionalist approach which was premised on the systemic unity of the international legal order and the regional European order, and on a hierarchy of legal authority within this integrated system', while the ECJ opted 'for a strong pluralist approach which presented the European Community as a separate and self-contained system which determines its relationship to the international order in accordance with its own internal values and priorities rather than in accordance with any common principles or norms of international law'. But the third way was possible; a way beyond the polarized alternatives the two judicial instances opted for. And that third way should have been based on the unity of values of the UN and the EC legal orders reflected in the conceptual unity of their norms concerning fundamental rights. Surprisingly both the Court of First Instance and the European Court of Justice omitted to refer to Art. 24 para. 2, which stipulates that in discharging its duties for the maintenance of international peace and security, the UNSC shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the UN. And the respect of fundamental rights constitutes a part of those objectives. Thus, the EC Judiciary missed the opportunity to conciliate the need to fight terrorism by strong punitive measures established on universal level and to respect human rights, the concept of which is based on the same values both on the UN and the EC levels.