EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Although human rights in the UK have been debated on numerous occasions since the 2016 referendum, this new debatedabte was introduced for three reasons:
1. The UK has moved on the Brexit process
2. Then Prime Minister’s record (Ms May) casted doubts as to her commitments to protect human rights
3. Then Conservative party’s manisfesto pledged that the Human Rights Act would not be reappelead while Brexit was underway.
The debate focused mainly on the ECtHR and the UK but some members of parliaments mentioned the EU Charter to highlight concerns about its loss after Brexit, specifically in respect of the rights of older people (Rachel Maskell), or more generally (Joanna Cherry, Kate Osamor).
Quote: Tommy Sheppard: ‘One problem is that we are talking about something that, to some extent, has already happened. Last summer, in debates on the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the Government were keen to ensure that the EU charter of fundamental rights would not be included in British legislation, despite opposition from my party and many others. Their case was that including the charter would be unnecessary duplication, since all the individual rights in it were replicated elsewhere. That was not quite true—some rights in the charter are not in the ECHR—but, in any case, it missed the main point: the charter’s purpose was not just to define people’s rights, but to create obligations on EU member states regarding how t
Kate Osamor: ‘Does the Minister recognise the limitations of the Human Rights Act without the protections of the EU charter of fundamental rights, and can he explain how his party’s Government are preserving those rights before the UK leaves the EU?hose rights would be upheld and, in particular, to assert their primacy over other legislation.’
Joanna Cherry: ‘That charter protected a wide-ranging list of fundamental rights and principles, covering certain social and citizens’ rights, and going considerably further than the ECHR. The UK Government have tried to argue that the charter did not add anything to the corpus of UK law, but that is demonstrably false, even going by the UK Government’s own right-by-right analysis from 2017. That highlights how limited UK domestic protections are in certain key areas. That is not just my view; it was echoed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member.’

The Charter was mentioned by Mr. Jimmy Loord, a member of parliament, when the parliament discussed his question to the government concerning the government’s proposal to ban religious private schools. More specifically, Mr. Loord referred to article 14 of the EU Charter and asked how the government will ensure the right of every parent to choose their children’s education and teaching in conformity with their religious convictions. The Minister of Education and Science (Skolminister) Ms. Anna Ekström replied that even if the government is aware of and respects EU law, there is still a margin of appreciation (or interpretation) allowing each member state to define what constitutes a limitation to the freedom of religion. She also referred to the ongoing public inquiry which among other things will analyse how the proposal to ban religious private schools relates to EU law.
It is important to note, that even though the Charter is specifically mentioned in the beginning of the debate, neither Mr. Loord nor Ms. Ekström mentioned the Charter again during the debate. Instead they referred to the European Convention of Human Rights and the wider concept “EU law”. However, it must be assumed that they were referring to the Charter due to its mentioning at the start of the debate.
Quote: ”EU:s rättighetsstadga artikel 14 sätter den yttersta gränsen för vad som är möjligt när det gäller regleringar i Sverige om inrättandet av skolor. Att starta en skola är en EU-rättslig rättighet utan begränsningar vad gäller typ av skola och typ av huvudmän, och möjligheterna inom EU-rätten att begränsa den fria rörligheten är mycket små. Alla regleringar i svensk lag om inriktningen på icke-kommunala skolor måste vara motiverade av ett trängande allmänintresse, vara icke-diskriminerande och respektera fri rörlighet och integration.”
Translated quote: “Article 14 of the EU Charter sets the limits for what is possible when it comes to regulations in Sweden on the establishment of schools. It is an EU legal right to start a school without any restrictions as to the type of school or principal, and the possibilities within the EU law to limit the freedom of movement are very small . All regulations in Swedish law on the orientation of non-municipal schools must be motivated by an urgent public interest, be non-discriminatory and respect the freedom of movement and integration.”

During a debate about two proposals by opposition parties aiming to strengthen the rule of law in the EU Philipp Amthor argued against the EU’s accession to the European Human Rights Convention and the idea to strengthen the Fundamental Rights Charter, claiming that “outstanding fundamental rights standards” are already in place whereas the fight to defend the rule of law has to be fought by political means primarily.
Quote: “Ihre Anträge enthalten eine ganze Reihe von Vorschlägen, unter anderem den Vorschlag, endlich der EMRK beizutreten. Zudem müsse die Grundrechtecharta mehr Geltung entfalten. Das sind sicherlich verschiedene Punkte, die man ansprechen kann. Aber das sollte nicht darüber hinwegtäuschen, dass wir schon heutzutage einen hervorragenden Grundrechtsstandard haben und dass etwa ein Beitritt zur EMRK in grundrechtsdogmatischer Hinsicht nicht viel ändern würde. Der entscheidende Punkt ist: Wir müssen eher in der politischen Debatte für Rechtsstaatlichkeit kämpfen. Dafür müssen wir das Recht nicht an vielen Stellen ändern. Wir haben nämlich kein Defizit in Form von zu wenig Grundrechten, sondern wir haben eher ein Defizit in der Frage, wie wir die Aufsicht über unsere Grundrechte ausüben, und da, glaube ich, sollten wir neue Instrumente einpflegen.”
Translated quote: “Your motions contain a whole series of proposals, including the proposal to finally join the ECHR. In addition, the Charter of Fundamental Rights shall become more effective. These are certainly a few points that can be addressed. But that should not hide the fact that we already have an outstanding standard of fundamental rights today and that, for example, the accession to the ECHR would not change much from the perspective of fundamental rights dogmatics. The crucial point is that we need to fight for the rule of law in the political debate. We do not have to change the law in many places for that. We do not have a deficit in the form of too few fundamental rights, but rather a deficit in how we exercise supervision over our fundamental rights, and I believe we should introduce new instruments here.”

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights was mentioned during the 114th session of the Chamber of Deputies on 25 January 2019, while discussing an urgent questioning by PD to the Italian government concerning the critical aspects emerging from the implementation of Law No. 132 of 1 December 2018, Conversion into law, with modifications, of Decree Law No. 113 of 4 October 2018, containing urgent provisions governing international protection and immigration, and public security, as well as measures for the effective functioning of the Ministry of the Interior and for the organisation and functioning of the National Agency for the Administration and Management of the Assets Seized and Confiscated from Criminal Organisations. Delegation of power to the government for the reorganisation of roles and careers of the Police and the Armed Forces. This act – among other relevant aspects – reformed the Italian asylum and reception system. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights was mentioned to argue that the legislative reform violates several constitutional principles and international binding legislation, such as Article 19, paragraph 2 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Both Emily Logan (Chief Commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission) and Les Allamby (Chief Commissioner, Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission), as invited guests to the Joint Committee debate on Rights and Equality in the Context of Brexit, condemned the decision of the UK government (in the draft withdrawal agreement of November 2018) not to retain the Charter of Fundamental Rights in Northern Irish law. The terms of the Good Friday agreement state that there must be equivalence of rights on the island of Ireland, and both Chief Commissioners argued that, if the Charter no longer applies in Northern Ireland, this cannot be held to be the case.
Quote: "A number of outstanding issues…remain to be resolved… Second, there is the UK Government’s decision to be no longer bound by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The charter largely mirrors the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights but goes further by including a number of economic and social rights. As Mr. Gormally outlined, the 1998 agreement envisaged a bill of rights for Northern Ireland supplementing the rights contained in the convention to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, drawing on international instruments and experience. In effect, a bill of rights was to provide a "convention-plus" approach to human rights protection. Although the charter post-dates the 1998 agreement and applies it only in conjunction with EU law, the charter remains the closest equivalent to a "convention-plus" approach contemplated in a bill of rights.

It has been argued that while the draft withdrawal agreement does not incorporate the charter into Northern Ireland law, other provisions within the withdrawal agreement mean that the charter would apply extensively. Moreover, the UK Government has argued that much of the charter will be retained in either common law or statute law. Nonetheless, the loss of the EU charter in its current form would lead to a loss of legal certainty and consistency, as legal cases would have to argue that the charter applies as well as how it applies. In addition, the charter is an accessible document and the wider understanding of rights would be hampered through the failure to incorporate it within the draft withdrawal agreement. The retention of the charter would also provide a degree of continuing equivalence of rights throughout the island of Ireland and, therefore, is in line with the spirit of the 1998 agreement. For all those reasons, the commission continues to hold that the charter should be retained for Northern Ireland at least until a bill of rights for Northern Ireland is introduced."

The questions concerned the CJEU having declared the Data Retention Directive incompatible with the Charter. The directive in question had been transposed into national law, thus the question touched upon the data retention laws in Luxembourg and their compliance with the provisions of the Charter. The questions inquired whether the Minister had taken any steps at the national level to ensure respect for fundamental rights in data retention and if he can guarantee that the national legal framework was compatible with the judgments of the Court of Justice.
The Minister of Justice replied to the questions by explaining that even though the CJEU’s judgments invalidated the Data Retention Directive, the relevant national legislation still has its own legal existence and continues to exist in the internal legal order of the state. Regarding the proposed reform, he explained that the Government rather pleads for a common European approach and stresses the need for new European legislation in order to build the common European legal framework in all the 28 Member States.
Quote: « Le 8 avril 2014 et le 21 décembre 2016, la Cour de Justice de l'Union européenne a rendu plusieurs arrêts déclarant incompatibles avec les droits inscrits dans la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne la directive 2006/24/CE du 5 mars 2006 sur la conservation de données générées ou traitées dans le cadre de la fourniture de services de communications électroniques accessibles au public ou de réseaux publics de communications. La Cour a donné dans ses arrêts des indications concrètes au sujet des conditions matérielles et procédurales à mettre en place pour assurer le respect des droits fondamentaux des citoyens. […] Dans ce contexte, nous voulons poser les questions suivantes à Monsieur le Ministre de la Justice : […] 3. Monsieur le Ministre peut-il assurer que les données conservées au niveau national sont collectées en respectant les principes énoncés dans les arrêts de la Cour de Justice et en conformité avec les principes inscrits dans la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne ? »
Translated quote: “On 8 April 2014 and 21 December 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered several judgments declaring the Directive 2006/24/EC of 5 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or public communications networks incompatible with the rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In its judgments, the Court gave concrete indications of the material and procedural conditions to be put in place to ensure respect for the fundamental rights of citizens. […] In this context, we want to ask the following questions to the Minister of Justice: […] 3. Can the Minister ensure that data held at national level are collected in accordance with the principles set out in the judgments of the Court of Justice and in accordance with the principles enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?”

In the author’s opinion, the mobility package proposed by the European Commission poses great threat to the functioning of the EU’s internal market as it diminishes the freedom of providing services and free movement of goods. The deputy calls on the Prime Minister to initiate works aiming at challenging the package. Domestic provisions of several EU countries are mentioned (e.g. France, Germany, the Netherlands and Austria) as examples of legislation contrary to the interests of Polish business. The author suggests that an expert body should be formed in the Prime Minister’s office to monitor the state of internal market so that every violation by other Member States is challenged before the CJEU on the basis of Article 259 TFEU. Certain legal acts of the EU have been invoked in the intermission, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Eventually, the deputy asks the Prime Minister to initiate the procedure of challenging the mobility package and certain national provisions before the CJEU, as well as to create a permanent group of experts to constantly monitor the state of internal market that would exert pressure on the European Commission through Article 259 TFEU.
Quote: „Przepisy tzw. pakietu mobilności oraz krajowe przepisy krajów naruszających prawo Unii Europejskiej są również niezgodne z art. 15 ust. 2 Karty Praw Podstawowych nadającym każdemu obywatelowi UE swobodę w korzystaniu z prawa przedsiębiorczości oraz świadczenia usług w każdym państwie członkowskim. Z kolei art. 16 Karty Praw Podstawowych potwierdza wolność prowadzenia działalności gospodarczej w Unii Europejskiej, której wszelkie ograniczenia zgodnie z art. 52 ust. 1 Karty Praw Podstawowych muszą być zgodne z zasadą proporcjonalności, rzeczywiście odpowiadać celom interesu ogólnego uznawanego przez Unię lub potrzebom ochrony praw i wolności innych osób i nie mogą naruszać istoty tej wolności. Warto podkreślić, że od czasu wejścia w życie Traktatu o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej Karta Praw Podstawowych ma moc równą traktatom (por. wyrok Sądu Unii Europejskiej o sygn. T-52/09, pkt 89).

Ponadto zgodnie z art. 119 ust. 1 Traktatu o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej przewidującym prowadzenie przez Unię Europejską rynku wewnętrznego opartego na zasadzie otwartej gospodarki rynkowej i wolnej konkurencji, tak szerokie ograniczenie w korzystaniu z prawa własności (nakaz powrotu ciągnika siodłowego do kraju siedziby przedsiębiorstwa) wprost narusza art. 17 Karty Praw Podstawowych i prawo każdego do korzystania ze swojej własności. W żadnym razie niżej opisane ograniczenie w korzystaniu z własności nie odpowiada wyjątkowi od zasady ochrony prawa własności dotyczącemu dobra publicznego, gdyż protekcjonizm wybranych krajów UE nie jest działaniem na rzecz dobra publicznego – wszystkich obywateli Unii Europejskiej.”

Translated quote: “The provisions of the so-called «mobility package» and domestic provisions of the countries which violate the EU law are also incompatible with Article 15.2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which confers on every EU citizen the right of establishment and to provide services in every Member State. Article 16, at the same time, confirms the freedom to conduct business, any limitation on the exercise of which, according to Article 52.1, is subject to the principle of proportionality and may be made only if it is necessary, genuinely meets objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others and respects the essence of this freedom. It is worth mentioning that, since the coming into force of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Charter of Fundamental Rights has had the same legal force as the Treaties (see decision T-52/09, para 89).

Moreover, pursuant to Article 119.1 TFEU that provides for the internal market based on an open market economy with free competition, such a profound restriction of exercising the right to property (an order to return the tractor unit to the home country) constitutes a blatant violation of Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and everyone’s right to use their property. In no event does the mentioned limitation comply with the exception to the protection of the right to property pertaining to the general interest, since the protectionism present in certain EU countries is not serving the public interest of all EU citizens.”

During the debate on Law 4624/29-08-2019 Personal Data Protection Authority, measure for the implementation of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and the transposition in to the Greek legislation of the Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 and other provisions, one MP (from the Opposition) made a reference to the Charter.
Quote: "Η Ευρώπη είναι πρωτοποριακή στον τομέα αυτό. Ενώ στην Αμερική η μόνη συνταγματική βάση είναι αυτή της τέταρτης αναθεώρησης και βασίζεται αποκλειστικά και μόνο στην προστασία της ιδιωτικότητας –privacy- στην Ευρώπη έχουμε πολύ πιο εντοπισμένες, ειδικότερες και άρα προστατευτικότερες διατάξεις τόσο σε ό,τι αφορά την Ευρωπαϊκή Σύμβαση των Δικαιωμάτων του Ανθρώπου, το άρθρο 8, τα αντίστοιχα άρθρα 7 και 8 του Χάρτη των Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων, και στα εθνικά συντάγματα, στο Ελληνικό Σύνταγμα έχουμε την ειδική διάταξη του άρθρου 9 Α και ένα άλλο πλέγμα ρυθμίσεων."
Translated quote: "Europe is innovative in this area. While in America the only constitutional basis is that of the Fourth Amendment and it relies solely on privacy (in Greek) - privacy - in Europe we have much more focused, more specific and therefore more protective provisions regarding the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 8, the corresponding Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the national constitutions, in the Greek Constitution we have the special provision of Article 9a and another set of regulations."

By agreement of the Commission for the Study of the 21st Century Police Model, the Secretary General of the Basque Autonomous Police appeared on February 28 2019 and stated that for the corporation he represents, the 21st century police model must be based on the principles of democratic, civil police, close to citizens, guarantors of human and social rights, as well as the law.
Quote: “Mantener hoy en día excepciones y peculiaridades en asuntos como representación, libertad de expresión y régimen disciplinario no se sustenta y es contrario a la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea y, en todo caso, debe abordarse desde la necesaria importancia y plasmación práctica que el código deontológico de los policías debe tener en la praxis policial.”
Translated quote: “Maintaining exceptions and peculiarities today in matters such as representation, freedom of expression and the disciplinary regime is not supported and is contrary to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, in any case, must be addressed with the necessary importance and practical expression that the code of ethics of the police should have in police practice.”

In his written request (KK 229/2019), MP Tavio (the Finns Party) was concerned about the persecution of Christians, particularly in African and Islamic countries, and suggested that the government should give priority to Christian asylum seekers and quota refugees and review its development cooperation taking into account the situation of Christians and freedom of religion in developing partner countries. In her response, the Minister of the Interior, Maria Ohisalo (the Green Party) noted that the right to asylum is guaranteed in Article 14 of the UDHR and Article 18 of the Charter. The national asylum process is a part of the common European asylum system, and Finland has a duty to respect, e.g., the principle of non-refoulement as provided for in international human rights treaties, the Constitution Act and the Aliens Act. She pointed out that the processing of an asylum application is based on an individual and impartial assessment. All applicants are in an equal position, and no application can be prioritized on grounds of the reason for persecution. Quota refugees cannot be selected based on their religion only. Finland’s development cooperation strives to promote human rights and to support partner countries in their development. Such cooperation cannot be directed at supporting the needs of one religious group only.

There is a covenant between the government, municipalities, the Rotterdam The Hague Airport and citizens about the number of night flights at the Rotterdam The Hague Airport. This number is 849 take-offs and landings between 23.00 hrs and 7.00 hrs a year. However, in practice there are 1,300 night flights a year. This breaches the private life of citizens who live close to the airport. The MP who states this asks the Minister of Infrastructure and Water Issues to react and also claims that it is expensive to access the courts for an issue such as this one. The Minister acknowledges the figures, but says that the increase in flights is only due to the use of trauma helicopters at night. This is something that should not be denied, even if the private life of citizens suffers due to this. Moreover, the figures that have been agreed upon, were only agreed upon in an informal covenant, and not laid down in legislation, so that these figures cannot be enforced, which was also confirmed by an earlier judgement by the courts. The earlier judgement and the Dutch legal system ensure that there is always access to the courts, there may even be legal aid. As the figures cannot be enforced at the moment, the Minister will see if she can lay down these figures (without taking into account the number of flights by trauma helicopters) in law, so that they can be enforced.

Hanke Bruins Slot notices that hundreds of skulls have been bought from the United States for research purposes. She wonders whether the commercial aspects of this transaction are contrary to the prohibition to use the human body and parts of the human body for commercial purposes, as laid down in Art. 3 of the Charter. The Minister of Public Health, Welfare and Sports states that this article does not contain an absolute prohibition and that it is not addressed to citizens and companies, but to institutions of the European Union and Member States. In any case, informed consent and altruistic reasons on the part of the person who donates his or her body or part thereof, are predominant for the Minister.
Quote: "Vraag 5
In hoeverre is artikel 3 van het Handvest van de Grondrechten van de Europese Unie op de handel in lichaamsdelen zoals beschreven in het desbetreffende item van toepassing, waarin staat er een verbod is om het menselijk lichaam en bestanddelen daarvan als zodanig als bron van financieel voordeel aan te wenden? Als dit artikel niet van toepassing is, waarom dan niet?
Antwoord 5
Artikel 3 van het Handvest van de Grondrechten van de Europese Unie (hierna: Handvest) omvat het recht op lichamelijke en menselijke integriteit. Het tweede lid bepaalt dat in het kader van de geneeskunde en de biologie onder andere in acht moet worden genomen de vrije en geïnformeerde toestemming van de betrokkene en het verbod om het menselijk lichaam en bestanddelen daarvan als zodanig als bron van financieel voordeel aan te wenden. Het beginsel bevat geen absoluut verbod op commerciële handelingen met lichaamsmateriaal.
Artikel 3 richt zich, net zoals andere bepalingen van het Handvest, niet rechtstreeks tot burgers of bedrijven. De bepalingen van het Handvest zijn gericht tot de instellingen, organen en instanties van de Unie en tot de lidstaten. Anders dan internationale grondrechtenverdragen zoals met name het Europees Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens, bevat het Handvest een algemene beperking ten aanzien van de toepasselijkheid op het handelen van de lidstaten. Er moet namelijk sprake zijn van het uitvoeren van Europese regelgeving. In de hierboven beschreven situatie waarbij het gaat om het door burgers (in de Verenigde Staten) bij leven bestemmen van het lichaam voor (ontleding in het belang van) doelen als wetenschappelijk onderzoek, bevat het Unierecht echter geen regels. Om die reden is deze bepaling van het Handvest op de onderhavige casus strikt genomen niet van toepassing.
Wel onderschrijf ik het uitgangspunt van artikel 3 ten zeerste, namelijk dat lichaamsmateriaal afkomstig is uit vrijwillige en onbetaalde donaties. Het bieden van een vergoeding aan de donor voor de door hem in verband met de donatie gemaakte onkosten (zoals een reiskostenvergoeding) staat hieraan niet in de weg. Hier gaat immers geen financiële prikkel vanuit. Zoals ik heb aangegeven in mijn antwoord op vraag 3 staan voor mij de geïnformeerde toestemming en de altruïstische daad voorop. Dit omvat ook het geven van informatie over commerciële handelingen met lichaamsmateriaal en over eventuele daarmee gepaarde gaande winst."
Translated quote: "Question 5

To what extent does Article 3 of the Charter on the Fundamental Rights of the European Union on the trade in parts of the human body apply in this case, this Article stating that there is a prohibition to use the human body and parts thereof as a source of commercial gain? If this Article does not apply, why not?

Answer 5

Article 3 of the Charter on the Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter: the Charter) implies the right to physical and human integrity. The second paragraph states that, in the frameowerk of medicine and biology, the free and informed consent of the person involved should, amont other things, be taken into account, and the prohibiton to use the human body and parts thereof as such as a source of financial gain. The principle does not contain an absolute prohibition to use the material of the body.

Article 3 does not address citizens or companies directly, just as the other stipulations of the Charter. The stipulations of the Charter address institutions, organs and institutes of the European Union and Member States. Other than other international human rights treaties, such as in particular the European Convention on Human Rights, the Charter contains a general restriction as to the application to acts of Member States. This is proven by the fact that European legislation should be implemented. In the situation mentioned above, in which citizens (in the United States) designate, during their lives, their body (for the dissection in the interest of and) to aims such as scientific research, EU law, however, does not contain any rules. For this reason, the Charter does not apply in the narrow sense of the word."

The debates mention that the European Commission has made very critical comments to the Government on the bill, adopted by the National Assembly, and aimed at combating hate content on the internet. The European Commission warns of a likely violation of the e-commerce directive and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. According to the Commission, the text violates several major principles of European law: the country of origin principle; the diminished liability of hosting providers; the prohibition of widespread network surveillance. Recalling the existence of several European legislative initiatives in progress, the Commission has formally invited France to postpone the adoption of this text.

MP Tavio (the FInns Party) had submitted a written request to the Minister of the Interior. He inquired whether the government, in the event of a new influx of asylum-seekers, would admit all asylum-seekers or return them all to Sweden. In her response, the Minister of the Interior, Maria Ohisalo (the Green Party) noted that the right to asylum is guaranteed in Article 14 of the UDHR and Article 18 of the Charter. Refusal by a country to receive and process asylum applications would be in breach of the Refugee Convention, the Qualification Directive, the Asylum Procedures Directive, the Reception Conditions Directive, the Dublin Regulation, the Constitution Act and the Aliens Act. Under the Dublin Regulation, asylum-seekers cannot be returned to Sweden only on grounds that they have come to Finland from Sweden. Each asylum application is processed individually, and for each application it is determined which EU Member State is responsible for processing the application.

During the debate on the draft law one MP (from the Opposition) made a reference to the Charter.
Quote: "Θα ήθελα τώρα να αναφερθώ σε ένα άρθρο το οποίο ήταν από αυτά τα οποία επεξεργαστήκαμε ενδελεχώς στην επιτροπή του άρθρου 15 του νομοσχεδίου, που προβλέπει τις ειδικές υποχρεώσεις μελών της Κυβέρνησης και Υφυπουργών. Στην παράγραφο 3, λοιπόν, αναγράφεται ότι μέλος της Κυβέρνησης ή Υφυπουργός που καλείται να καταθέσει ως μάρτυρας σε δίκη για θέματα που αφορούν ιδίως την κυβερνητική πολιτική, οφείλει να ζητήσει προηγουμένως την άδεια του Πρωθυπουργού γι’ αυτό. Είναι μια διάταξη, που εσείς καλύτερα γνωρίζετε ότι παραβιάζει ευθέως το θεμελιώδες δικαίωμα του άρθρου 6 της Ευρωπαϊκής Σύμβασης Δικαιωμάτων του Ανθρώπου, το άρθρο 47 του Χάρτη Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Και, βέβαια, υπάρχει και η συγκεκριμένη παρατήρηση από την Επιστημονική Υπηρεσία της Βουλής για το άρθρο 209 του Κώδικα Ποινικής Δικονομίας."
Translated quote: "I would now like to refer to an article which was one of those which we have worked out in detail in the Committee on Article 15 of the Act, which provides for the specific obligations of members of the Government and of the Deputies Ministers. Paragraph 3, therefore, states that a member of the Government or a Deputy Minister who is called to testify in court on matters relating in particular to government policy must first seek the permission of the Prime Minister for this purpose. This is a provision that you are well aware of directly violating the fundamental right enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. And, of course, there is this particular observation by the Scientific Service of the Parliament on Article 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

The Minister was asked to give his assessment on whether the scope of the Viking Line Case and the CJEU’s judgement, as it was referred to in the parliamentary motion B 106 (2018-2019), gives a true and fair view of the right to take collective action, including strike. The question was posed because the description of EU-case in the parliamentary motion indicated that the CJEU found the conflict between the parties in the case in violation of EU-law. In his answer, the Minister stated that the description of the CJEU case in the motion was flawed and continued by providing the Ministry’s own interpretation of the case. In this answer, the Minister referred to CJEU’s reference to the Charter, whereupon the right to carry out industrial action, including the right to strike, must be acknowledged as a fundamental right, which is an integral part of the general principles of the EU, whose compliance the Court must secure.

In her speech the deputy denounces the clumsy and late management by the national government of the situation of the Open Arms vessel and the migrants rescued in the Mediterranean in late August. She considers that such mismanagement is a defining moment of the current difficult situation regarding the compliance and guarantee of human rights in Europe.
Quote: "“Negar un puerto para desembarcar o devolver personas rescatadas en el mar que han arriesgado sus vidas y las de sus familias huyendo de miserias provocadas casi todas por el norte rico global no es solo miserable y deshumano, es también ilegal; sí, sí, es ilegal, y digo por qué. Los Estados incumplen leyes, tratados, acuerdos internacionales, violan la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos, violan la Convención de Ginebra de 1951 y su Carta de Derecho Universal; violan la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea, violan también el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos, señorías, violan la Convención de Naciones Unidas sobre el derecho del mar, violan el Convenio sobre búsqueda y rescate marino, todo esto, pero lo que más violan es la ética y la moral.”
Translated quote: “Denying access to a port for disembarkation or returning people rescued at sea who have risked their lives and those of their relatives fleeing from misery caused almost all by the rich global north is not only miserable and dehumanizing, it is also illegal; yes, yes, it is illegal, and I shall say why. States violate laws, treaties, international agreements, they violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they violate the 1951 Geneva Convention and its Charter of Universal Law; they violate the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, they also violate the European Convention on Human Rights, ladies and gentlemen, they violate the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, they violate the Convention on Marine Search and Rescue, all of this, but what they violate most is ethics and morals.”

MP Karina Adsbøl refers to the Explanations relating to the Charter (2007/C 303/02) and Article 26, when proposing the obligation of braille labelling on animal pharmaceutical packaging. MP Karina Adsbøl considers a braille labelling on animal pharmaceutical packaging to contribute to the securing of autonomy and dignity amongst blind people and visually impaired people and enable them to purchase animal pharmaceuticals on their own and thus secure these citizens their independence.

Nine members of the Danish Parliament representing the Danish People’s Party presented on 29 November 2017 a proposal to the Danish Parliaments calling for a motion for the Parliament to adopt a bill that obligates the Government to announce to the Council of the European Union that the Danish Government will initiate efforts with the aim of repealing the EU’s Code of Conduct countering illegal hate speech online, which has been entered between the European Commission, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft. Furthermore, it is suggested in the motion for the bill that the Parliament should obligate the Danish Government to actively oppose potential initiatives of the European Commission to make the Code of Conduct legally binding or attempts to adopt legally binding rules limiting the freedom of expression of citizens of the EU. The authors state in the annex to the motion for the bill that the Danish Government should stress before the Council of the European Union and the European Commission that limitations of the freedom of expression must be strictly necessary in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter.

Quote “Regeringen må minde Rådet for Den Europæiske Union (Rådet) og Kommissionen om, at artikel 11 i EU’s charter om grundlæggende rettigheder beskytter ytringsfriheden, og at det er et krav, at begrænsninger af ytringsfriheden er strengt nødvendige, står mål med det formål, der vil opnås, og har en klar og gennemskuelig lovhjemmel. Disse betingelser lever adfærdskodekset ikke op til”.

Translation of Quote: ‘The Government must remind the Council of the European Union (the Council) and the Commission that Article 11 of EU’s charter on fundamental rights protects the freedom of expression and that it is a requirement that limitations of the freedom of expression are strictly necessary, measure up to the pursued aim and have a clear and transparent basis in national law. The Code of Conduct does not comply with these requirements’.

A debate was held on 17 July 2017 between UK Members of Parliament over the clauses in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill on whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be retained after the UK leaves the European Union.