Euro-court outlaws criticism of EU
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels - March 7, 2001
THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the
European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its
institutions and of leading figures, sweeping aside English
Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil
liberties....
The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in
order to "protect the rights of others" and punish individuals who
"damaged the institution's image and reputation". The case has
wider implications for free speech that could extend to EU
citizens who do not work for the Brussels bureaucracy.
Mr Connolly, who has been told to pay the European
Commission's legal costs, said the proceedings did not amount to
a fair hearing. He said: "We're back to the Star Chamber and
Acts of Attainder: the rights of defendants are not respected or
guaranteed in any way; the offence of seditious libel has been
resurrected."
Mr Colomer wrote in his opinion last November that a landmark
British case on free speech had "no foundation or relevance" in
European law, suggesting that the European Court was unwilling
to give much consideration to British legal tradition...
Excerpts from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=004570208643790&rtmo=0xKbsKiq&atmo=0xKbsKiq&pg=/et/01/3/7/weuc07.html
Criticism of the EU
2.58 p.m. 27 Nov 2000
Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they accept the opinion of an Advocate-General at the European Court of Justice on 19th October that harmful criticism of
the European Union or its institutions is akin to blasphemy and that in such cases the normal right to freedom of expression does not
apply; and, if not, whether they will raise the question at the forthcoming European Council in Nice in December.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the
noble Lord's Question is based on a factual inaccuracy. At no point in the opinion to which he refers did the Advocate-General state that
criticism of the EU was akin to blasphemy or that the right to freedom of expression did not apply in criticism of the EU. The
Advocate-General merely concluded, in the context of an internal Commission
staff case, that a former official had been in breach of his obligations according to his terms of employment and that his dismissal was
therefore justified. The case will now be considered by the European Court of Justice. We shall await its final judgment before passing
further comment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It is true that the Advocate-General in question, Senor Damaso
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, whose 18-page opinion in the French translation I have with me, did not actually say that it was akin to blasphemy.
What he said--and this is an opinion commonly held among the continental elite but not, thank goodness, in this country--is that damaging
criticism that undermines the prestige, the self-confidence, the dignity, and so on, of institutions like the European Union is as heinous
and as unacceptable as blasphemy. He did not say that it was "akin", but it comes to very much the same thing. In the light of that, when
the proposal for a European public prosecutor comes to be discussed at Nice in less than a fortnight's time, can we hope that Her
Majesty's Government will be extremely cautious?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord raised a number of questions in his response. I should point out that the
appointment of a public prosecutor is not something for which the Government find there is any need. Perhaps I may remind the House
that the opinion of the Advocate-General is not binding; the European Court of Justice may or may not heed the opinion; and that
substantive comment should await the final judgment. Noble Lords will know that advocates are prone to making arguments and
suggestions and that judges are prone to disregard them.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, in the light of her previous answers, is my noble friend the Minister able to inform the House as
to why in her opinion the European Court of Justice has not so far sought a retraction from the Daily Telegraph?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can assist the House. The press articles written by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard are factually
inaccurate. The ECJ wrote to the Daily Telegraph twice asking it to print a rectification. Only this Saturday, nearly one month after the
appearance of the original story, did the Daily Telegraph finally print a response from the ECJ. In that letter the ECJ wrote:
"Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is wrong to state that ... the Advocate-General ... claims that criticism of the European Union is, 'akin to blasphemy and could be restricted
without violating freedom of speech'. In fact, the Advocate-General in no way makes that assertion".
As with the earlier Question today, they seem to have got it wrong once again.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, even if the Advocate-General was misquoted--one difficulty may be that his views were set out
in both Spanish and French and only recently became known in
English--will the Minister at least reassure the House that there will be nothing unpatriotic or blasphemous about arguing for a
development of the European Union in a more flexible and democratic direction than anything that seems to be in prospect at Nice or
even in daring to suggest that the, at best, command structure for the defence of Europe might not necessarily lie at the heart of the
European Union institutions?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly reassure the noble Lord that it is not blasphemous. However, whether or not it
is good sense is another matter.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that we now find ourselves in the position where it is no
longer prudent to believe everything that we read in newspaper reports?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it would, regrettably, appear to be so.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is it not true that Article 52 of the new Charter of Fundamental Rights provides for limitations on
imposed rights and freedoms otherwise recognised by the charter "if they are necessary" and
"meet the objectives of general interest recognised by the Union"?
Does not that give one cause for concern, especially bearing in mind that, with this unfortunate development of the European Union, we
are now in the phase of, "It doesn't exist"? We shall of course in future, as we have with all previous initiatives of this kind in the
European Union, go through the phase of, "It doesn't matter", "We'll vote against it", or, "Our partners don't want it either". We then
come, do we not,to the final phase, which is, "Oops, sorry; it's too late. You were warned"?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, if I may say so, I do not know what the noble Lord's precise question was--
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps the Minister could answer my point about Article 52 of the new Charter of Fundamental
Rights, which proposes precisely the sort of sanction to which the noble Lord's Question applies.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights does not permit the wholesale undermining
of citizens' rights, as subsequent Articles 53 and 54 make clear. Fundamental rights are guaranteed by the legally binding ECHR, the
treaties and the member states' constitutions that the non-binding charter cannot go below.
Perhaps I may further assist the House. Article 52(1) of the charter does indeed state that limitations may be placed on the rights
contained within it,
"if they are necessary and generally meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union, or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others".
Yet--I should stress that this is important--the following Articles 53 and 54 state that nothing in the charter should be interpreted as
restricting or adversely affecting the rights contained within the European Convention on Human Rights, the treaties or member states'
constitutions. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord is content and comforted by those words.
Lord Acton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that it is not altogether akin to blasphemy to suggest that the noble Lord,
Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for whom I have the greatest respect, is not always totally sound on the subject of the European Union?
Excerpted from:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds00/text/01127-03.htm
Back to the European Continent Menu
Back to News Archive Menu
Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted.