Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Concept of ‘State’ for the Purposes of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Fundamental Rights Challenges

  • 686 Accesses

Abstract

Article 51(1) CFREU clearly identifies two conditions for extending the application of the Charter beyond the EU’s own institutional framework. First, a Member State must be involved; and second, it must be implementing EU law. This chapter examines the first requirement. It begins by considering the meaning of ‘Member State’ in light of the Explanations relating to the Charter and in the case law of the CJEU. Then it highlights the loss of relevance of the concept of ‘State’, following the partial recognition by the CJEU of the horizontal direct effect of the Charter. Being part of the State is no longer necessary for an entity to be subject to the Charter and to set aside any conflicting national provision. Finally, the chapter explains how the notion of ‘State’ in the context of the direct effect of directives may play some role on this matter. It will be so when the EU act giving concrete expression to a principle enshrined in the Charter is a directive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Eeckhout (2002), p. 992.

  2. 2.

    Case 5/88, Wachauf, Judgment of 13 July 1989, EU:C:1989:321, paragraph 19. In the same sense, see Case C-260/89, ERT, Judgment of 18 June 1991, EU:C:1991:254, paragraph 43; Case C-2/92, Bostock, Judgment of 24 March 1994, EU:C:1994:116, paragraph 16; Case C-309/96, Annibaldi, Judgment of 18 December 1997, EU:C:1997:631, paragraph 13; Case C-292/97, Karlsson, Judgment of 13 April 2000, EU:C:2000:202, paragraph 37; or, Case C-198/13, Julián Hernández, Judgment of 10 July 2014, EU:C:2014:2055, paragraph 33.

  3. 3.

    Most of the literature has focused on the second element, i.e., the fact that Member States will only be subject to Article 51(1) CFREU when implementing EU law. See in this regard Besselink (2001), pp. 76–79; Eeckhout (2002), pp. 975–979; Groussot et al. (2011); Lenaerts (2012), pp. 378–387; or Ward (2014), pp. 1433–1447.

  4. 4.

    Eeckhout (2002), pp. 955–956.

  5. 5.

    Opinion delivered on 7 June 2007, Joined Cases C-7/06 P to 10/06 P, Beatriz Salvador García, EU:C:2007:324, point 126.

  6. 6.

    Quoting Haguenau, AG Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer referred to a “variable geometry approach” followed by the CJEU in its definition of “State,” which thus “changes according to the field under consideration and exhibits the pragmatism employed to secure the effectiveness of Community law, in order thus to satisfy the desire for integration inherent in the Treaty” (Opinion delivered on 12 January 2006, Case C-417/04 P, Regione Siciliana v Commission, EU:C:2006:28, point 43).

  7. 7.

    A different issue is the content of the concept of “State” for the purposes of the institutional provisions of the Treaties and, in particular, those regarding judicial remedies before the CJEU (Case C-95/97, Région Wallonne v Commission, Order of 21 March 1997, EU:C:1997:184, paragraph 6; and, Case C-180/97, Regione Toscana v Commission, Order of 1 October 1997, EU:C:1997:451, paragraph 6).

  8. 8.

    See, inter alia, Case C-417/99, Commission v Spain, Judgment of 13 September 2001, EU:C:2001:445; Case C-423/00, Commission v Belgium, Judgment of 17 January 2002, EU:C:2002:32, paragraph 16; and, Case C-383/00, Commission v Germany, Judgment of 14 May 2002, EU:C:2002:289, paragraph 18.

  9. 9.

    Case 103/88, Fratelli Costanzo, Judgment of 22 June 1989, EU:C:1989:256, paragraph 31; Joined Cases C-253/96 to C-256/96, Kampelmann, Judgment of 4 December 1997, EU:C:1997:585, paragraph 46; or, Case C-122/17, Smith, Judgment (Grand Chamber) of 7 August 2018, EU:C:2018:631, paragraph 45.

  10. 10.

    Case 248/84, Germany v Commission, Judgment of 14 October 1987, EU:C:1987:437, paragraph 17.

  11. 11.

    Case C-323/96, Commission v Belgium, Judgment of 17 September 1998, EU:C:1998:411, paragraph 27.

  12. 12.

    Picod (2018), p. 725.

  13. 13.

    See Case 249/81, Commission v Ireland, Judgment of 24 November 1982, EU:C:1982:402, paragraph 15 (on free movement of goods); and Case C-188/89, Foster, Judgment of 12 July 1990, EU:C:1990:313, paragraph 18, and Case C-413/15, Farrell, Judgment of 10 October 2017, EU:C:2017:745, paragraphs 22-29 (on the ability to rely on directives having direct effect).

  14. 14.

    Regarding the horizontal effect of the Charter, see Sect. 4 infra.

  15. 15.

    Case C-414/16, Egenberger, Judgment (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2018, EU:C:2018:257, paragraph 78.

  16. 16.

    Case C-399/11, Melloni, Judgment (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2013, EU:C:2013:107.

  17. 17.

    Case C-617/10, Åkerberg Fransson, Judgment (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2013, EU:C:2013:105.

  18. 18.

    Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10, N.S., Judgment (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2011, EU:C:2011:865.

  19. 19.

    Case C-163/17, Jawo, Judgment (Grand Chamber) of 19 March 2019, EU:C:2019:218.

  20. 20.

    See Case C-617/10, Åkerberg Fransson, cit. in note 17, paragraph 16; and, Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10, N.S., cit. in note 18, paragraph 61.

  21. 21.

    Joined Cases C-569/16 and C-570/16, Bauer, Judgment (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018, EU:C:2018:871.

  22. 22.

    Opinion delivered on 29 May 2018, Joined Cases C-569/16 and C-570/16, Bauer, EU:C:2018:337.

  23. 23.

    This would confirm a point made by Sarmiento (2018), in the sense that the CJEU has endeavored to reduce the importance of the Explanations, which are rarely mentioned in the case law of the CJEU concerning the Charter (p. 194).

  24. 24.

    See notes 8–11.

  25. 25.

    Case C-414/16, Egenberger, cit. in note 15. In Kücükdeveci, the CJEU had already recognized the horizontal effect of the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of age, but it based its argument on the fact that it was a general principle of EU law rather than a principle enshrined in Article 21(1) CFREU (Case C-555/07, Kücükdeveci, Judgment—Grand Chamber- of 19 January 2010, EU:C:2010:21, esp. paragraphs 27, 50 and 51). Given that the Charter had by then become a binding instrument (in contrast to when it delivered its Mangold judgment along the same lines, Case C-144/04, Judgment of 22 November 2005, EU:C:2005:709), it is possible that the approach of the CJEU (reiterated in DI; Case C-441/14, Judgment of 19 April 2016, EU:C:2016:278) was a way of sidestepping the issue finally addressed in Egenberger, i.e., the horizontal effect of Article 21(1) CFREU.

  26. 26.

    Paragraphs 76–80 (emphasis added).

  27. 27.

    Case C-68/17, IR, Judgment (Grand Chamber) of 11 September 2018, EU:C:2018:696, paragraph 69.

  28. 28.

    Case C-193/17, Cresco, Judgment (Grand Chamber) of 22 January 2019, EU:C:2019:43.

  29. 29.

    Joined Cases C-569/16 and C-570/16, Bauer, cit. in note 21; and, Case C-684/16, Shimizu, Judgment (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018, EU:C:2018:874.

  30. 30.

    Joined Cases C-569/16 and C-570/16, Bauer, cit. in note 21, paragraph 87; and, Case C-684/16, Shimizu, cit. in note 29, paragraph 76. That was the position of AG Bot in his Opinion in Bauer (cit. in note 22, points 77 and 78).

  31. 31.

    Opinion delivered on 25 June 2018, EU:C:2018:614, points 131 ss., esp. point 140.

  32. 32.

    Opinion delivered on 8 September 2011, Case C-282/10, Domínguez, EU:C:2011:559, points 80–83.

  33. 33.

    Opinion delivered on 18 July 2013, Case C-176/12, Association de médiation social (AMS), EU:C:2013:491, points 28–32.

  34. 34.

    Case C-356/12, Glatzel, Judgment of 22 May 2014, EU:C:2014:350, paragraph 78.

  35. 35.

    See his Opinion in AMS, cit. in note 33.

  36. 36.

    Case C-176/12, Association de médiation social (AMS), Judgment (Grand Chamber) of 15 January 2014, EU:C:2014:2. In his Opinion in Kücükdeveci, AG Bot had already suggested the Court to consider “whether the designation of rights guaranteed by directives as fundamental rights [contained in a charter that would become legally binding] does or does not strengthen the right to rely on them in proceedings between private parties” (opinion delivered on 7 July 2009, Case C-555/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:429, point 90), but the CJEU did not address the issue in its judgment.

  37. 37.

    Paragraphs 36 and 37.

  38. 38.

    Cit. in note 25.

  39. 39.

    Paragraph 45.

  40. 40.

    Paragraph 47.

  41. 41.

    Paragraph 48.

  42. 42.

    Paragraph 49.

  43. 43.

    Case C-194/94, CIA Security, Judgment of 30 April 1996, EU:C:1996:172. For Mangold and Kücükdeveci, see note 25.

  44. 44.

    Opinion cit. in note 33, points 74–78.

  45. 45.

    Cit. in note 13.

  46. 46.

    Case C-413/15, Farrell, cit. in note 13. This supposedly clarifying case law does not specify whether the special powers given to the relevant body must be linked to the performance of a task in the public interest conferred upon it by the Member State (paragraphs 28, 33 and 34). In the same line, see Case C-17/17, Hampshire, Judgment of 6 September 2018, EU:C:2018:674, paragraphs 54 and 55; and, Case C-168/18, Günther Bauer, Judgment of 19 December 2019, EU:C:2019:1128, paragraph 48.

  47. 47.

    See Sect. 2, supra.

  48. 48.

    Cruz Villalón (2017), pp. 118–120.

  49. 49.

    See in this regard Martínez Capdevila (2019).

References

  • Besselink LFM (2001) The Member States, the National Constitutions and the Scope of the Charter. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 8:68–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cruz Villalón P (2017) La Incidencia de la Carta (DFUE) en la Confluencia de la Eficacia Horizontal de los Derechos Fundamentales y la Ineficacia Horizontal de las Directivas: De Kücükdeveci a Dansk Industri. In: Izquierdo Sans C, Rodríguez de Santiago JM (eds) Anuario de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid 21. Los Derechos Fundamentales en las Relaciones entre Particulares, Facultad de Derecho de la UAM, BOE, Madrid, pp 101–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Eeckhout P (2002) The EU Charter of fundamental rights and the federal question. Common Mark Law Rev 39:945–994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groussot X, Pech L, Petursson GT (2011) The Scope of application of Fundamental Rights on Member States’ action: in search of certainty in EU adjudication. Eric Stein Working Paper 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (2012) Exploring the limits of EU Charter of fundamental rights. Eur Const Law Rev 8:375–403

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez Capdevila C (2019) La eficacia horizontal de los derechos fundamentales en la Unión Europea: el Tribunal de Justicia prefiere ir por libre. In: Martín y Pérez de Nanclares J (ed), González Herrera D (coord.), El diálogo judicial en la protección de los derechos fundamentales. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, pp 89–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Picod P (2018) Article 51. Champ d’application. In: Picod F, Van Drooghenbroeck S (eds) Charte des droits fondamentaux de l´Union européenne. Commentaire article par article. Bruylant, Bruxelles, pp 719–736

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarmiento (2018) El Derecho de la Unión Europea, 2nd edn. Marcial Pons, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward A (2014) Article 51. In: Peers S, Hervey T, Kenner J, Ward A (eds) The EU Charter of fundamental rights. A commentary. Hart, Oxford, pp 1413–1454

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Carmen Martínez-Capdevila

Authors
  1. Carmen Martínez-Capdevila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carmen Martínez-Capdevila .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Cristina Izquierdo-Sans

  2. Faculty of Law, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Carmen Martínez-Capdevila

  3. Faculty of Law, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Magdalena Nogueira-Guastavino

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Martínez-Capdevila, C. (2021). The Concept of ‘State’ for the Purposes of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In: Izquierdo-Sans, C., Martínez-Capdevila, C., Nogueira-Guastavino, M. (eds) Fundamental Rights Challenges. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72798-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72798-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-72797-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-72798-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation