Reading time: 2 minutes
The European Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights raises a number of unforeseen issues — for instance, which fundamental rights tradition the judge delegated by the EU would represent. This topic was discussed at an event organized by MCC's School of Law, where Péter Paczolay, judge at the European Court of Human Rights, and Krisztián Kecsmár, judge at the Court of Justice of the European Union, talked about the relationship between the two European judicial bodies. The discussion was moderated by Lénárd Sándor, Associate Professor and Head of MCC's School of Law.
The event entitled “Guardians of the European Legal Order” jointly organized by MCC's School of Law and the Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church in Hungary, was held before a full audience. The speakers were Judge Péter Paczolay of the European Court of Human Rights, seated in Strasbourg, and Judge Krisztián Kecsmár of the Court of Justice of the European Union, based in Luxembourg. The discussion was moderated by Lénárd Sándor, Head of School of Law at MCC and Associate Professor. The conversation first explored the ways in which the protection of fundamental rights emerged within the European integration process, which initially began as an economic and market-oriented project, and examined the role played by the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court. In this context, Judge Paczolay emphasized that the Convention has, from the very outset, served as a reference point and a minimum standard for fundamental rights protection. At the same time, he cautioned that the frequently used expression “judicial dialogue” may be somewhat misleading.
Both participating judges highlighted that the “Maastricht turn” in European integration and the subsequent broadening of its competences rendered the relationship between the two courts significantly more complex, while also giving impetus to the development of the EU’s own fundamental rights framework. While the Court of Justice of the European Union has in many respects relied on the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court, the accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights, as mandated by the Lisbon Treaty, has yet to be realized due to a judgment of the CJEU.
Furthermore, the speakers noted that not all Member States support the accession process, and that it would raise questions which are seldom addressed in public debate or legal scholarship — among them, whether the EU could indirectly impose its own conception of fundamental rights on Member States. Beyond these substantive issues, the discussion was enriched by numerous anecdotes and engaging stories from judicial practice, offering unique insights into the interaction between Europe’s two principal courts.
