热门站点| 世界资料网 | 专利资料网 | 世界资料网论坛
收藏本站| 设为首页| 首页

欧盟宪法草案对欧盟人权保护机制的影响 (The Draft Constitution and Human Rights Protection in European/周大勇

作者:法律资料网 时间:2024-05-21 02:47:17  浏览:8207   来源:法律资料网
下载地址: 点击此处下载

The Draft Constitution and Human Rights Protection in European Union

周大勇 (Zhou,Dayong)

1 the general introduction of the draft constitution in aspect of the human rights
2 short review of the human rights protection in European Union
3 the new points in aspect of human rights in the draft constitution
3.1 common values
3.2 incorporation of the Charter of fundamental rights
3.3 other changes could affect the human rights
4 arisen questions
4.1 the protection different from under the Convention
4.2 the two courts system and its application
5 conclusions in a historical view




1 general introduction of the draft constitution in aspect of the human rights

“Conscious that Europe is a continent that has brought forth civilization; That its inhabitants, arriving in successive waves from earliest times, have gradually developed the values underlying humanism: equality of persons, freedom, respect for reason” Extract from the preamble to the draft Constitution

In past 16 years, the European Union (EU hereafter) has marked itself through a series of changes. From The Single European Act, in which the Union committed itself to create a single market and at the same time establish on its territory the freedom of movement of people, goods, services as well as capital, to Maastricht Treaty, which brought the Union into reality and led to common foreign policy and cooperation in the area of justice and internal affairs as a higher level cooperation among Member States. Then the following Amsterdam (1997) and Nice (2001) Treaties, strengthened cooperation in foreign and security policy and placed Justice and Home Affairs matters and established the frame for the Union as a legitimate institution, in which people from different nations integrated in a large region would have common historical direction and splendid future before them. Just before the door of enlargement of the Union, it was argued that the Union has to improve democracy and transparency as well as efficiency, in order to outlines the EU’s purpose and competence clearly and streamline structures so as to prevent paralysis, therefore a new constitution for the Union is determined to replace the EU's series of key treaties in passed over the last 50 years as a single document .

Under leading of former French President and master draftsman Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the European Convention set about its work of drafting the European Union's first ever full-fledged constitution. With the convention's work completed, the draft must now be finalized by an Intergovernmental Conference of European leaders that is expected to complete deliberations by the end of the 2003. As far as our topic is concerned, noticeably modifications come out in the constitution contract, first of all, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we will discuss later. In the beginning it is meaningful to consider the statues of the draft constitution in the progress course of the Union. The Union desires to bring peace and prosperity, to promote economic and social progress through continuously integrating market and expanding freedom under light of united institution and social systems . These goals, however, are the foundation of development and protection of human rights . That means, if we regard human rights as a series right which realized at first in peaceful and law-ruling society, then the Union has already kept on entrenching to appreciate these goal from beginning on, and now by means of perusing such goal in a larger region through enlargement, the EU’s influence extent to broader area and more people.

The draft constitution then in such context should be viewed as another historical phase in the process. Because the promoting of well-being and fortune of people depend not only on the development of economic situation and adding some single freedom clauses into the governmental documents, but also upon the entire politic system and background in which we live. Without governing based on democratic and effective institutional structure, and especially a ripe legislation and judiciary mechanism, the realization and protection of human rights could only be on the paper. This is also one of the motive caused the Declaration on the future of the European Union which committed the Union to becoming more democratic, more transparent and effective, in order to pave the way for a Constitution in response to the expectations of the people of Europe . In this perspective, one shall recognize the Constitution as a moving forward step of the whole EU institutionalization targeting its goal, so that to discuss the Constitution in connection with the human right protection, it is helpful to review the human rights protection in Europe and, especially in EU.

2 short review of the human rights protection in European Union

The protection of human rights has been internationally come to life in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 (UDHR) with reorganization of disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind and respect for inherent dignity as well as the equal rights of all members of the human. This declaration states explicitly that the rights and freedoms of humans have to be guaranteed without distinction and destruction by any group, state or person. These principles were broadly accepted by European countries, considering the origin of the EU (EC) and the historical separation in Europe after WWII, we denote only the contracting countries of European Community.

For the Member States of EC, the Council of Europe has been up to now the most important instrument, which established in 1949 as a result of the Congress of Europe in The Hague , and took for the basic of the human rights protection. The Council accepted the principles of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and integrated it into The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (the Convention hereafter), which and its 12 Protocols turned out to be the significant resource for Human Rights protection in Europe. Because of the existence of the Convention, the other two organizations established in the same age aftermath of the Second World War, i.e. OEEC and the European Communities didn’t include relevant clauses for Human Rights protection into their founding treaties. Since it was agreed at that time, the Council of Europe would focus on the protection of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democratic values, whereas the OECD and the European Communities were to be concerned with the economic restoration of Europe. The reason of separate organizations was based on a view to avoiding economic excuses for future inhumanity. Another reason came from the thought, which believed that the process of economic integration set forth in the Community Treaties could not lead to a violation of human rights. Furthermore, the original Member States in the Treaty of Rome feared, that the inclusion of a "bill of rights" in the Treaty might have brought about an undesirable expansion of Community powers, since it could lead Community institutions to interpret their powers as extending to anything not explicitly prohibited by the enumerated guarantees.

Under the regime of Council of Europe, a lots of achievement of human rights improvement has been reached , yet along with the development and expansion of EU, another mechanism on protection of human rights which does not totally rely on the Council of Europe has derived out on one hand, on the other hand being lack of provisions ruling human rights protection in the Treaty establishing EC did not prevent the EC and the later European Union from providing care for the protection against the violations on human rights. Naturally, how could a swelling supranational organization as EC, which has been continually strengthening its power in all social aspects, does not involve in human rights issues especially when the consciousness of human rights nowadays become more significant both in international and national stages? Regarding to EU, The protection system has been formed in three aspects.

First of all, the legislation in the Member States of EU. Since there were no Member States of EU (EC) which accedes to the Community without being a member of the Council of Europe, and according to the Convention, it impose obligations on the Member States that they should ensure that the internal laws and practices comply with the human rights standards set out in the instruments. Very member states in EU have recognize the principles derived from the Convention and incorporated them somehow into national laws, most importantly, provided constitutive protection as the basic legal resource for human rights protection. For example in Germany, Basic Law (Grundgesetz) Art 1 to 19 deliver explicit provisions even beyond the Convention; the same case as Part VIII (§71-85) in Constitution of Denmark ; in Britain the Act of Human Rights came into force on 2 October 2000 steers extending a ways, in which the Convention can be used before domestic courts. Certainly, according to the classic human rights lessons, the basic protection of human rights could only be afforded at the national level through national legislation and excise of authoritative power.

Secondly, the institutions and legislation at the EU level acts also with high respect to the human rights protection. The EU has showed its commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms and has explicitly confirmed the EU's attachment to fundamental social rights ever since its establishment.

The Amsterdam Treaty established procedures intended to secure their protection. It was ascertained, as a general principle, that the European Union should respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, upon which the Union is founded. For the first time a procedure is introduced, according to which severe and continuing violations of Fundamental Rights can lead to suspension of voting and other rights of a member state, if the Union determined the existence of a serious and persistent breach of these principles by that Member State. As to the Candidate countries, they should also respect these principles to join the Union. Furthermore, It has also given the European Court of Justice the power to ensure respect of fundamental rights and freedoms by the European institutions. In accordance with the inner requirement for the implementation of development cooperation operations, in order to reach objective of developing and consolidating democracy, EU also need its rule respecting for human rights. Such cases we have are for instance the EU Council’s regulation on human rights, Council Regulation (EC) No 975/199 and Council Regulation (EC) No 976/1999 for example, are aimed at providing technical and financial aid for operations to promote and protect of civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights etc.

Likewise, at their meeting in Cologne in June 1999, EU leaders declared that in respect to the current stage of progress of the European Union, the fundamental rights applicable at Union level should be pushed forward, namely be consolidated in a Charter and thereby made more evident. They argued, that the legal resources of human rights protection come from not only the European Convention of Human Right, but also from various international conventions drawn up by the Council of Europe as well as the United Nations and the International Labor Organization, they also include EU treaties themselves and from the case law of the European Court of Justice. As a result, a Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter hereinafter) was sketch out, which highlighted the EU’s respect for human rights, for fundamental freedoms and for the principle of democracy through listing more rights a more precise definition of the common values comparing the early documents including the Convention. We will continue to concentrate on the Charter in point 3 since it has been integrated in the draft Constitution as an outstanding achievement.

Finally, the opinion and case-law of European Court of Justice (ECJ hereafter) also have immense impact on the establishment of the instrument of human rights protection within EU.

Although the jurisprudence developed by the ECJ recognizes the Convention as the standard-setter in cases in which the Court has to consider and decide a human rights issue, since there were no relevant legislation existed in the frame of the Community, the ECJ furnish itself power in this aspect by means of case-law. Earlier in 1974, the ECJ first made reference to the ECHR in the Nold judgment, in which the ECJ emphasized its commitment to fundamental human rights based on the constitutional traditions of the Member States’ fundamental rights form an integral part of the general principles of law which the Court enforces. In assuring the protection of such rights, the Court is required to base itself on the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and therefore could not allow measures, which are incompatible with the fundamental rights recognized and guaranteed by the constitutions of such States. The ECJ declared, that the international treaties on the protection of human rights in which the Member States have cooperated or to which they have adhered could also supply indications which may be taken into account within the framework of Community law.

That implied, even without clear regulations in the treaties, the remedy against violation on human rights could also be provided within the framework of the Community in respect for the common traditions applied to the Member States, and in connection with we have mentioned about the Member States’ above, the principles and resource applied to the Member States derived from the Council of Europe. Thus a EU standard could be established by transform a rating comparison of the members’ legal systems to the case-law in ECJ in respect for human rights.
下载地址: 点击此处下载

贵阳市人民政府驻外办事处、联络处职责和若干问题的规定

贵州省贵阳市政府办公厅


贵阳市人民政府驻外办事处、联络处职责和若干问题的规定
贵阳市政府办公厅


(1989年7月31日 贵阳市人民政府批准)


为了进一步加强市人民政府驻外办事处、联络处的领导,理顺办事处、联络处与有关部门的关系,明确职责,建立健全工作制度,逐步完善办事处、联络处的建设,适应工作的需要,特拟定如下暂行规定。
一、驻外办事处、联系处性质和隶属关系
1.贵阳市人民政府驻外办事处、联系处是市政府的派出机构,行使市政府委托的职权;为副县级事业建制;属市政府领导,由市政府办公厅管理▲。
2.有关经济技术协作等方面的业务工作,由贵阳市人民政府以外经济合作办公室管理▲。
3.党的组织关系和行政隶属关系同时接受驻地政府和贵州省人民政府驻当地办事处的管理。
二、驻外办事处、联系处职责和任务
1.坚持改革、开放、搞活的方针,认真贯彻中央、省、市和驻地政府的有关方针、政策、法规和法令。
2.根据市委、市政府的指示,促进和沟通贵阳与驻地城市政治、经济、科技等方面的联系;对重要的经济技术合作项目做好组织协调和牵线搭桥工作。
3.广开渠道,注重调研,及时、准确地向市委、市政府及有关部门提供驻地城市改革和建设等方面的经验、措施、办法、动态等信息资料。
4.密切与驻地城市有关部门的联系(北京联系处要密切与国务院各部、委、办的联系),加强与各兄弟办事处的业务和信息交流,促进贵阳与各兄弟城市间的友好合作关系。
5.对贵阳市驻外地城市的企业,进行协调、服务、检查、指导。
6.积极为我市企事业单位办理代购、代销、代运和物资调剂业务,做好服务工作。
7.联系贵阳籍以及过去在贵阳工作过的同志,为振兴贵阳作贡献。
8.对贵阳市企事业单位派往驻地城市设立的办事机构,要加强联系,了解、掌握有关情况。
9.做好办事处、联系处人员的思想政治工作,加强行政、业务、财务管理,加强和完善内部思想建设和业务建设,使之成为精干、多能的工作机构。
10.及时办理市委、市政府交办的有关工作。
11.为市级各大班子领导同志外出提供服务,搞好接待。
三、驻外办事处、联系处人员编制、干部、任命及福利
1.贵阳市人民政府驻北京、上海、广州、深圳、海口五个办事处、联系处,编制共三十五人(不含临时雇佣人员)。各办事处具体配备人数,由市政府办公厅根据实际任务确定。
2.按照干部管理权限,派驻办事处、联系处的主任,征得市委组织部同意后,由市政府任命,副主任由政府办公厅任命。
3.派驻办事处、联系处人员原则上实行轮换制,一般两年轮换一次,根据需要可适当延长或缩短轮换期。
4.驻外办事处、联系处聘请的临时人员,应择优录用,实行合同制。
5.借调到各办事处、联系处工作的人员,原工资福利待遇不变,同时享受驻地出差(按日历天数计算)补贴。当地聘请和在贵阳市雇请的临时人员按签订的合同规定执行。
6.在驻外办事处、联系处工作期间的调资、评定技术职称,由原单位根据国家政策负责办理,所在办事处、联系处要提供其驻外期间的工作表现。干部、职工、编制、工资福利、年终统计工作,由原单位负责办理。
7.驻外办事处、联系处工作人员(除临时雇请人员外)均按有关规定享受休假。夫妻两地分居的按国家规定享受探亲假。有休假和探亲假共同使用的,仅享受一次性交通费报销。当年不休假的,按国家有关规定办理。
8.驻外办事处、联系处被轮换的人员,在原则上回原单位工作。需离职或退休者,亦由原单位负责办理有关手续,并按照干部管理权限请市委组织部和市人事局有关部门负责协助。
四、驻外办事处、联系处建立目标管理责任制
1.驻外办事处、联系处实行主任负责制。
2.各办事处、联系处要将各自的工作任务列入目标管理,建立目标管理责任制,落实到人,定期检查、评比。表扬奖励表现好的,批评鞭策后进的。
3.驻外办事处、联系处要加强自身的思想建设、作风建设和业务建设,定期组织学习政治、业务和党的各项方针政策,树立廉洁、高效、求实、创新的工作作风。
4.各办事处、联系处要建立会议、汇报制度。半年一次书面汇报,年终写出总结报告。
五、驻外办事处、联系处财务经费管理
1.本着勤俭办事,节约开支的原则,从实际工作需要出发,由市财政局每年对各办事处、联系处核拨经费。
2.办事处、联系处工作人员(含负责人)出差、探亲、休假、轮换、调离(须经市人民政府办公厅批准),交通和住宿标准,严格按有关规定执行。
3.贵阳派驻办事处、联系处的人员来筑出差,差旅费报销、住勤补贴减半发给。
4.各办事处、联系处为企业开展代购代销、牵线搭桥活动,按照有关规定收取的手续费、劳务费,可拿出一部分改善职工福利。



1989年7月31日
空得其名、未得其实--《物权法》关于占有制度条文的理解与评析

占有是物权的起点,是所有权和其他物权产生的基础。占有制度是物权法中的一项重要内容,自罗马法以来,诸多国家或地区对该制度均有明确而缜密的规定。我国十届全国人大第五次会议于2007年3月通过的《物权法》在其第五编中独立成编且作专章规定、首次以法典的形式明确建立了占有制度,并将其与所有权、用益物权和担保物权并列加以规制,在我国民事立法进程中具有重大意义。该编共一章(即第十九章)五则条文,对占有的法律适用(第241条),权利人享有物的返还请求权、损害赔偿请求权和费用偿还请求权(第242-244条),以及占有保护(第245条)问题进行了原则性的规定,但内容极为简略,条文表述也不够准确和严谨,不可谓不粗陋,占有制度立法存在诸多不足之处。具体理解与评析如下:

一、从编名、章名字眼对“占有”性质的理解

对于占有的性质究竟为权利、事实抑或为事实与权利的结合,长期以来备受争议,各国立法亦不尽相同,我国学界通说采事实说。《物权法》对于占有制度的规定,使用“第五编 占有”和“第十九章 占有”,而没有使用“第五编 占有权”和“第十九章 占有权”,从字眼上分析,笔者理解认为,对占有的性质亦采事实说。依此,我们可对占有定义如下,所谓占有,是指占有人对物的事实上的控制和支配。对物为控制和支配的人,为占有人,是占有法律关系的主体;被控制和被支配的物,为占有物,是占有法律关系的客体。

二、“占有”的理解与评析

我国《物权法》第241条规定,“基于合同关系等产生的占有,有关不动产或者动产的使用、收益、违约责任等,按照合同约定;合同没有约定或者约定不明确的,依照有关法律规定”。本条旨在规定占有的法律适用问题,调整有权占有人与无权占有人之间的关系。以占有是否具有本权为标准,可区分为有权占有和无权占有,如土地承包经营权人、承租人根据土地承包经营权、租赁权而占有标的物属于有权占有,而拾得人对遗失物的占有、盗贼对盗赃物的占有,则属于无权占有。从条文表述来看,本条存在一些不准确、不严谨的地方,法律适用也有模糊和冲突之处,主要表现在:

1、“基于合同关系等产生的占有”之“等”字模糊了占有的适用范围

依本条“基于合同关系等产生的占有”之“等”字从字面上来理解,占有除基于合同关系产生的外,还可以基于非合同关系产生。“依照有关法律规定”自然也属基于非合同关系产生的情形,如此便没有必要在条文后段单就此进行并列行文,如果有特别情形也应该使用“但书”;同时,如果占有基于非合同关系产生,没有合同何来“违约”、“约定”,在条文后段也不应出现“违约责任”、“按照合同约定”、“合同没有约定或者约定不明确的”等字眼,显然该“等”一字模糊了本条的适用范围,应为多余一字。试将“等”字删掉,本条条文意思就变得清晰了,即占有或基于合同关系产生,或基于法律规定产生,其适用前提和范围便能得到相对清晰的界定。

2、“使用”和“违约责任”不是《物权法》占有编关注的内容

占有基于合同关系产生,关于合同标的的“使用”以及相关的“违约责任”,这是合同法所要解决的问题,也是《物权法》第242-244条所不涉及的内容,将“有关不动产或者动产的使用、违约责任等”在占有编中予以明确规定完全没有必要,而且也给法律的适用造成了界限模糊和规则上的冲突。

3、基于合同关系产生的占有本权应限定在物权之上

由于合同既可以设立债权,也可以设立物权,从而成立有权占有的本权。如果权利人享有的占有本权为债权,根据债的相对性原理,权利人基于债的关系的占有权只能向债的相对方行使,即便物被第三人无权占有,也不能向该第三人行使;但是,如果将其适用范围扩大至占有编特别是《物权法》第242-244条规定,显然将会抹杀债权与物权之间的区别,从而将危及整个民法体系。因此,对于权利人保护的规定,本条未明确规定适用对象,更未将基于合同关系产生的占有本权限定于物权上,很值得反思。

三、“物的返还请求权、损害赔偿请求权和费用偿还请求权”的理解与评析

我国《物权法》第242-244条规定了权利人返还占有物的请求权以及所生的损害赔偿、孳息与费用偿还请求权,对各条条文的理解以及表述上存在的不妥之处具体分述如下:

1、第242条

第242条规定,“占有人因使用占有的不动产或者动产,致使该不动产或者动产受到损害的,恶意占有人应当承担赔偿责任。”实际生活中,除对物的使用外,物还可在很多情况下因占有人的过错如肆意破坏遭受侵害。本条将物之损害原因限定在对物的“使用”,将大大缩小恶意占有人承担损害赔偿责任的范围,显然条文表述与立法者的实际意图应是不相吻合的。

2、第243条

第243条规定,“不动产或者动产被占有人占有的,权利人可以请求返还原物及其孳息,但应当支付善意占有人因维护该不动产或者动产支出的必要费用。”也就是说,当权利人行使物的返还请求权时,无论善意占有人还是恶意占有人,均应将原物及孳息返还给权利人。若孳息已被消费时,强制善意占有人返还常常会使其承受过重的债务,遭受不可预期的损害,目前多数大陆法系国家均免除善意占有人的孳息返还义务,本条规定显然不利于对善意占有人在孳息返还上的保护。对于“必要费用”,其目的是保持物的状态或维护物的正常使用,无论占有人对物的占有系恶意还是善意,都是必需支付的。本条规定“应当支付善意占有人因维护该不动产或者动产支出的必要费用”,虽肯定了对善意占有人的保护,但占有人再“恶”,这个“必要费用”权利人也必须返还,否则将导致不当得利。总之,在善意占有人孳息返还和恶意占有人必要费用请求偿还两个问题上,本条规定有待进一步的检讨与商榷。

3、第244条

第244条规定,“占有的不动产或者动产毁损、灭失,该不动产或者动产的权利人请求赔偿的,占有人应当将因毁损、灭失取得的保险金、赔偿金或者补偿金等返还给权利人;权利人的损害未得到足够弥补的,恶意占有人还应当赔偿损失”。本条是关于损害赔偿请求权的规定,其表述上存在的问题表现在:如果占有物毁损、灭失完全因第三人的行为而非因占有人过错所致,依民法法理,权利人只能向实施侵害行为的第三人请求损害赔偿,而依本条规定权利人应向占有人请求损害赔偿,显然会造成请求对象上的错位。其次,权利人请求损害赔偿的,按本条规定,占有人应当返还“保险金、赔偿金或者补偿金等”,即返还不当得利,而非损害赔偿,又将造成请求权内容上的错位,与前几条法律条文相比,本条表述所缺乏的严谨性和准确性体现得更为明显、矛盾尤为突出。

四、“占有保护”的理解与评析

《物权法》第245条是关于“占有保护”的规定,法律条文为:“占有的不动产或者动产被侵占的,占有人有权请求返还原物;对妨害占有的行为,占有人有权请求排除妨害或者消除危险;因侵占或者妨害造成损害的,占有人有权请求损害赔偿。”“占有人返还原物的请求权,自侵占发生之日起一年内未行使的,该请求权消灭。”本条规定的“对妨害占有的行为,占有人有权请求排除妨害或者消除危险”不够严谨。“排除妨害”固然是与“妨害”相对应,但与“消除危险”相对应的不是存在“妨害”,而是存在“妨害危险”,将条文表述为“妨害占有的或者可能妨害占有的,占有人有权请求排除妨害或者消除危险”就会显得更为严谨。

总之,我国《物权法》占有编缺失许多重要的制度,对于占有概念、占有的性质、占有的构成要件、占有的类型等基本问题以及占有的取得、占有的丧失等重要问题我国《物权法》均没有明确的界定和规定;就是目前仅含的五则条文,亦在表述上存在诸多不准确性和不严谨性的缺陷及不足,这注定了我国占有制度显得空有其名而未得其实。笔者认为,我国占有制度的完善,首先就应该对前述占有的基本问题进行明确界定,此外,对目前“占有编”条文内容作调整或者重新表述、确立先占制度、明确间接占有制度、确立取得时效制度、规定占有推定规则和确立自力救济途径,对于占有制度的构建有着重大的现实意义。

王冠华,北京市博金律师事务所专职律师、博士
13810112545

版权声明:所有资料均为作者提供或网友推荐收集整理而来,仅供爱好者学习和研究使用,版权归原作者所有。
如本站内容有侵犯您的合法权益,请和我们取得联系,我们将立即改正或删除。
京ICP备14017250号-1