Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 40kWORD 23k
16 January 2013
E-000424-13
Question for written answer E-000424-13
to the Commission
Rule 117
Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE)

 Subject:  The meaning of ‘associated rights’ — Part 3
 Answer in writing 

In its answer to my previous Written Question E-009977/2012, the Commission writes that ‘the explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights do not emanate from the Commission’ and that it ‘therefore cannot claim authority for their interpretation’. The Commission also notes that ‘[the explanations] do not as such have the status of law, [however,] they are a valuable tool of interpretation intended to clarify the provisions of the Charter’.

In Written Question E-005787/2012, I asked the Council what it means by ‘associated rights’. The Council answered that ‘[it] is … not the author of the explanation of Article 17(2) of the Charter to which the Honourable Member refers’ and that ‘interpreting the Charter is not within the remit of the Council’.

Obviously it will ultimately be the Court of Justice which decides on the scope of Article 17(2). However, the Court does not seem to be the right EU institution to be burdened with this kind of political responsibility. Whom does the Commission think should take political responsibility for the wording of Article 17(2) and for the document intended to make the article easier to interpret?

Original language of question: SVOJ C 347 E, 28/11/2013
Legal notice - Privacy policy