It is 15 years since the European parliament, council and commission proclaimed the EU's charter of fundamental rights (ECHR), and six years since it came into force.
According to the Lisbon treaty, the ECHR holds the same legal value as all other treaties and fundamental rights form the general principles of European law. With EU accession to the ECHR, the European court of human rights (ECtHR) would consequently be responsible for EU issues.
These steps triggered a lot of hope among human rights defenders and seemed to pave the way for a new era.
RELATED CONTENT
In April 2013, the Council of Europe and the EU finalised a draft accession agreement. In 2010, parliament had stressed that the relationship between the two European courts - the ECtHR in Strasbourg and the European court of justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg - should not be hierarchical in nature.
However, this seems to be a problem which, in December last year, disappointingly led to the ECJ refusing to hand over its responsibilities to the ECtHR.
In a May 2010 resolution, MEPs expressed their desire for the two European courts to contribute to harmonious development in the field of human rights - particularly due to a heightened need for cooperation - and create an integrated system in which both courts would function synchronously. This is the working method between member states' national courts and the ECJ.
Now, Luxembourg judges insist on the creation of rules to ensure the ECJ never falls under Strasbourg's external control. This means we need treaty reform and that in the medium-term, there will be no accession to the charter.
In terms of the implementation of human rights, the ECJ's position is a big step back, even if some existing constitutional measures must be respected.
Because an EU human rights regime would be integrated into a higher ranking system, accession would strengthen the protection of citizens not just against action taken by their own countries, but also actions by the EU and its different institutions.
If an organ of the EU directly violated a person's fundamental rights, and that individual lost the case before the ECJ, he or she could call upon the ECtHR to rule on whether or not a violation had taken place. If there was a violation of fundamental rights, the EU would have to take the necessary measures to put an end to it.
Accession to the charter would be especially helpful with regards to EU institutions such as Frontex as up until now, the agency has refused to take responsibility for human rights abuses against refugees during missions, instead accusing the member states.
With an external court such as the ECtHR, this would be far more difficult. And, accession would send a strong signal on the coherence between the EU and the countries belonging to the Council of Europe and its pan- European human rights system. It would also enhance the EU's credibility in the eyes of third countries.
If Luxembourg judges are demanding treaty changes for ECHR accession, the commission must elaborate a new draft as quickly as possible.