No. Here are two examples: Currently, lawsuits against inadequate climate protection laws can only be based on a health violation. It is extraordinarily difficult to show that such an injury is imminent, which is why courts regularly dismiss lawsuits against government inaction. Article 1 would change that. The existing fundamental right to data protection primarily protects against unlawful data processing by the state. Article 2 would prohibit exploration and manipulation in general, i.e., in particular the business models of large IT corporations based on personality profiles.
Fundamental rights alone have little effect; they are not even suitable for feeling good. They only work if you enforce them. If people do that by going to court for a healthy environment or against manipulation, uncontrolled artificial intelligences, lies in politics and human rights violations in world trade - then a Europe would emerge in which we could feel more comfortable than we do today.
Both are important. Imagine if there were no right to freedom of expression. Who would then say that such a right is nonsensical as long as people are still discriminated against? It is important to demand all existing fundamental rights, and at the same time to formulate new fundamental rights for new challenges.
The European Union provides for a procedure to amend the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a European Convention (Art. 48 of the Lisbon Treaties). It can be convened by a simple majority of the EU member states, i.e. at least 14 countries. At the moment, the signs are good that such a vote will take place in June 22! This is our chance! Our goal is, among other things, to collect as many signatures as possible to place the fundamental rights issue on the agenda of the Convention. There is no fixed number of signatures for this. The more, the better. A starting point could be the European Citizens' Initiative (see next question). It requires at least one million signatures from at least seven EU member states.
With the European Citizens' Initiative you can only initiate the amendment of European secondary law, i.e. simple laws (in the EU these are called " regulations " and " directives "). However, we would like to change primary law, i.e. the foundations of the EU, namely the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is not possible with the European Citizens' Initiative.
Of course. Everything would be up for debate in a fundamental rights convention.
The challenges we address with the six fundamental rights cannot be met by any state alone. The European Union is still in a position to improve the lives of people not only in its member states, but around the world, through smart and far-sighted policies. We therefore want to commit the entire EU to environmental protection, self-determination, truth, human rights and the rule of law. The goal is ambitious, no question, but it is worth it.
No, at the latest when it affects our livelihoods, it becomes a legal issue. For a sufficient livelihood is the basis of all other rights. The state has political discretion in how it protects the environment sufficiently, but not that it does so sufficiently, as in the case of climate protection.
The prohibition of "manipulation" of people must be understood in the context of the entire Article 2, i.e., the right to digital self-determination. What is prohibited is the exploitation of personal data to induce people to behave in a certain way without this being transparent to them. Imagine, for example, that Facebook recognizes from your surfing behavior that you are sad and therefore offers you sweets to buy, or that a company uses personality profiles to identify people who are particularly receptive to radical right-wing parties in order to show them election ads - these would be manipulations prohibited under Article 2. What is not prohibited is completely normal advertising that is not based on personal data and that every person can recognize and classify as such.
Yes, it is possible. In law, one distinguishes statements of opinion from statements of fact. Opinions cannot be true or untrue, but facts are amenable to proof. Saying there is no climate change is objectively untrue. To say that there is no need to respond politically to climate change is an opinion and not open to attack. The courts have a great deal of experience in distinguishing expressions of opinion from assertions of fact and reviewing the latter for accuracy, for example in libel proceedings, disputes over ratings on the Internet or critical press reports. Article 4 compels public officials not to say anything untrue. So far, they have been allowed to do so, for example, deny climate change or claim that some "forces" want to exchange Europe's population.
Fundamental rights do not themselves provide the procedure for their enforcement. Therefore, it is up to the legislator to implement Article 4 in concrete terms. This could mean, for example, that not every untruth can be brought before the courts, but only its repeated utterance despite a warning.
At the moment, the Act on Corporate Due Diligence Obligationsin Supply Chains is being negotiated at the EU level. But even if it comes into force, it will not change the fact that people in the Global South who are directly affected by human rights violations have hardly any access to legal proceedings in Europe. Therefore, it is necessary to give the right to those who no longer want to be made, mostly ignorantly, the unwilling profiteer of conditions that violate human rights, the consumers in Europe. Only in this way is it realistic that even if a supply chain law is passed, there will be legal possibilities to enforce universal human rights.
Up to now, no one can appeal to the European Court on their own. Anyone who claims that European law has been violated by national bodies must hope that a national court will refer the question to the European Court as to whether this is indeed the case. Article 6 would create a possibility that every person can also take himself to the European Court.
The European Court would certainly have more work to do, but it would not be overburdened: Only "systematic" violations of fundamental rights could be brought directly before the ECJ, for example, a law that violates fundamental rights or a government practice that hurts many people. Even if this would lead to many lawsuits, the ECJ could simply be better equipped: The Court's expenses account for only 0.3 percent of the EU's 2021 budget.