I’m not too familiar with EU politics, but is there a constitution, and if so, is it possible to amend it to explicitly grant a right to privacy in communications to permenantly block attempts?
The EU has treaties which serve as a constitution of sorts – duties, powers, and limits of the EU, and its legal relationship with its member states. These treaties are signed by all member states and together make up the EU’s constitutional basis.
New treaties are signed every now and again with the purpose of amending, extending and redefining previous ones.
There’s e.g. the Maastricht Treaty (1997) which laid the ground work for a single currency and strengthened the power of the European Parliament (each member state has a number of seats and the representatives are elected nationally by a public vote).
The most recent one is the Lisbon Treaty (2009), which among other things, again, shifted the power balance in the EU in favour of the Parliament. It also strengthened EU’s position as a full international legal personality. Other changes were to make the union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding and to explicitly allow a member state to leave the union.
True, but the EU member states are members of it, and while complicated, ECHR rulings are generally respected by members and the EU. Why make things simple, right? :-)
I’m not too familiar with EU politics, but is there a constitution, and if so, is it possible to amend it to explicitly grant a right to privacy in communications to permenantly block attempts?
The EU has treaties which serve as a constitution of sorts – duties, powers, and limits of the EU, and its legal relationship with its member states. These treaties are signed by all member states and together make up the EU’s constitutional basis.
New treaties are signed every now and again with the purpose of amending, extending and redefining previous ones.
There’s e.g. the Maastricht Treaty (1997) which laid the ground work for a single currency and strengthened the power of the European Parliament (each member state has a number of seats and the representatives are elected nationally by a public vote).
The most recent one is the Lisbon Treaty (2009), which among other things, again, shifted the power balance in the EU in favour of the Parliament. It also strengthened EU’s position as a full international legal personality. Other changes were to make the union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding and to explicitly allow a member state to leave the union.
There’s no EU Constitution, but there is the European Court of Human Rights.
The European Court of Human Rights has next to nothing to do with the EU.
It is an international organization operating under The Council of Europe, which again, has little to do with the EU.
The Council of Europe predates the EU and is closer to the UN in its manner of operation. It does not make binding laws.
It has 46 member states (the EU has 27) including countries such as Albania, Armenia, Turkey, and Ukraine. Russia was expelled in 2022.
What can be confusing however is that The Council of Europe uses the same flag as the EU.
True, but the EU member states are members of it, and while complicated, ECHR rulings are generally respected by members and the EU. Why make things simple, right? :-)
Again, they they are completely different organizations. It’s not a question of simplicity or complexity.
The ECHR looks to address human rights issues with the cooperation of its 46 member states.
The EU is (mostly) a trade union comprising of 27 member states.
The UN, NATO, and WTO also have many European member states and again are different organizations.
You made your point, and it was clearly understood the first time. Perhaps you don’t understand my point?