| This doctoral thesis tackles a question of wide scientific interest: the coexistence of two systems protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms in a common regional area, Europe. It is concerned with the study of the relations between the system established, in the Council of Europe, by the European Convention on Human Rights (Rome, 4 November 1950) and the European Communities system, founded essentially on the constant creative interpretation of the Treaties carried out by the Court of Justice.In the first part of the thesis, the approach to the subject is threefold: comparison, interaction and co-ordination. Firstly, comparison of the two systems exposes their divergences. Each system has its own area of implementation, but there is overlap in relation to time, space, the people protected and the object of protection.Secondly, interaction takes place between the systems. The thesis tackles the influence exercised by the ECHR on the evolution of the Community system and, from the opposite perspective, the influence of Community Law on the Strasbourg system.The first part concludes with the study of various arguments for and against the proposals for co-ordinating both systems: in particular, the Community catalogue of fundamental rights and the European Community's adhesion to the ECHR. The author pronounces in favour of a complementary solution.The second part of the thesis studies the changes in both systems up to the present day: in the framework of the ECHR, the coming into force of Protocol n° 11 within the European Union, the contribution of the Maastricht Treaty, the Draft Constitution for the European Union, the activities of the Intergovernmental Conference of 1996 and the progress of the Amsterdam Treaty.The thesis concludes with the position taken by the author in favour of co-ordinating the European human rights protection systems on the basis of their coexistence, with respect for their specificity and their respective areas of implementation. The author returns to the idea of a "European Community of Human Rights" in order to defend the harmonisation of both systems whilst respecting a common code of human rights. |
