27 Member States and others are lining up to join this exclusive club where a treaty, binding all together, is anchored in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.  But there is a disturbing paradox.

There are cases of Eastern bloc countries having to actually weaken their human rights mandates in order to join the EU.  How can this be?

The enlargement conditionality (Copenhagen criteria) requires new member states to undergo a rigorous litany of human rights and a strict democracy audit.

But in some cases, old Member States themselves fail the Copenhagen criteria . Some lack the high standard structures to ensure  human rights and the protection of minorities that are demanded of  candidate states.

In particular, few Member States have any competent structures to deal with the protection of  minorities. And indeed, others never ratified the treaties to protect minorities.

The European Commission is asking candidate states to embrace non-existent European standards.

That’s right, the EU has no common implemented cross-boarder standard on human rights but is asking candidate countries to ensure these standards as required under Article 49 of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU).

In a January 2009 article by Anneli Albi published in the European Law Journal, post-communist constitutional courts are having to downgrade the protection standards after accession into the celebre EU club.

The transnational nature of the European Commission and its numerous directives are having a reverse effect.  In particular, the regulations laid out in Europe’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) includes conditions for candidate states that force them to rescind certain fundamental rights.

These rights include the principle of non-retroactivity, property rights, and proportionality.

Albi writes that the Hungarian and Czech Constitutional Courts and the Estonian Supreme Court are challenging the EU on this issue.  All three are finding it difficult to maintain pre-accession levels on protecting human rights.

Sugar.  That sweet delicious substance.  Who would have thought that it would also erode basic freedoms?

In 2003, the Commission (Europe’s executive branch) adopted two measures in the CAP obliging new Member States that their sugar stocks and other foodstuffs would not exceed the average of previous years.

The purpose was to keep the price of sugar in check across board.  You exceed the stock, you get slapped a huge fine.

Estonia was given three days to get rid of its surplus, including private at home domestic sugar.  The kind you put your coffee and cake.  It was an impossible directive and so the tiny country was slammed with a 45 million Euros fine; money slated for improving infrastructure.

For the entire article see: European Law Journal, Vol.15, No.1, January 2009, pp.44-69.