Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

Denmark / Supreme Court / 236/2014

A v Ministry of Transport
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Supreme Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
02/06/2016

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Title VII: General provisions

Article 51 - Field of application

VIEW FULL CASE
  • Denmark / Supreme Court / 236/2014

    Key facts of the case: 

    The applicant filed a complaint to the Danish High Court as he argued that a Ministrial order requiring that the applicant label his letter box with his full name was against the legal rights enshrined in Article 7 and 8 of the Charter. The High Court ruled in favour of the Ministry of Transport which had issued the order stating that the requirement was not part of implementing EU law and thus, pursuant to Article 51 of the Charter, the Charter was not applicable. The applicant appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the applicant passed away and, thus, in the remainder of the case the Supreme Court only assessed whether the deceased applicant’s estate could intervene in the case and, therefore, did not address the subject matter concerning the Charter.

    The High Court assessed the complaint with reference to case law from the European Court of Justice (ECJ), namely Fransson (C-617/10) and Siragusa (C-206/13). In accordance with these cases, the High Court found that in order for the Charter to apply, it is necessary that the subject matter relates to an area implementing EU law. It further referred to Siragusa (paragraph 24) in which ECJ stated ‘that the concept of ‘implementing Union law’, as referred to in Article 51 of the Charter, requires a certain degree of connection above and beyond the matters covered being closely related or one of those matters having an indirect impact on the other'.

    Outcome of the case: 

    The High Court ruled that the requirement to label letter boxes with full name was not covered by EU law and, therefore, the Charter was not applicable.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    It follows from Article 51(1) of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights that the provisions of the Charter solely addres the Member States when they are implementing EU law.

    It follows from the case law of the European Court of Justice, including mainly judgment of 26 February 2013 in the case of Fransson (C-617/10) that the fundamental rights in the Charter are applicable in all situations regulated by EU law but not beyond such situations (paragraph 19). Furthermore, the European Court of Justice has in its judgement of 6 March 2014 in the case of Siragusa (C-206/13) stated that the concept of ‘implementing EU law’ requires a certain degree of connection above and beyond the matters covered being closely related or one of those matters having an indirect impact on the other (paragraph 24). In the same case, the European Court of Justice stated (paragraph 25) that in order to determine whether national legislation involves the implementation of EU law for the purposes of Article 51 of the Charter, some of the points to be determined are whether that legislation is intended to implement a provision of EU law; the nature of that legislation and whether it pursues objectives other than those covered by EU law, even if it is capable of indirectly affecting EU law; and also whether there are specific rules of EU law on the matter or capable of affecting it.

    The requirement that letterboxes must be equipped with a nametag was already in place before the adoption of Act No. 1536 of 21 December 2010 (the Postal Act) which implemented directive 2008/6/EC of 20 February 2008 (3rd Postal Services Directive). This requirement followed from annex 1 to Administrative Order No. 1313 of 14 December 2004, which was still in force at the time for the adoption of the Postal Act and referred to in the preparatory works to the Postal Act.

    The postal services directives, which have a nature of liberalisation directives and have the main purpose to regulate universal postal service, do not contain provisions on nametags on letterboxes or provisions on the placement of letterboxes on the recipients properties.

    Hereinafter, the purpose of the requirement that letterboxes need to be equipped with nametags cannot be assumed to have been to implemented EU law, but in accordance with Peter Fuglsang’s statement and the Transport Agency’s letter of 19 January 2012, the purpose must be presumed to have been to ensure the greatest possible assurance that letters are delivered to the correct addressee. This purpose differs from those enshrined in the EU law, including the postal service directives and directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 (Data Protection Directive). On these grounds, the High Court finds that the requirement in Administrative Order No. 727 of 24 June 2011 on universal postal service and postal operators concerning nametags on letterboxes is not issued as a part of implementing EU law for which reason the Charter on Fundamental Rights is not applicable.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    Det følger af artikel 51, stk. 1, i EU's charter om grundlæggende rettigheder, at chartrets bestemmelser udelukkende er rettet til medlemsstaterne, når de gennemfører EU-retten.

    Det følger af EU-Domstolens praksis, herunder navnlig dom af 26. februar 2013 i Fransson-sagen (C-617/10), at de grundlæggende rettigheder i chartret kan anvendes i alle situationer, der reguleres af EU-retten, men ikke uden for sådanne situationer (præmis 19). EU-Domstolen har i sin dom af 6. marts 2014 i Siragusa-sagen (sag C-206/13) endvidere udtalt, at begrebet ”gennemførelse af EU-retten” kræver, at der foreligger en vis grad af tilstrækkelig tilknytning, som går ud over den beslægtethed, der måtte findes mellem de omhandlede områder, eller den indirekte virkning, som et område kan have på et andet (præmis 24). I samme sag har EU-Domstolen udtalt (præmis 25), at for at afgøre, om en national lovgivning henhører under gennemførelsen af EU-retten som omhandlet i chartrets artikel 51, skal der bl.a. foretages en efterprøvelse af, om de pågældende nationale bestemmelser har til formål at gennemføre en EU-retlig bestemmelse, disse bestemmelsers karakter, og om de forfølger andre formål end dem, der er omfattet af EU-retten, selv om de indirekte vil kunne påvirke disse formål, samt om der foreligger specifikke EU-retlige bestemmelser på området, eller som kan påvirke den.

    Kravet om, at brevkasser skal forsynes med navneskilt, var også gældende forud for vedtagelsen af lov nr. 1536 af 21. december 2010 (postloven), hvorved der skete implementering af direktiv 2008/6/EF af 20. februar 2008 (3. postdirektiv). Dette krav fremgik således af bilag 1 til bekendtgørelse nr. 1313 af 14. december 2004, der fortsat var gældende på tidspunktet for vedtagelsen af postloven og som der henvises til i forarbejderne til postloven.

    Postdirektiverne, der har karakter af liberaliseringsdirektiver og navnlig har til formål at regulere postbefordringspligten, indeholder ikke bestemmelser om navneskilt på brevkasser eller om brevkassers placering på den enkelte postmodtagers adresse.

    Formålet med kravet om, at brevkasser skal forsynes med navneskilt kan herefter ikke antages at have været at gennemføre en EU-retlig bestemmelse, men må i overensstemmelse med Per Fuglsangs forklaring og Trafikstyrelsens brev af 19. januar 2012 antages at have til formål at skabe størst mulighed sikkerhed for, at breve bliver afleveret til rette adressat. Dette formål er et andet end dem, der er omfattet af EU-retten, herunder postdirektiverne og direktiv 95/46/EF af 24. oktober 1995 (persondatadirektivet). På denne baggrund finder landsretten, at det i bilag 1 (punkt 1) til bekendtgørelse nr. 727 af 24. juni 2011 om postbefordring og postvirksomheder indeholdte krav om navneskilt på brevkasser, ikke er fastsat som led i gennemførelse af EU-retten, hvorfor chartret om grundlæggende rettigheder ikke finder anvendelse.