Brussels, 01/09/2000 (Agence Europe) - The return from the summer break was rather shameful for the European Parliament delegation within the Convention responsible for drafting the draft Charter of fundamental rights. The Thursday meeting was in fact marked by the surprise and criticisms, sometimes strong, of the MEPs who found on their return from holiday the existence of a part B to the Charter of fundamental rights. This text (that adds to the draft Charter, part A, published in our EUROPE documents series N°2022 of 4 August) brings explanations to the origin of the articles that are present in part A. Thus the displeasure linked to the fact of having worked during the summer on an incomplete text, certain MEP saw in it an attempt to restrain the scope of the right outlined in the draft Charter and to thus facilitate its acceptance by representatives of the Member States. In fact this part B reproduces all the reservations and limitations of right foreseen in the framework of the European Human Rights Convention or other pertinent texts.
The post holiday meeting also enabled the MEPs to raise various criticisms that have been made by the non-governmental organisations and to propose various modifications to the draft Charter. EUROPE will return to the demands. A new meeting of the delegation will take place next Wednesday on the sidelines of the European Parliament session in Strasbourg to will try a reach a consensus before the Convention meeting by separate colleagues, scheduled for next 11 and 12 September.
Following last Thursday's meeting, the President of the EP Delegation, Inigo Mendez De Vigo (EPP, Spain) said he was nevertheless confident in the ability of the EP member to reach a consensus. He underlined that the simple existence of the Charter in itself is a significant step forward and that it is now necessary to "go for the essential" without being held up by the details, so that the Charter may become "the pillar of the European social area". Speaking of certain additional demands on union or lodging rights, he insisted on the need "not to make something that is purely a declaration and that would have no effect on law" so as "not to trick people".