Brussels, 02/10/2000 (Agence Europe) - The Convention which drew-up the draft EU Charter of fundamental rights adopted the text, as planned, the 2 October in Brussels, and Roman Herzog, President of the Convention (who was absent for health reasons) wrote to President Chirac to announce it. "The Convention has finished its work", announced, during a press conference Guy Braibant head of the delegation of government representatives, while noting that it is now up to the European Council to "legally and politically" adopt the Charter. Mr Braibant outlined "twelve key words" in this text: collegiality, transparency, dialogue and consensus (for the way in which the Convention worked), balance or rather "balances, in the plural", dignity, freedom, equality, solidarity, citizenship, justice (the heading of the Charter's chapters, over which Mr Braibant said: "We can dream that all the children of Europe know this list by heart", and "horizontal clauses". However, "nothing is finished", he felt, while noting that "there is the Charter after the Convention and the Convention after the Charter"; and the Convention, once finally adopted, "will live its life", while the Convention is an instrument that can be used in the future, "for a new building process".
This document is not minimalist, felt Inigo Mendez de Vigo, head of the MEP delegation to the Convention, during the same press conference. The letter by Mr Herzog was subject to the "quasi-unanimity" of the Convention members he said when answering a question, and when admitting that a few MEPs -"few in number" - had voted against it (see below). Mr Mendez de Vigo indicated that, this Tuesday, the EP would question the Council on the binding nature or not of the Carter and that "for us, it is good, it must be binding". As for the Finn Gunnar Jansson, head of the delegation of national Parliaments, he noted that the text adopted is a "compromise", thus acceptable for a Democrat. I asked my colleagues if, in this text, there where Articles that where absolutely unacceptable, or if absolutely necessary texts where missing, and they said "no", he noted.
As for the European Commissioner Antonio Vitorino (the "fourth Musketeer", said Mr Braibant) he hoped that the Charter does not become a "hostage" to the problem of its nature, binding or not: this text has "added value" even if it is a simple political declaration, he felt. Mr Vitorino, who is personally in favour of a biding Charter, recalled that, before the summit in Biarritz, the European Commission would present a Communication over the nature of this document. Mr Vitorino sees that Charter as a "dynamic" text and notes in particular that, if the citizens have the impression that the Union is far away from their concerns, the Charter must enable to "anchor the European project" to the aspirations of the citizens.
Among the members of the Convention who voted against, let us mention, (while others still have to comment), the MEPs: - Georges Berthu, French member of the Union for a European of Nations, who asserts that the Charter "refuses to recognise the primary legitimacy of national democracies, and even in an indistinct manner" the European and national competence, and that some have accepted on condition it remains a simple political declaration, while others on condition it becomes binding; -Hans-Peter Martin, Austrian Member of the Socialist Group, for whom the Charter "massively misunderstands" the opinion of the European Parliament (during the adoption of the Duff/Voggenhuber report) and "scandalously dilutes" the defence of press freedoms. In summary, according to him, the Convention can hardly be called a mole hill, but "even less so a mountain".