Thu 22 May 2008
On Apr.18, 2008, a post was published on this blog: "The Lisbon Treaty Legalizes EU-Dictatorship with Death Penalty, wherein Helga Zepp-Larouche quoted Professor Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider as saying the Lisbon Treaty would mean the re-introduction of death penalty in the EU. Now a dicussion is taking place as for whether this statement is legally correct or not, e.g. on the well-informed “Gates of Vienna” blog.
Baron Bodissey of the Gates of Vienna wrote this very concise and relevant question to me: "
"The issue is this: "…And this is not in the treaty, but in a footnote, because with the European Union reform treaty, we accept also the European Union Charter, which says that there is no death penalty, and then it has a footnote, which says, "except in the case of war, riots, upheaval"- then the death penalty is possible. Schachtschneider points to the fact that
this is an outrage, because they put it in a footnote of a footnote, and you have to read it, really like a super-expert to find out!"
I want to know where this "footnote" is. I can't find it, and nobody else has found it so far".

Professor Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider was Professor at the Rechts- und Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nuremberg - previous Chair of Public Law
Professor Schachtschneider has repeated his statement on March 26, 2007, in the "Welt Online". Considering the the weighty consequences of the re-introduction of death penalty through the Lisbon Treaty I started searching and with the help of BüSo, Germany, I found the Explanation of Prof. Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider´s statement on the re-inroduction of death penalty.
Unfortunately, I have to admit that this explanation occurs tenable to a layman like me, which is to say with the Lisbon Treaty death penalty will be re-introduced in Europe. For Union law takes precedence over national law!!
Texts about death penalty .
As for the links: Some refer to the official texts in German, where I have not been able to find the corresponding text in English. The quoted references seem to be correct.
*The Treaty of Lisbon .
The position of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights is declared in ARTICLE 6 (1) of the Lisbon Treaty. "The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties."
*Charter of Fundamental Rights
Quotation from the preamble of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as for the position of the clarifying explanations (Dec. 14, 2007): "In this context the Charter will be interpreted by the courts of the Union and
the Member States with due regard to the explanations prepared under the authority of the Praesidium
of the Convention which drafted the Charter and updated under the responsibility of the Praesidium of
the European Convention."
Clarifying Explanations to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Source: Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union (official German)
3. The decisions of article 2 of the Charter correspond to the decisions of the mentioned article of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR 1950) and the supplementary protocol . They have according to article 52 passage 3 of the Charter the same meaning and significance/reach . So the "negative definitions" of the ECHR 1950 must also be considered part of the Charter:
a) Article 2 passage 2 ECHR 1950:
Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
- (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
- (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent escape of a person lawfully detained;
- (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
Right: Hanging in iran. Under special circumstances this is also possible in the EU.
b) Article 2 of protocol nr.6 of the ECHR 1950:
"*A state can in its legal system provide for death penalty for offences committed in time of war or on immediate danger of war. *; This penalty is only allowed in cases provided in the penal code and in accordance with its provisions…"
The Treaty has precedence over the legal system of member states
Here the relevant passages from the declarations of the supplementary protocol of the Treaties of Lisbon: 17. Declaration on Precedence: The Conference refers to the fact that the Treaties and the legal system laid down by the Union on the basis of the treaties in accordance with the permanent jurisdiction of the EU Court of Justice under the conditions laid down in this juridiction take precedence over the legal system of the member states.
Furthermore, the Conference has decided that the report of the Judicial Service of the Council on Precedence is to be attached to this final act in the edition of the Document 11197/07 (JUR 260):
Report of the Judicial Service of the Council as of June 22, 2007
After the jurisdiction of the (EU) Court of Justice the precedence of EC legal system is one of the pillars of the legal system of the Community. According to the Court of Justice this principle ensues from the special character of the European Community. At the time of the first verdict within the framework of this permanent jurisdiction (Rechtssache 6/64, Costa versus ENEL, 15 Juli, 1964 (1) this precedence was not mentioned in the Treaty. Nor is it today. The fact that the principle of this precedence has not been admitted to the future Treaty changes nothing at its existence and the existing jurisdiction of the Court of Justice.
From(…) ensues that no internal national regulations - no matter how they are composed - can have precedence over the legal system created by the Treaty, a system which, so to speak, flows from an autonomous (= self-made) source of justice, because of this autonomy, unless its character of Community justice is taken away and unless the legal basis of the Community itself is questioned.
Source: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/de/treaties/dat/12007L/htm/C2007306DE.01025602.htm http://eur-lex.europa.eu/de/treaties/dat/12007L/htm/C2007306DE.01023101.htm
16 Responses to “ Judicial Background for Re-introduction of Death Penalty in the EU ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from Totalitarian State Part 111;Salami Slicing Away- Our Freedoms « Centurean2’s Weblog
July 5th, 2008 at 14:36[...] will the EU start punishing us who criticize its entire nature? According to the he Lisbon Treaty death penalty will be introduced under certain circumstances, “riots” - [...]
-
Pingback from When are Europeans and Britons going to tell the EUSSR- where to push their Dictatorship? « uk1884
August 3rd, 2008 at 17:42[...] Unfortunately EU Law precedes national law– a-ccording to the legislation of the ECJ!!! The ECJ has now taken the role of EU legislator – [...]
-
Pingback from DENMARK BEING SWAMPED BY MUSLIMS- THE HAPPY EUSSR « Centurean2’s Weblog
August 3rd, 2008 at 17:56[...] 3, 2008 · No Comments Comment English eumed. Unfortunately EU Law precedes national law– according to the legislation of the ECJ!!! The ECJ has now taken the role of EU legislator – [...]
-
Pingback from Balkenende is incompetent | Het Zoet & Het Zuur
April 9th, 2009 at 10:01[...] te laten genieten gerechtvaardigd zijn kan. Dat zou niet in strijd zijn met het Europees recht. Volgens experts biedt het Verdrag van Lissabon aanknopingspunten voor de herinvoering van de doodstraf in verband [...]
-
Pingback from EU Charter Death penalty footnote - Politics.ie
September 7th, 2009 at 18:36[...] for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection. There is an article here on this matter: Judicial Background for Re-introduction of Death Penalty in the EU Euro-med __________________
-
Pingback from EU Charter Death penalty footnote - Politics.ie
September 7th, 2009 at 18:54[...] for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection. There is an article here on this matter: Judicial Background for Re-introduction of Death Penalty in the EU Euro-med __________________
-
Pingback from EU Charter Death penalty footnote - Page 2 - Politics.ie
September 7th, 2009 at 19:37[...] for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection. There is an article here on this matter: Judicial Background for Re-introduction of Death Penalty in the EU Euro-med You are pathetic. Why dont you return to our conversation last night as to why Article 352 makes [...]
-
Pingback from The Lisbon Treaty: Brainwashed Political Brotherhood Unanimously Keen on Giving up Democracy…. « Centurean2’s Weblog
September 23rd, 2009 at 13:44[...] but a simplified constitutonal dictatorship.”Professor Karl Albrecht has made it clear that death penalty is re-introduced with the Lisbon Treaty, as I have previously described in detail: “Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as [...]
-
Pingback from The Lisbon Treaty: Brainwashed Political Brotherhood Unanimously Keen on Giving up Democracy « NWO Observer
September 24th, 2009 at 10:21[...] but a simplified constitutonal dictatorship.”Professor Karl Albrecht has made it clear that death penalty is re-introduced with the Lisbon Treaty, as I have previously described in detail: “Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as [...]
-
Pingback from The Face of Dictatorship: EU Preparing for Armed Gendarmerie Against Treaty-disobedient Populations « NWO Observer
September 30th, 2009 at 11:37[...] have seen that death penalty will be re-introduced in the EU by the Lisbon Treaty, how Mr. Barroso calls the Lisbon Treaty the Treaty for enlargement - and the EU body, the [...]
-
Pingback from The Elite Engineering People to Love Their Servitude: The Essence of the New World Order « NWO Observer
July 16th, 2010 at 16:44[...] will be a bloody affair, first gendarmerie forces (Eurogendfor)– then military forces having the permission to shoot demonstraters – in the EU as a consequence of the Lisbon Treaty which was dictatorially passed in spite of its [...]

March 10th, 2009 at 14:49
What a lot of hogwash!
Someone has conveniently forgotten Protocol 13.
Anyway, the clauses relate to taking a life in self defence or defending life when in danger through rioting etc. Capital punishment is a judicial sentence.
March 10th, 2009 at 20:30
Hello, Perry.
Thanks for your comment. I am not a lawyer and cannot estimate this in full detail, when the point lies in the footnote of a footnote.
All I can say is that when Prof. Schachtschneider tells us that the Lisbon Treaty implies a death penalty for, say demonstrations that get violent, then there is any reason to believe it.
Prof. Schachtschneider is a very prominent expert on EU law. His complaint before the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe of the Lisbon Treaty being in conflict with the German Constitution was so sharp and relevant that the Court banned German President Köhler from signing the Lisbon Treaty.
It is now one year later still uncertain if Germany actually can ratify the Lisbon Treaty.
April 30th, 2009 at 15:14
JAPAN SOFTBANK
Softbank, now with about 20.6 million subscribers, controls about 19.2 percent of the nation’s market, up 1.1 percentage points from the previous fiscal year. But average sales per user declined for voice calls, while they were up for data transmission.
Losses on investments from the market downturn dragged on its earnings, according to Softbank, which bought British cellular giant Vodafone Group PLC’s struggling Japanese operations in 2006.
A major one-time loss related to payments for bonds for its mobile unit as well as a write-off for its optical fiber Internet services, also hurt results, it said.
One business area that performed better than last year was its Internet-related “cultural” businesses such as advertising, Internet shopping and auctions, Softbank said.
Softbank also introduced attractive mobile content such as video of comedy acts popular in Japan called “S-1 Battle,” and easy-to-use applications called “mobile widget.”
For the fiscal year ending March 31, Softbank’s profit dropped 60.3 percent to 43.2 billion yen, on 2.67 trillion yen in sales, down 3.7 percent on year.
Softbank did not give a net profit forecast, but expects operating profit for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010, to rise 17 percent from the fiscal year just ended to 420 billion yen.
April 30th, 2009 at 20:17
The long awaited 2009 Investment Priorities Plan (IPP) that lists business projects qualified for tax incentives from the government remains unsigned nearly after a quarter has passed into the year earning howls of frustration from the business sector which is currently reeling from a global recession.
The Board of Investments (BoI) expected Malacañang’s approval of the yearly list by the end of last month but petitions from various sectors for changes in the list that Malacañang ordered to be heard delayed its signing, Trade and Industry Secretary Peter Favila said.
Favila said the BoI had to conduct new hearings for the late petitions despite the BoI completing all public hearings along with involved government agencies on the list as early as February this year.
“The IPP has been completed and the President has to sign it,” Favila said.
Favila, however, declined to explain what specific areas of the draft IPP were changed during the Malacañang-initiated hearings.
Favila was also asked if the President will sign the IPP before she leaves for Egypt today but he quipped “I do not ask the President for commitment.”
Initially, the BoI said the 2009 IPP focuses on the granting of incentives to all domestic micro, small and medium enterprises that would include the smallest type of projects such as sari-sari stores and three-wheel vehicles operators.
The scheme is part of plans drafted by the BoI along with other government agencies in line with a directive from the Arroyo administration to safeguard jobs and attract investments while the country suffers from the effects of the global financial slowdown.
BoI managing head and Trade Undersecretary Elmer Hernandez earlier said the new IPP may include new types of incentives that are still in the process of discussions by the IPP inter-agency committee.
May 18th, 2009 at 20:25
raivo pommer-www.google.ee
raimo1@hot.ee
EURO-zone economies shrank far more than expected in the first quarter — with Germany posting its worst performance since reunification — but in the US on Friday there were signs of improving consumer sentiment and a stabilising industrial sector.
Gross domestic product for the 16 countries using the euro contracted 2,5% quarter on quarter, or 4,6% year on year, the worst on record. Europe’s largest economy, Germany, fell 3,8%.
Despite signs that the worst global recession in six decades might be easing, recovery clearly remains elusive.
“It was a massive surprise just how weak the data were,” said HSBC senior currency strategist Paul Mackel.
Bankers and policy makers said central and eastern Europe faced at least another year of economic pain. They urged western European institutions to do more to help.
Ukraine said it needed more funds on top of an existing $16,4bn International Monetary Fund (IMF) bail-out.
Economic signals in the US were more encouraging. The mood of US consumers improved this month, and a widely tracked measure of consumer expectations was at its highest level since October 2007.
US factory output fell at a slowing rate, and machinery orders in Japan surpassed expectations, both suggesting global industry was at least starting to stabilise.
Energy and financial shares pressured Wall Street, and the Standard & Poor’s 500 index closed down 1,1%. US indices were lower for the week, as were European markets, despite a 0,5% gain on Friday.
Industry and consumer confidence surveys signalled a slowing rate of decline in recent weeks, and central bankers have talked up recovery hopes. Yet consumer-demand signals have been mixed at best.
The world’s number three clothing retailer, Sweden’s Hennes & Mauritz, raised hope of a consumer recovery with its first sales increase since last July.
But US retailers JC Penney and Abercrombie & Fitch suggested consumers remained leery of nonessential spending and were sensitive to prices. “Price consciousness is dictating shopping habits unlike anything I have ever seen,” said Abercrombie CE Mike Jeffries, whose company’s loss was wider than expected.
US credit card defaults rose to a record high last month, reflecting the millions of job losses since the start of the year. Citigroup, Wells Fargo and American Express posted double-digit loss rates.
General Motors will cut about 1600 dealers as it prunes operations ahead of expected bankruptcy. Bankrupt Chrysler took similar measures. Sluggish demand has limited companies’ pricing power: US consumer prices had their largest 12-month drop since 1955.
A US policy maker said Federal Reserve action pulled the economy back “from the edge of the abyss”, but a return to growth would take time as Americans sought a new balance between consumption and saving. Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher expected a “very slow slog”.
Fed chairman Ben Bernanke said on Friday investors seemed more willing to take part in a Fed scheme to revive lending.
Banks, at the epicentre of the crisis, still face pressure to raise capital. Barclays is in talks to sell prized asset management arm Barclays Global Investors of San Francisco for $10bn or more. It received “unsolicited interest” in other units after auctioning its iShares unit.
IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn said recovery, which the IMF predicts is a year away, depended on the banks. “There is a lot do in cleansing the balance sheets. You never recover until the cleansing has been done.”