European Export Law: The of Cultural Goods - Case Study Example

European Union Law Perdita's case Germany's action is to be examined in the light of EEC Council Regulation No 3911/921 concerning export of culturalgoods outside a member state. The said regulation makes it mandatory to take an export licence for cultural goods to be exported outside the customs territory of the community. The regulation empowers a member state to refuse an export licence if it considers that the goods sought to be exported outside the community are its national treasures having artistic, historical or archaeological value. This is without prejudice to a member state's right under article 36 of EC treaty (currently article 30) reading as follows. Article 36. The provisions of Arts. 30 to 34 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants, the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value, or the protection of industrial and commercial property. Such prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.2 Article 30 of the above quoted EC treaty (now Article 28 post Maastricht with "without prejudice to the following provisions" removed) prohibits between member states quantitative restrictions or equivalent effect measures on imports subject to articles 31 to 37. Article 34 (currently article 29) relevant to the instant case deals with quantitative restrictions on exports prohibited between member states. Article 34 is reproduced below. Article 34. 1. Quantitative restrictions on exports, and all measures having equivalent effect, shall be prohibited between Member States. 2. Member States shall, by the end of the first stage at the latest, abolish all quantitative restrictions on exports and any measures having equivalent effect which are in existence when this Treaty enters into force. Article 34 read with article 36 makes it clear that Germany is not precluded to impose export restrictions on the grounds of "protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value". Now it should be ensured that the goods sought to be exported out of Germany to U.K. within the community falls within the ambit of "national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value". More importantly it must be examined whether the item sought to be exported is one of the items listed in the annex of the EEC Regulation No.3911/92 which it terms as cultural goods. Article 1 of the said regulation states "Without prejudice to Member States' powers under Article 36 of the Treaty, the term 'cultural goods shall refer, for the purposes of this Regulation, to the items listed in the Annex"3 Out of 14 items in the annexure, item no 3 seems to cover the item sought to be exported from Germany in the instant case.. The item No 3 is described as "Pictures and paintings executed entirely by hand, on any medium and in any material (1)" 4 This is subject to a proviso "The cultural objects in categories A.1 to A.14 are covered by this Regulation only if their value corresponds to, or exceeds, the financial thresholds under B." 5 appearing at the end of item A of the regulation. For item 3, the financial threshold is 50,000 ecus as mentioned in item B of the regulation. The item 3 has since been subdivided and given different threshold values by an amendment through EC regulation no 2469/96 6 The amended version as given in article 1 of the regulation is given below. Article 1 The Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 3911/92 shall be amended as follows: 1. in heading A: (a) point 3 shall be replaced by: '3. Pictures and paintings, other than those included in category 3A or 4, executed entirely by hand in any medium and on any material (1); (b) the following point shall be inserted: '3A. Water-colours, gouaches and pastels executed entirely by hand on any material (1); '4. Mosaics in any material executed entirely by hand, other than those falling in categories 1 or 2, and drawings in any medium executed entirely by hand on any material (1). 2. in heading B, the following category shall be inserted: '30 000 - 3A. (Water colours, gouaches and pastels). Article 2 .. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States 7 However the value of the paintings sought to be exported has not been given in the instant case. From the above, it emerges that a member state can prohibit export of cultural goods both within as well as outside the community. It is abundantly clear that article 36 can be invoked by Germany only if the objects sought to be exported are cultural goods. Hence there is another dimension to the issue. Merely because pictures of modern art drawn by hand are listed as item 3 of the annex to the regulation, it will not qualify for protection unless it has got the value envisaged by the regulation. Woods (2004 p 128 )8 states that there is no case law on this subject because of the secondary legislation of the above quoted regulation though according to him, it is not much focussed on the protection or development of culture except for retrieval of stolen goods lost to rival countries during the turbulent periods or unlawfully removed otherwise. He asserts that for want of jurisprudence, there is no finality on what would constitute a national treasure because the preamble to Directive 93/7 is specific that items listed in therein are not for interpreting article 30 as guidance by the European Court of Justice. It appears each member state can have its own measure of values to constitute a national treasure. Moreover there are textual differences in different language versions of the Treaty. For example English and French versions mention as "national treasure" while other languages versions term as "artistic heritage". Woods says that national treasure can not be equivalent to the value evinced by "artistic heritage". So also historical or archaeological value need not have artistic merit as merit comes from antiquity and not from artistic value. More importance can be attributed to "treasure" than "heritage" Woods therefore posits that article 30 can not be said to cover wholly cultural goods. He points out that European Court of Justice (ECJ) has purposely excluded cultural diversity from the ambit of article 30 while deciding the case 229/83.9 He is of the firm opinion that items covered by article 30 are not ordinary items but the items of high culture. Even in article 152, the treaty does not specify what is meant by culture for the purpose of terming items as cultural goods. ECJ has declined to review its judgement in French book prices case in spite of changes brought by The European Union as there were no changes in Articles 28-30. Applying this analogy, it should be taken as that ECJ does not intend to redefine the cultural sphere. At the same time, he points out less high brow cultural items continue to be protected by the mandatory requirements as per decisions in cases 60 and 61/84. Robertson (2005 p 110-111)10 states that cultural goods are exported among EU states either as per EU regulations or national export control of each member state, and such exports do not attract export duties. Exporters from any EU member state must therefore take EU licence from the appropriate authority and also comply their national control meant for exports which requirements are meant to serve as protective measures and safeguard their national patrimony besides controlling the traffic of cultural goods. According to him, threshold values mentioned in the regulation for cultural goods apply to exports from EU to any other overseas country. In Switzerland there are no restrictions for export of art and antique. Robertson (2005 p 110)11 further states that Germany has listed around 650 works of art and antique as national patrimony. These cultural goods can only be exported out of Germany for temporary exhibition purposes in the EU or overseas with the permission from the Institute of Kultur and Medien in Berlin. He states any cultural article other than from the catalogued 650 items, can be exported within EU without export licences and that only for export outside the EU, export licences are necessary. On the other hand, Italy makes it mandatory to obtain export licences for all cultural objects. Before coming to a conclusion, a brief look at the effect of a Regulation is desirable. Regulations are a means to the EU to encroach into the domestic legal systems of member states uniformly. The effects of regulations affect all the EU member states with equal force. A member state can not apply a regulation partially or only selectively so as to make sure of its non-applicability having already opposed while being adopted by the EU. A member state cannot also enact a national law to prevent application of a regulation. (Borchardt)12 Relevant portions of EU Guidelines for cultural goods for Germany are reproduced below 13 1. National regulations (publication references) Law transposing the European Community Directives on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State and amending the Law on the protection of German cultural goods against unlawful removal (Cultural Goods Protection Law - KultgutSiG) of 15 October 1998 Bundesgesetzblatt 1998 Section I No 70, p. 3162, published in Bonn on 21 October 1998 Amendment to Cultural Goods Protection Law of 8 July 1999 Bundesgesetzblatt 1999 Section I No 42, p. 1754, published in Bonn on 11August 1999 Under the Law to protect German cultural goods against unlawful removal (AbwSchG), works of art and other cultural goods including goods belonging to libraries or archives are given special protection against export (including removal from the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany on loan or on a temporary basis) only if they are entered in a list of cultural goods or archives of national importance. The Land authorities decide which goods are listed and the representative of the Federal Government for culture and media (formerly the Federal Minister for the Interior) can apply for goods to be listed in the national interest. A licence is required for the export of cultural goods, which have been listed. The Government representative for culture and media decides whether to issue licenses for the export of listed (protected) cultural goods. The law does not cover cultural and archive goods of national importance which are publicly owned; only the Federal or Land authorities are authorised to decide whether they can be sold or the approval of a public supervisory body is required under special legal provisions (Article 18 AbwSchG). Nor does it apply to cultural and archive goods in the possession of churches or other religious communities recognised as corporations under public law or their supervisory institutions and organisations where the approval of a supervisory body is required under ecclesiastical law to approve the sale of such goods or authorisation by the State is required under the relevant legal provisions (Article 19 AbwSchG). 2.2 Type of protection (procedure, export document, model, procedure for transfer and use) An export licence is required for listed cultural goods. The representative of the Federal Government for culture and media decides whether an export licence can be issued - after statutory prior consultation of a special committee of experts (see point 2.1). The licence is issued in writing according to German procedural law but there are no special printed forms for such licences. National cultural goods in Germany are: Works of art and other cultural goods - including those belonging to libraries and archives - whose removal from the scope of the law to protect German cultural goods from unlawful removal would be a significant loss for German cultural heritage (Article 1 AbwSchG). Decisions are taken at Land level in each individual case (see point 2.1). 3.2 Nature of protection (legal status, export licence, model) Cultural goods listed and therefore protected may only be permanently exported from Germany in exceptional cases under a licence issued by the representative of the Federal Government for culture and media. An export licence can be obtained from the Government representative for the temporary export of cultural for exhibition or restoration. 1 Controls for the protection of the national cultural heritage 2 Authority responsible for export controls (contact point) Customs offices check the export of goods to third countries. In the case of goods exported to other Member States checks can also be carried out by so called mobile control units. Central contact point: 4.2 Police authority responsible for protection (contact point) In Germany the police do not carry out any preventive or control measures to protect cultural goods of national importance (national treasures). 4.3 Nature of and legal basis for control In the case of goods exported to third countries, all goods of a value of more than 3 000 or goods subject to bans and restrictions (e.g. cultural goods) must always be declared for prior clearance to the customs office where the exporter is located. This customs office carries out sample checks of the goods and documents to establish whether the goods in question are national treasures which cannot be exported or require a licence (Article 161 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Articles 791, 793 and 794 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code and Article 1(3) of the German Customs Administration Law and Articles 1 and 4 of the Law to protect German cultural goods from unlawful removal). When a licence for the export of national treasures is presented it is checked to ensure that it corresponds to the goods and is genuine (if necessary by consulting the issuing authority). Mobile control units may stop vehicles and persons on German territory to check that the customs provisions or rules governing bans and restrictions for the goods in question have been observed (Article 10 of the Customs Administration Law). 4.4 Type and method of control (special powers) All control powers available under customs law such as document checks, inspection of goods and searching of persons and vehicles. Customs do not have special powers for cultural goods. Goods may be confiscated by customs if the rules have not been observed. 5. Penalties relating to cultural goods and national treasures A prison sentence of up to three years or a fine may be imposed for the unlawful removal of cultural goods covered by the Law on the protection of German cultural goods against unlawful removal (see point 2). Any attempt to do so is also punishable. Failure to comply with the notification obligations for such goods is deemed to be illegal and may be subject to a fine. Perdita is therefore advised that Germany is well within its authority to insist on an export licence on the paintings of German Artist Denny and also to refuse permission to export the same in the interest of preserving the cultural heritage. It must be noted that any unlawful removal of cultural goods would entail a prison sentence of up to three years or a fine. Authors quoted above are unanimous in their opinions that cultural goods are left for interpretations differently as per the individual member state's perceptions. Any restrictions by way of export licence or flat refusal to allow export will not amount interference with free movement of goods in the internal market by virtue of the regulation of mandatory nature which can not be challenged by an individual exporter or a member state. As Cultural goods enjoy a special privilege of protection under the above said regulation amended up-to-date, any export restriction even between the EU member states as imposed by Germany on the cultural goods is compatible with EU law. Lorenzo's case If the works of Degrasse depicting women in animal forms had been old paintings of ancient periods, the French Government presumably would not have given export licence so as to preserve them as cultural goods. Now the only question is whether the work imported into Germany are derogatory to human dignity. The Treaty of Rome of 1957 had no mention of Human rights though there were articles no 7, 48-58, 51, 119 dealing with discrimination on the grounds of nationality, freedom of movement, equal treatment for men and women in the work place, and equal treatment for immigrants respectively. It of course set the tone for human rights which are fundamental rights. Though there were no specific reference to human rights as fundamental rights, ECJ pointed out in the ruling of Internationale Handelsgesellschaft case 14 in 1970 that fundamental rights were inherent in the principles of community law and would draw strength from the constitutional laws of the member states already explicitly covering these rights. 'Nold' ruling also emphasised the relevance of international treaties as guidelines in this direction and added that any measure of the community should be consistent with Member States' constitutions.15 While in the 'Rutili' case 16 of 1975 there was a mention of ECHR, ECJ confirmed in 'Wachauf' case in 1997 that it had the power to review actions of the member states if the actions fell within the ambit Community Law.17 It must be noted that although ECHR is not mandatory on EU institutions unlike on Member states, they are followed as general principles in EC law. (Miller 2000)18 The rights19 protected by the ECHR.can be seen in the Appendix No1. Article 10 (1) of the ECHR confers right of freedom of expression to every one and it can be shocking, offending or disturbing. At the same time it carries with it duties and responsibilities. Article 10(2) therefore makes it subject to restrictions and fines as may be prescribed by law. The European Court of Human Rights has made it clear on several occasions that freedom of expression can not be curtailed. In case of conflict, freedom of expression by the press will prevail over the rights conferred by the ECHR20. In a Danish case involving prosecution of an author who published 12 different versions of Prophet Mohammed's face, it was decided it would not amount to human rights violation as long as the pictures are not derisive, scornful or contemptuous. See Appendix No 2 for the 12 different versions. The conclusion of the case reads as follows. Although there is no basis for instituting criminal proceedings in this case, it should be noted that both provisions of the Danish Criminal Code - and also other penal provisions, e.g. about defamation of character - contain a restriction of the freedom of expression. Section 140 of the Danish Criminal Code protects religious feelings against mockery and scorn and section 266 b protects groups of persons against scorn and degradation on account of i.e. their religion. To the extent publicly made expressions fall within the scope of these rules there is, therefore, no free and unrestricted right to express opinions about religious subjects. It is thus not a correct description of existing law when the article in Jyllands-Posten states that it is incompatible with the right to freedom of expression to demand special consideration for religious feelings and that one has to be ready to put up with "scorn, mockery and ridicule".21 McGonagle (2007)22 states that nowhere in the ECHR has human dignity been defined. References to human dignity are generally preambular rather than substantive. Although ECHR has not been explicit in referring to human dignity, European Court of Human Rights held in Pretty v the United Kingdom as "very essence of the Convention is respect for human dignity and human freedom".23 Similarly, the Court held in Gndz v. Turkey that "tolerance and respect for the equal dignity of all human beings constitute the foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society".24 Germany was the first to introduce Human Dignity in article 1 of its Basic Law 1949 which reads "Human Dignity is invaluable. Respecting and Protecting [this value] is the duty of all authority in the State". Article 79 renders articles 1 to 20 of the Basic law not amendable and Germany has been used as a major reference in legal scholarship for Human Dignity.25 In a land mark case Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbrgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn26, Germany prohibited company Omega from conducting laserdrome games killing human targets by firing as this was held by Germany as opposed to public morality. This was referred by German authority to the Court of Justice to conclude whether its action is compatible with EC law in respect of freedoms guaranteed by EC treaty for free movement of goods and services. Germany was of the opinion that the simulated acts of homicide in the Omega operated laser game were contrary to German Constitution. The court held "In the light of the above considerations, the answer to the question must be that Community law does not preclude an economic activity consisting of the commercial exploitation of games simulating acts of homicide from being made subject to a national prohibition measure adopted on grounds of protecting public policy by reason of the fact that that activity is an affront to human dignity"27. From the above discussion, it would appear that the case on hand of Mr Lorenzo cannot be sustained by him in that the Germany's law on the basis of morality degrading human dignity is held to be compatible with EU law. Hence the picture of women depicted in animal form by an already controversial artist is certainly against human dignity though a parallel can not be drawn to the Prophet Mohammed's case in Denmark which though might appear against human dignity was held to be not actually so by giving positive interpretations to the 12 versions of the Mohammed. If only pictures had been of some mythological value depicting national treasure or artistic heritage, position would have been different though still would not have been presumably allowed for export by French Government. It may be relevant to quote here Amdt (2005)28 who has written on plural concepts of human dignity and constitutional treaty yet to be adopted The article of Amdt dealing with biotechnological violation of human rights affecting human dignity says in its concluding remarks that article 1-5 of Constitutional Treaty (CT) establishes plural concepts of human dignity and does not impose a homogenous understanding among all the member states. Hence what is objectionable to Germany may not be so elsewhere. But the CT provides that member states individual convictions should be respected. ". Moreover, the principle of respect of national identities relieves the Constitutional Treaty of a decision between different understandings of human dignity. As a result, the possible dilemma between constitutional conflict and incoherent meanings of human dignity within the Constitutional Treaty can be avoided".29 It will now be clear that the action of German customs authorities seizing the works of controversial artist Degrasse is compatible with EU law especially stemming from the case law of Omega and ECHR's recognition of plural concept of human dignity left to the discretion of individual member states. Common case of Lorenzo and Perdita They are faced with a situation of increasing commission rates of the auctioneers allegedly through a concerted move to control the market as the three of them combined dominate 85% of market in the European Union, while there has been depression in the market due to slowing down of financial market of late. Their presumed act of forming a cartel by increasing the commission rates by six percent, seven percent and seven and a half percent respectively as against their respective market shares of 40%, 35 % and 10%. The fixation of commission appears to sacrificing of percentage proportionate to their higher market share. It is corroborating evidence. Their avoidance to fix a uniform commission rate is only to make it appear as if there has been no concerted move or abuse of dominant position, though by fixing differential rates according their market shares, they have achieved their objective of abusing dominant position. In this regard EC Regulation 1/200330 needs to be consulted. Clause 5 of the regulation states as follows. 5) In order to ensure an effective enforcement of the Community competition rules and at the same time the respect of fundamental rights of defence, this Regulation should regulate the burden of proof under Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty. It should be for the party or the authority alleging an infringement of Article 81(1) and Article 82 of the Treaty to prove the existence thereof to the required legal standard. It should be for the undertaking or association of undertakings invoking the benefit of a defence against a finding of an infringement to demonstrate to the required legal standard that the conditions for applying such defence are satisfied. This Regulation affects neither national rules on the standard of proof nor obligations of competition authorities and courts of the Member States to ascertain the relevant facts of a case, provided that such rules and obligations are compatible with general principles of Community law31 Article 1(1) of the above regulation prohibits all agreements, decisions and concerted practices as governed by article 81(1) and not complying with the conditions stipulated by article 81(3) of the Treaty. It (article 1(2)) places a bar on prohibition if they satisfy the conditions laid down in article 81(3) of the Treaty. The article 1(3) of the Regulation is emphatic that abuse of a dominant position mentioned in article 82 of the Treaty shall be prohibited. And that burden of proof of infringement of article 81 (1) and 82 rests with the party or authority alleging the violation. On the other hand, those claiming benefits under article 81(3) have the burden to prove that the conditions laid down therein have been fulfilled. As per Article 5 of the regulation, competition authorities can suo-moto or on receipt of a complaint, invoke articles 81 & 82 of the Treaty and decide as follows. The infringement can be put to an end. Besides, passing orders for interim measures, accepting commitments. and imposing fines, periodic penalty payments or any other penalty prescribed in the respective national law. If the authorities find the complaints are not true, they can accordingly decide against taking the above penal actions. As per the regulation, National Courts can also invoke articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty. The regulation is so comprehensive that it covers all possible actions for infringement and even prescribes the quantum of penalty or fines not only for the proved violation but also for continuing offences and for not complying with orders. Recently on December 5, 2007 the European Commission imposed a total fine of Euros 243,210,000 (243.2 million) on producers of chloroprene rubber for market sharing and price fixing. This practice had been going on from 1993 to 2002.32 In another case involving Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA,33 European Court of Justice, held as follows. It was alleged that by mutual sharing of information, insurance companies in Italy managed to increase insurance premium rates more than proportionate that would have been fixed by them in the ordinary course. Held -- (1) An agreement or concerted practice, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, between insurance companies, consisting of a mutual exchange of information that made possible an increase in premiums for compulsory civil liability insurance relating to accidents caused by motor vehicles, vessels and mopeds, not justified by market conditions, which infringed national rules on the protection of competition, might also constitute an infringement of art 81 EC if, in the light of the characteristics of the national market at issue, there was a sufficient degree of probability that the agreement or concerted practice at issue might have an influence, direct or indirect, actual or potential, on the sale of those insurance policies in the relevant member state by operators established in other member states and that that influence was not insignificant(5) In the absence of Community rules governing that field, it was for the domestic legal system of each member state to set the criteria for determining the extent of the damages for harm caused by an agreement or practice prohibited under art 81 EC, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness were observed. Therefore, first, in accordance with the principle of equivalence, if it was possible to award particular damages, such as exemplary or punitive damages, in domestic actions similar to actions founded on the Community competition rules, it had also to be possible to award such damages in actions founded on Community rules. However, Community law did not prevent national courts from taking steps to ensure that the protection of the rights guaranteed by Community law did not entail the unjust enrichment of those who enjoyed them. Secondly, it followed from the principle of effectiveness and the right of individuals to seek compensation for loss caused by a contract or by conduct liable to restrict or distort competition that injured persons had to be able to seek compensation not only for actual loss (damnum emergens) but also for loss of profit (lucrum cessans) plus interest.34 Hence the aggrieved parties of Lorenzo and Perdita stand a good chance of restraining the dominant auctioneering firms from abusing their dominant position and make them restore previous levels of commission rates. There have been cases decided by the ECJ in favour of the alleged mal-practitioners also, in view of certain genuine grounds. Perdita may also make use of her membership of STOPIT and make it one of the parties for initiating action against the said auctioneers since impact on the EU Commission will be significant when the complaint comes from a public body. It can be safely concluded that the action of simultaneously increasing the commission rates by the auctioneers does raise the questions of compatibility with EU law in the wake of regulation no 1/2003 cited above. Bibliography Books 1) Borchardt Klaus-Dieter 1999 The ABC of Community Law 5th Edition Official publication of European Communities, 2000 2) Robertson Iain (2005)Understanding International Art Markets and Management 1st Edition June 2005 Published by Routledge 3) Wood Lorna (2004) Free Movement of Goods and Services Within the European Community (European Business Law Library) Re-issue edition April 2004 Ashgate Publishing Aldershot, Hants, England ; Burlington, VT Judgements 1)Case No 229/83 Association des centres distributeurs Edoward Leclerc et al v Sarl Auble Vert et al 2)Case 4/73, Nold v. Commission [1974] ECR 491. 3) Case 36/75, Rutili [1975] ECR 1219. 4) Case 5/88, Wachauf [1989] ECR 2609, para.2639. 5)Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle fr Getreide und Futtermittel [1970] ECR 1125. 6) Joined cases C-295-C-298/04), [2007] All ER (EC) 27 COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (THIRD CHAMBER) 13 JULY 2006 7)Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) of 29 April 2002, 8)Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (First Section) of 4 December 2003, Documents 1) Treaty Establishing the European Community as amended by subsequent treaties Rome, 25 March, 1957 accessed 26 December 2007 http://www.eel.nl/documents/ectreaty/ectreaty.html 2)Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Official Journal C 303 of 14 December 2007 3) European union - Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and of the Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated text) Official Journal C 321E of 29 December 2006 4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3911/92 of 9 December 1992 on the export of cultural goods Official Journal L 395 , 31/12/1992 P. 0001 - 0005 5) Council Regulation (EC) No 2469/96 of 16 December 1996 amending the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 3911/92 on the export of cultural goods Official Journal L 335 , 24/12/1996 P. 0009 - 0009 6) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Text with EEA relevance) OJ L 1, 4.1.2003. Others 1) Amdt Felix Comment on Atina Krajewska - Plural Concepts of Human Dignity and the Constitutional Treaty German Law Journal No. 11 (1 November 2005) 2) Decision on Possible criminal proceedings in the case of Jyllands-Posten's Article "The Face of Muhammed" THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS File No. RA-2006-41-0151 15 March 2006 3)Miller Vaughne 2000 Human Rights in the EU:the Charter of Fundamental rights Research Paper 00/32 20 March 2000 House of Commons 4)Protection of cultural goods in the Community GUIDELINES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE BETWEEN THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES Taxud/1062/2001 Final Rev.2 5)Tarlach McGonagleInstitute for Information Law (IViR), University of Amsterdam Safeguarding Human Dignity in the European Audiovisual Sector IRIS Plus Legal Observations of the European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg, France. 6)Vaucheez-Hennette Stephanie "when ambivalent principles prevail. Leads for explaining western legal orders ' infatuation with human dignity principle" EUI working papers LAW 2007/37 Department of Law, European University Institute Case no C-36/02 14 October 2004 Court of justice ECR (2004)1-000 7)Reference No IP/07/1855 date 05/12/2007 accessed 30.12.2007 Appendix 1 Rights protected under ECHR Right to life, liberty and security of person Right to a fair trial in civil and criminal matters Respect for private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, conscience and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of peaceful assembly and association Right to have a sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal Right to marry and found a family Equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses in marriage Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions Right to education Certain rights concerning elections Liberty of movement and freedom to choose where to live Right to leave a country including one's own The ECHR also guarantees a prohibition from: Torture and inhuman or degrading punishment The death penalty Slavery, servitude and forced labour Criminal laws that are retroactive Discrimination in the enjoyment of rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention Expulsion of a state's own nationals or denying them entry, the collective expulsion of aliens Appendix 2 Drawing 1: The face of a man whose beard and turban are drawn within a crescent moon, and with a star, symbols normally used for Islam. Drawing 2: The face of a grim-looking bearded man with a turban shaped like an ignited bomb. Drawing 3: A person standing in front of an identity parade consisting of seven people, including a caricature of Pia Kjrsgaard [translator's note: leader of the Danish People's Party] and five men wearing turbans. The person in front of the line-up is saying: "Hmm ... I can't quite recognize him ..." Drawing 4: A bearded man wearing a turban, standing with a halo shaped like a crescent moon over his head. Drawing 5: Five stylised female figures wearing headscarves, with facial features depicted as a star and a crescent moon. The caption reads: "Prophet! You crazy bloke! Keeping women under the yoke!" Drawing 6: A bearded man wearing a turban, standing with the support of a staff and leading an ass with a rope. Drawing 7: A man with beads of sweat on his brow, sitting under a lighted lamp and looking over his left shoulder as he draws a man's face with a head covering and beard. Drawing 8: Two bearded men wearing turbans and armed with a sword, a bomb and a gun, running towards a third bearded wearing a turban. He is reading a sheet of paper and gesturing them to hold off, with the words: "Relax folks! It's just a sketch made by an unbeliever from southern Denmark." Drawing 9: A teenage boy with dark hair, dressed in trousers and a striped top printed with the text "The Future", standing in front of a blackboard, and pointing with a pointer at the Arabic text written on it. The text "Mohammed, Valby School, 7A" is written in an arrow pointing at the boy. Drawing 10: A bearded man wearing a turban and carrying a sword, standing with a black bar covering his eyes. Standing at his sides are two women wearing black gowns, with only their eyes visible. Drawing 11: A bearded man wearing a turban, standing on clouds with arms outspread, saying: "Stop, stop, we ran out of virgins!" Waiting in front of him is a row of men in tatters with plumes of smoke over their heads. Drawing 12: A drawing of a man wearing glasses and a turban with an orange in it. The turban bears the words "Publicity Stunt". The man is smiling as he shows a picture portraying a "matchstick man" with a beard and wearing a turban. Read More