Comment by arlort

> the constitution states that no law can be enforced that is contrary to the ECHR

Yes, but the decision of what is contrary to the ECHR is made by the ECHR and they always give pretty ample margins to member states. The ECHR is supposed to be a lower limit on what protections are given. Not the ultimate authority on what protections should be given.

Maybe they'd rule these cases in violation, all I'm saying is that I wouldn't be shocked if they didn't

> the EU charter is basically the ECHR but with some minor additions and it's own court

No, actually it's completely different from the ECHR. The ECHR is a treaty which applies to all actions and legislation of the parties.

The EU charter is specifically targeted at EU law. It is a protection against interference originating in EU law and its scope applies only to EU law and its implementation.

So if your rights are violated due to an EU regulation you have recourse because of the charter, if they are violated due to how your country implemented an EU directive you have recourse, and if they are violated by your country because of how they are enforcing some legislation you have recourse.

However the member states themselves could pass their own law completely violating these principles and as long as it doesn't infringe on EU competences you'd have no recourse (well, you'd still likely have the ECHR)