18 BOSPHORUS HAVA YOLLARI TURİZM VE TİCARET ANONİM ŞİRKETİ v. IRELAND JUDGMENT Communities (Revocation of Trade Sanctions concerning the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and Certain Areas of the Republics of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina) Regulations 2000 (Statutory Instrument no. 60 of 2000) repealed Statutory Instrument no. 144 of 1993. III. RELEVANT COMMUNITY LAW AND PRACTICE 72. This judgment is concerned with the provisions of Community law of the “first pillar” of the European Union. A. Fundamental rights: case-law of the ECJ1 73. While the founding treaties of the European Communities did not contain express provisions for the protection of human rights, the ECJ held as early as 1969 that fundamental rights were enshrined in the general principles of Community law protected by the ECJ2. By the early 1970s the ECJ had confirmed that, in protecting such rights, it was inspired by the constitutional traditions of the member States3 and by the guidelines supplied by international human rights treaties on which the member States had collaborated or to which they were signatories4. The Convention's provisions were first explicitly referred to in 19755, and by 1979 its special significance amongst international treaties on the protection of human rights had been recognised by the ECJ6. Thereafter the ECJ began to refer extensively to Convention provisions (sometimes where the Community legislation under its consideration had referred to the Convention) 7 and 1. Reference to the ECJ includes, as appropriate, the Court of First Instance. 2. See Stauder v. City of Ulm, Case 29/69 [1969] ECR 419. 3. See Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, Case 11/70 [1970] ECR 1125. 4. See Nold v. Commission of the European Communities, Case 4/73 [1974] 491. 5. See Rutili v. Minister of the Interior, Case 36/75 [1975] ECR 1219; see also paragraph 10 of Opinion no. 256/2003 of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) on the implications of a legally binding EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on human rights protection in Europe. 6. See Hauer v. Land Rheinland-Pfalz, Case 44/79 [1979] ECR 3727. 7. See, for example, Hauer, cited above, § 17 (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1); Regina v. Kent Kirk, Case 63/83 [1984] ECR 2689, § 22 (Article 7); Johnston v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Case 222/84 [1986] ECR 1651, § 18 (Articles 6 and 13); Hoechst AG v. Commission of the European Communities, Joined Cases 46/87 and 227/88 [1989] ECR 2859, § 18 (Article 8); Commission of the European Communities v. the Federal Republic of Germany, Case 249/86 [1989] ECR 1263, § 10 (Article 8); ERT v. DEP, Case C-260/89 [1991] ECR I-2925, § 45 (Article 10); Union royale belge des sociétés de football and Others v. Bosman and Others, Case C-415/93 [1995] ECR I-4921, § 79 (Article 11); Philip Morris International, Inc. and Others v. Commission of the European Communities, Joined Cases T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T272/01 [2003] ECR II-1, § 121 (Articles 6 and 13); and Bodil Lindqvist, Case C-101/01 [2003] ECR I-12971, § 90 (Article 10).