BOSPHORUS HAVA YOLLARI TURİZM VE TİCARET ANONİM ŞİRKETİ v. IRELAND JUDGMENT 19 latterly to this Court's jurisprudence1, the more recent ECJ judgments not prefacing such Convention references with an explanation of their relevance to Community law. 74. In a judgment of 1991, the ECJ was able to describe the role of the Convention in Community law in the following terms2: “41. ... as the Court has consistently held, fundamental rights form an integral part of the general principles of law, the observance of which it ensures. For that purpose the Court draws inspiration from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and from the guidelines supplied by international treaties for the protection of human rights on which the Member States have collaborated or of which they are signatories ... The [Convention] has special significance in that respect ... It follows that ... the Community cannot accept measures which are incompatible with observance of the human rights thus recognised and guaranteed. 42. As the Court has held ... it has no power to examine the compatibility with the [Convention] of national rules which do not fall within the scope of Community law. On the other hand, where such rules do fall within the scope of Community law, and reference is made to the Court for a preliminary ruling, it must provide all the criteria of interpretation needed by the national court to determine whether those rules are compatible with the fundamental rights the observance of which the Court ensures and which derive in particular from the [Convention].” 1. See, for example, Criminal proceedings against X, Joined Cases C-74/95 and C-129/95 [1996] ECR I-6609, § 25 (Article 7); Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags- und vertriebs GmbH v. Heinrich Bauer Verlag, Case C-368/95 [1997] ECR I-3689, §§ 25-26 (Article 10); Lisa Jacqueline Grant v. South-West Trains Ltd, Case C-249/96 [1998] ECR I-621, §§ 33-34 (Articles 8, 12 and 14); Baustahlgewebe GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities, Case C-185/95 P [1998] ECR I-8417, §§ 20 and 29 (Article 6); Dieter Krombach v. André Bamberski, Case C-7/98 [2000] ECR I-1935, §§ 39-40 (Article 6); Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG v. Commission of the European Communities, Case T112/98 [2001] ECR II-729, §§ 59 and 77 (Article 6); Connolly v. Commission of the European Communities, Case C-274/99 [2001] ECR I-1611, § 39 (Article 10); Mary Carpenter v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Case C-60/00 [2002] ECR I6279, §§ 41-42 (Article 8); Joachim Steffensen, Case C-276/01 [2003] ECR I-3735, §§ 72 and 75-77 (Article 6); Rechnungshof and Others, Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C139/01 [2003] ECR I-4989, §§ 73-77 and 83 (Article 8); Archer Daniels Midland Company and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities, Case T-224/00 [2003] ECR II-2597, §§ 39, 85 and 91 (Article 7); Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Hacene Akrich, Case C-109/01 [2003] ECR I-9607, §§ 58-60 (Article 8); K.B. v. National Health Service Pensions Agency and Secretary of State for Health, Case C-117/01 [2004] ECR I-541, §§ 33-35 (Article 12); Herbert Karner IndustrieAuktionen GmbH v. Troostwijk GmbH, Case C-71/02 [2004] ECR I-3025, §§ 50-51 (Article 10); Orfanopoulos and Oliveri v. Land Baden-Württemberg, Joined Cases C482/01 and C-493/01 [2004] ECR I-5257, §§ 98-99 (Article 8); and JFE Engineering Corp., Nippon Steel Corp., JFE Steel Corp. and Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities, Joined Cases T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 and T78/00 [2004] ECR II-2501, § 178 (Article 6). 2. ERT v. DEP, cited above.