The character of the new European authority for fundamental rights could be discussed ad nauseum. Is it a necessary watchdog or just a toothless paper tiger? Experts have been debating this question since 1998, when talks about a fundamental rights agency began.

One thing is certain, though: The new agency is superfluous and expensive. Other offices in Europe have already been doing the job that it is supposed to take on.

Other organizations have it covered

For one, there's the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, whose job is to monitor adherence to human rights not only in the EU, but in all of Europe.

The European Human Rights Convention, which every citizen has the right to appeal to, has successfully been protected for decades by the European Human Rights Court, under the auspices of the Council of Europe.

Not without reason was the Council of Europe resistant to the establishment of the Fundamental Rights Agency for so long.

Then there's the European Court of Justice in Luxemburg, the EU's highest judicial institution, which has likewise effectively protected fundamental rights for decades.

Furthermore, each of the EU member states guarantee fundamental rights in their respective constitutions and their national courts ensure that these rights are observed.

High price for an annual report

The only thing that the authorities in Vienna will be able to add to that is an annual report on fundamental rights violations in the EU. Citizens cannot file complaints directly with the agency, nor can the agency report on the member states' police or judicial departments.

The public servants at the bureau will mainly spend their time drawing up statistics and compiling existing data from the EU states. Upon the request of the European Parliament, the bureau can also advise on the effect new laws may have on fundamental rights.

In effect, the fluffed-up agency will do what the observation site in Vienna has done since 1998, namely write reports about xenophobia, racism and anti-Semitism in the EU.

This is a sensible task. However, whether 100 employees and 24 million euros ($31.7 million) per year are really necessary to full this task is extremely doubtful.

Good intentions don't justify agency

It would have been enough to add a department to the office of the EU commissioner for justice and the interior in Brussels. That would have been less grandiose, but certainly would have brought about the same result.

The only novelty is that the agency employees are supposed to look at EU candidate countries, such as in the Balkans. However, these countries are already members in the Council of Europe and are expected to fulfill the corresponding requirements. If they don't, they won't be accepted into the EU.

The EU Commission reviews fundamental rights in the candidate countries as part of its annual progress reports anyways.

It wasn't for no reason that the Fundamental Rights Agency was disputed for so long among the EU member states. Granted, it may pursue noble goals, but it's superfluous nonetheless.