This story does not have Rebekah Brooks in it, nor details of high-wire acts to save the dollar and the euro. There are no wars or celebrities in sight. In other words, it is perfect summer reading.

I have written before about the European Union’s efforts to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights, which is required by the Lisbon Treaty. When I wrote 18 months ago, I listed the problems that needed to be tackled. Well, here is the summer good news: a provisional agreement has been reached.

The bad news is that complicated manoeuvres are still required. For instance, the draft will need the backing of the Committee of Ministers and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. At the same time, the commission is expected to ask the European Court of Justice's (EJC's) opinion, after which the EU's Council of Ministers and MEPs will have to give their approval. Only then will the draft be sent for ratification to the Council of Europe's 47 member states and the EU's 27 member states, many of them the same countries twice over. Phew, it must have been easier to obtain phone-hacking clearance at the former News of the World.

The first problem I highlighted 18 months ago was the appointment of a judge by the EU to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). There has been no mechanism to date for the EU to appoint judges like this. The proposed solution is that a delegation of the European parliament will be entitled to participate, with the right to vote, in the sittings of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (and its relevant bodies) whenever it exercises its functions related to the election of judges.

The European parliament will have the same number of representatives in the assembly as a state with the highest number of representatives, in other words 18. After all this, one judge will be appointed on behalf of the EU – and so democracy is saved.

The next problem I outlined was the relationship between the highest court in the EU, the ECJ in Luxembourg, and the ECHR in Strasbourg. Which would govern when adjudicating on the same convention? Here the procedure is also complicated, for the following reasons.

Normally, a claimant must exhaust domestic remedies before applying to the ECHR. Where the claim involves the EU, though, parties before the national courts may only suggest a reference to the ECJ and not enforce it. Therefore, this procedure cannot be considered as a legal remedy that an applicant must exhaust before making an application to the ECHR. However, and here comes the complication, without such a preliminary ruling, the ECHR would be required to adjudicate on the conformity of an EU act with human rights, without the ECJ having had the opportunity to do so first.

This situation is expected to arise rarely, but an internal EU procedure will be put in place to ensure that the ECJ has the opportunity to review the compatibility with the convention of the provision of EU law which has triggered the participation of the EU as a co-respondent.

This review procedure should take place before the ECHR decides on the merits of the application. The parties involved – including the applicant, who should be given the possibility to obtain legal aid – will have the opportunity to make observations in the procedure before the ECJ. The ECJ will not assess the act or omission complained of by the applicant, but only the EU legal basis for it. The subsequent assessment of the ECJ will not bind the ECHR.

In order not to delay proceedings unduly, the EU will ensure that the ruling is delivered quickly. An accelerated procedure before the ECJ already exists – the ECJ is able to give rulings under it within six to eight months. Wow, that’s it – and I think the collapse of the euro, although more devastating, is easier to follow.

All of this is important because, among other things, accession by the EU to the convention will give credibility to the EU when calling on its neighbours to adhere to the convention; it will give citizens of the EU the same protection against actions of the EU as we have against those of the member states, which is all the more important given that substantial powers have been moving towards the EU in recent years; and it will lead to more harmonious development of the case law on human rights between the Luxembourg and Strasbourg courts.

Such progress makes a welcome change anyway from the rest of the summer’s dismal developments.

Jonathan Goldsmith is the secretary general of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, which represents around a million European lawyers through its member bars and law societies