1/81
Week 1-11 Flashcards
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
---|
No study sessions yet.
Why EU law?
It forms the basis for much of UK Law
A ‘regulatory superpower’ on the doorstep of the UK with a global reach
The Principle of Conferral
Article 5 of the TEU
‘Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred up it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States’
These are governed by the principles of “subsidiarity” and “proportionality”
Subsidiarity
The EU only takes action when objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States, but are better achieved on an EU level
Local issues are for Member States
Cross-border issues are for the EU
Proportionality
The EU should not use a bigger solution than necessary to fix a problem (to achieve a treaty’s objectives)
Ensures that EU laws and policies are not excessive and they have is a balance between effectiveness and a less restrictive approach
Why is Conferral, Subsidiarity and Proportionality important?
National parliaments can object to proposed EU legislation if they consider it breaches the principles of subsidiarity and/or proportionality
Together (conferral, subsidiarity, and proportionality) regulate a balance between EU and member states, ensuring that the EU can act only in its designated authority in a way that respects national governance
Competences
After the Treaty of Lisbon (‘competence creep’), the principle is operationalized through the concept of competences, that is, those powers granted to the EU in specific areas
Article 3 TFEU: “Exclusive competence”
Article 4 TFEU: “Shared competence”
Article 6 TFEU: “Coordinating competence”
Article 3 TFEU — ‘Shared Competence’
Areas where the EU has sole authority to pass laws and make binding decisions
“The union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:
Customs union;
Establishment of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market
Monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro;
The conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy.
Common commercial policy”
also sometimes International agreements
Article 4 TFEU —- ‘Shared Competence’
A type of legislative power in the EU that allows both the EU and its member states to create legally binding laws in certain areas
“Shared competence between the UNion and the Member States applies in the following principle areas:
Internal market
Social policy, for aspects defined in this Treaty;
Economic, social and territorial cohesion
Agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources;
Environment;
Consumer protection
Transport
trans-European networks
Energy
Area of freedom, security and justice
Common safety concerns in public health matters”
How does shared competence work?
Member states can only pass laws in areas of shared competence if the EU has not already done so —- once the EU passes legislation in the area of shared competence, member states can no longer pass laws in that area
The EU may only impose minimum rules in shared competence areas; allowing member states to make their own more restrictive rules
Article 6 TFEU —- ‘coordinating competence’
The power of the EU to coordinate, support, or supplement the actions of its member states.The EU can only exercise this power if the member states grants authority
“The Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate, or supplement the actions of the Member States. The areas of such action shall, at European level, be:
Protection and improvement of human health
Industry
Culture
Tourism
Education, vocational training, youth and sport
Civil protection
Administrative cooperation”
Occupying the field
Area governed of shared competence where both the Union and Member States can legislate: However as the result of “the principle of primacy” if there is conflict between the Union and MS, EU law must prevail
Hence, where the union has legislated on a particular topic, it will displace national law
Retained competences
Even in areas where Member States must retain competence, they must exercise that competence in compliance with Union law
Legal Basis
Articles 3,4, and 6 are important but not sufficient in identifying whether or not the EU can legislate and to what extent | For this answer, one must look to the specific “legal basi.s”
Every piece of EU legislation has a specific legal basis (or multiple), which will be the particular provision of the Treaties
This provision will indicate: (a) what kind of instrument the EU can adopt (directives, regulations, or decisions), (b) the legislative procedure that must be used, and © the extent of the power and any limitations on the power
Legal basis case: Case C-300/89 Titanium Dioxide EU: C:1991:244
Key case for determining how to choose the correct legal basis for legislative acts
Objective test (judicially reviewable criteria)
a. The choice of legal basis must rest on objective factors, which are amenable to judicial review
b. These factors include ____
Aim (purpose) of the measure
The content (substance) of the measure
c. If a measure has MORE than one aim, determine the predominant purpose
Use the legal basis that corresponds to the predominant aim
d. If there is NO predominant aim (aims are inseparably linked), then use a joint legal basis
e. Institutional prerogatives
If a joint legal basis is not possible (eg, due to incompatible procedures) then select the legal basis that best preserves the institutional balance
Flexible legal basis
The concept of competences and the need to identify a specific legal basis may be constraining for the EU’s ability to legislate to meet unforeseen eventualities or to achieve the objectives set out for the Union. Treaties therefore, contain some ‘flexible legal basis’
Competences and legal basis may limit EU's power to govern
Case I: Case C-376/98 German v Parliament and Council EU (Tobacco Advertising)
Summary
Germany brought an application for annulment of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products
Germany argued that the Parliament and Council were wrong to enact the Directive based on Article 114 — They argued that Art 114 could only be used to promote, not limit, trade
Court
The directive was annulled
The real aim was public health, not the internal market (although public health could be protected under art 14 it should not be the predominant aim)
art 114 cannot justify a measure unless is clearly contributibes to market integration
Case II: Case-491/01 BAT and Imperial Tobacco
Summary
Referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC two questions on the validity and interpretation of Directive 2001/37 of the European Parliament and Council on the laws, regulations and administrative provision of the Member States concerning the labelling of tobacco products and the prohibition of the market of certain types of tobacco
Brought by British American Tobacco ltd (BAT), seeking to apply judicial review on the intention and/or obligation of the UK Government to transpose the Directive into national law
Court ruling
Directive MET the conditions under Art 114 of the TFEU because
The directive aimed to remove trade barriers between member states caused different tobacco regulations
It also contributed to public health protection, which is allowed under art 114 (not the dominant aim but the dominant aim was trade barriers)
Directive was hence valid
Article 352 TFEU — ‘implied powers clause’
Implied powers clause — Allows the EU to act when no specific legal basis exists, but action is needed to achieve EU objectives
Objectives of the Union (see Article 3 TEU)
Conditions for use:
Negative condition — No other provision in the treaties provides a legal basis
Positive condition – Action must be necessary to achieve the Union’s objectives
Limits:
Cannot be used to extend EU competences
Cannot be used to amend the treaties
Requires unanimity in the Council and Consent of the European Parliament
Article 114
Establishment and functioning of the internal market
Conditions for use: There must be —
Obstacles to trade between member states
Threat to competition
Limits:
Cannot be used for aims not directly linked to the internal market
Cannot serve as a pretext for measures primarily pursuing other goals (eg, health of the environment)
Timeline of EU integration
From Paris to Rome
From Rome to Maastricht
From Maastricht to Lisbon
The Treaty of Lisbon 2009
Intro: successes and failures
Economic integration
Free trade agreements
Customs Union
Common market: states join to share one big market
Political integration
Political cooperation: doing things together (diplomacy, defence)
Confederation
Federation of states
Legal integration
Economic and political integration happens through member states committing to integrate | At times, it is not always Member States, sometimes legal processes like the Court of Justice
Theories of integration
Functionalism
starts with a guy called David Nitrani, and he is writing in the Second World War to blueprint peace: he came up with functionality, stating — ‘states should cooperate pragmatically in specific areas, often very technical’
Neofunctionalism
Emphasises the role of states and non-state actors
Spillover effect: If you have integration in one area, it will automatically spill over to another area
Intergovernmentalism
Between governments, decision-making is done
Can be the Council (made up of ministers in government)
Supranationalism
Making a decision that is capable of binding participating states even if it is against their will
The Commission is supranational
Integration in two dimensions
Deepening — about expanding the scope of EU law to new areas (competences)
Widening — The geographical expansion of the EU (addition of new member states)
Phase 1: Paris to Rome
Phase of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952
Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet (functionalists) were like the founding fathers
1950, the Schuman Declaration was delivered (‘the alpha of European Integration’)
Economic integration of coal and steel markets (can bind states against their will)
It was administrative, not legal
Other members started joining because it set a precedent for economic and political cooperation to maintain peace after WWII
Treaty of Paris
The council of ministers, the assembly, and the court of justice are added because other member states wanted to check the power
Failure 1: 1954 French rejection of the EDC/EPC
The next idea was the formation of the European Defence Community and the accompanying “European Constitution” in 1954
Hence, political integration hit a setback (economic integration only), which toned down supranationalism
1957 - Economic integration instead
Member States were happy to continue with economic integration which started the idea of the common market
Phase 2: From Rome to Maastricht
Rome treaties established both Eurotam (nuclear energy) and the EEC
the EEC marked a step back to supranationalism. Decision making powers shifted from the Commission (intergovernmnetal) to Council (supra)
After 1957 it pursued “constitutional interpretation” of the treaties through the Court of Justice resulting in Case law (eg. van gend en loos)
1970s the court to the rescue
oil crises, inflation: the shock of the global in the 1970s
A European alternative
Increasing emphasis on independent (European) judicial power
Negative and positive integration
Negative integration: Removal of obstacles to free movement
Dassonville (1974)
Cassis de Dijon: mutual recognition
Positive Integration
Harmonisation of legislation
Mostly through EEC legislation
1980s: Relaunching integration
Relaunching market integration
Commission’s white paper: completing the internal market
Legislative proposals for the internal market
Economic and monetary union
Relaunching political integration
European Political Cooperation
European Council
Justice and Home Affairs
Phase 3: From Maastricht to Lisbon
Began with the treaty of Maastricht (1992) which created the EU
Incorporated communities in a “three pillar structure”
Three pillar structure
Pillar one (supranationalism)
The European Community (EEC before)
The European Coal and Steel Community
Eurotam
Second Pillar
Common foreign and security policy
Third pillar (intergovernmental)
Justice and Home Affairs
Police and Judicial Criminal Matters
Phase 4: After the Lisbon Treaty 2009
Better division of competences
Simplification of EU instruments
More democracy, transparency, and efficiency
eg ordinary legislative procedure
Towards a constitution for European citizens (abolished three-pillar structure)
Only two treaties
TEU and;
TFEU
Decentralized system
multilevel governance
Subsidiarity — it is the case that EU decision making should happen as closely as possible to the citizens; subsidiarity dictates how this works
No seperation of powers
Usually, power is distributed in governance but the EU does not have this kind of system
The Institutional Triangle
The Commission
Council of Ministers
European Parliament
Other Institutional bodies
European Council - Political discretion
Court of Justice - Court of justice (judges, advocates general), and general court
European Central Bank - Monetary policy and banking supervision
Court of Auditors - worked to improve the European Commissions’s management of the EU budges
Other bodies
Advisory
Independent agencies
The interplay of MS and EU control: Article 13(2)
Institutional Balance
The choice of legal basis is important because it determines how involved the institution will be
Inter-institutional cooperation
The institutional shall act within the limits of the power
The institutions shall practice ‘mutual sincere cooperation’ so the institution consults on its way
The European Commission
It proposes an also draft legislation
Often releases white papers which are programs of legislative proposals
It is made up of:
College of commissioners
The institution as a whole
Monopoly on legislative
initiate
withdraw
When it takes on a direction that the commission does not like, it can withdraw
Guardian of treaties
Implementations
Compliance
27 commissioners — “The commission shall consists of a number of members…equal to the number of Member States'“
The Council of the European Union — ‘Council of Ministers’
Represents the governments of the member states/national interests
The council shall consist of a representative from each member State the ministerial level who is authorised to commit the government of that State (elected representatives)
The European Parliament
Directly elected throughout the Member States
Since 1979, citizens have voted for the MEP
Case C-502/19 Junqueras
Summary
Judgment of the EU privileges and immunities relating to a member of the parliament
Junqueras, a Spanish politician was elected as an MEP
At the time of his election, he was subject to criminal proceedings in which he was accused of having taken part in a process of secession
Spain’s supreme court refused to release him from detention and make him an MEP
Legal question
Does the person elected MEP acquire immunity of that role upon election"?
Court ruling
The European Parliament acquires the status of Member of that institution at the time of the official decleration of the results and enjoys the immunities attached to that status
Case C-650/13 Delvigne
Summary
Under French law, ‘a sentence for a serious criminal offence will entail the loss of civic rights’
Mr Devigne, a French national, was convicted of a serious offence and sentenced to 12 years
French law, he was automatically excluded from voting in European Parliament elections. He challenged this, particularly in his right to vote under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Legal question
Can Member States restrict voting rights for people who are criminally convicted, and is that conviction compatible with the EU fundemental rights?
Court ruling
Delvigne lost the case because:
Fundamental rights (like voting) can be restricted, but only if:
The restriction is proportionate and;
It served a legitimate objective
It was proportionate because:
It only applied to serious crimes
It was not arbitrary or discriminatory
It respected the individual’s legal and judicial process
sources and hierarchy of laws
Primary law
Treaties
Charter
Protocols
Secondary law
Regulations
Directives
Decisions
Delegated and implemented acts
Delegated legislation (290 TFEU)
Implemented legislation (291 TFEU)
Non-binding acts (soft law)
Recommendations
Opinions
Delegated acts
The EU legislative act may delegate powers to the Commission to supplement or amend non-essential elements of that act | control mechanisms:
Ex ante control — ‘before the act is adopted’. preventative
Ex-post control — ‘after the act is adopted’. like judicial review and political accountability
Implementing acts
Adopted where uniform conditions for the implementation of an EU legislative act are needed, it is administrative
Control of implementing acts: exercised through ‘comitology’ (committee-based oversight), governed but regulation using two main procedures —
Advisory procedure
The committee gives a non-binding opinion
The commission may proceed even if the opinion is negative
Examination procedure
The committee gives a binding opinion
Positive opinion → The Commission can adopt the act
Negative opinion → The Commission cannot adopt the act unless it submits a revised draft
Case C-427/12 Commission v Parliament and Council
Question
Should the European Commission use delegated acts (Article 290 TFEU) or an implementing act (Article 291 TFEU) to set the fees that companies must pay to the European Chemical Agency?
Commission argued that the setting of fees involves political and economic choices, which supplements the legislative act — hence it should be a delegated act
Parliament and Council said the implementing act is appropriate bc the act of fixing fees implements the existing legislative framework, requiring uniform application across MS
Court
The Court dismissed the Commission’s action, affirming that:
The task of specifying the fees is not an essential element of the legislative act, not does it supplement or amend it in a legislative sense
Instead, it is a technical application of existing rules i.e an act of implementation
Law and Law making procedures
YOU GOT THIS !!
Treaty Change I: Ordinary Revision Procedure
Article 48(2)-5 TEU
Used for major institutional and constitutional changes i.e any change to the founding treaties like the TEU and TFEU
Procedure
Proposal
Convention
Conference
Ratification
Treaty Change II: Simplified Revision Procedure
Article 48(6)-(1) TFEU
Used for internal policy changes under part 2 of the TFEU, not for increasing EU competences or changing the institutional structure
Procedure
Proposal
Decision
Approval
Case C-370/12 Pringle v Ireland
Concerned with the European Stability Mechanism (ESM)
Whether establishing the ESM via a simplified revision procedure was valid
Court held: YES, it was valid. ESM was consistent with EU Law because it did not increase EU competences, only allowed to respond to crises
The Council law functions
Council acts by a ‘qualified majority vote’ (QMV)
After Lisbon treaty under Article 16(4) TEU
QMV: the 55/56 rule
55% majority of member states
65% majority of EU citizens
Also min 15 member states to adopt and min 4 MS to block
Initiating legislation
European Commission (Article 17(a) TFEU)
¼ Member State’s in AFSJ
Requesting legislation
Council
European Parliament
European Citizens’ initiative
procedure for ECI
formation of organizor committee
Registration of ECI
Collection of signatures
Verification of signatures
Submission and consideration
ECI and Commission relationship
The commission must consider the request and respond but it is not obligated to act
Case C-148/18P Puppinck
Summary
A citizen’s initiative was brought up regarding embryo protection
However, the commission stated that it would take no action on the ECI at issue
Court finding
General court dismissed the action from the ECI against the Commission claiming the Commission has broad discretion and does not violate EU law by choosing not to draft or propose legislation
Commission has, the power to take action in response to the ECI
The European Parliament Law functions
There are now three procedures by which the Parliament is involved in the adoption of Union legislation
Consultation
The ordinary legislative procedure
Consent
The Ordinary legislative procedure
Article 294 TFEU
Special Legislative procedure
applied in a small number of areas
Either or —-
Unanimity in Council + Consent of the European Parliament
Unanimity in Council + Consultation of European Parliament
Case 138/79 Roquette Freres v Council
Case regarding whether the Council could adopt legislation without consulting the European parliament
Court held: NO, failure to consult the parliament invalidated the act, even under the special legislative procedure
Although non-binding consultation is essential - the EP must be given genuine opportunity to express its opinions
Legitimacy in the EU
Input legitimacy
‘government by the people
Are citizens voices represented in decision making?
Output legitimacy
Governmnet for the people
Focuses on what decisions achieve - performance and results
Does the EU deliver peace, prosperity, regulation and protection
Political messianism
The belief in redemptive political goals, like unity and peace across nations
Did EU claim legitimacy?
The EU historically claimed legitimacy through
Peace - Ending was in Europe
Prosperity — promoting the common market after the 1970s shock
Sources of democratic legitimacy in the EU
Representative democracy
Direct: European Parliament (directly elected by citizens)
Indirect: Council (represents member states’ governments)
Participatory democracy - citizens engaging in policy making
ECI
Competences
Problems with democracy in the Union
Treaties are too detailed (over constitutionalized) — detailed treaties limiting democratic change, access, and making it consitutional through MS
No demons theory — no single European people with shared identity and public sphere
No government — Relies on executive branch solely limiting check and balances
No ability to influence policy — citizens feel detached from policy making (eg ECI rejected from the commission)
Christopher Bickerton and Lee Jones - ‘the EU’s democratic deficit’
Claims that since 1992 EU has been about political elites seeking legitimacy in their relations with one another… EU Integration entrenches the power of executies
EU serves elites, not democratic wishes — quite supranational and monism
WEEK 3 YOU GOT IT LETS GOOO
The principle of Direct Effect in EU law
New legal order in which states have limited their sovereign rights, and the subjects of which comprise not only MS but also their nationals
Requirements to implement direct effect
It is clear and precise
Created an unconditional and unqualified obligation
It requires or admits no further implementing measure on the part of any authority
C-26/62 Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Balestingen
Facts
Van Gend en Loos, a Dutch transport company, imports chemicals from Germany
Dutch customs authorities reclassified the product, resulting in a higher import duty
Article 12 EEC treaty: standstill clause
No new duties or charges have an equivalent effect
No increases in existing duties and charges
Questions
Is Article 12 EC capable of having direct effect?
If so, does Article 12 EC prohibit tariff reclassification by Dutch customs?
Findings
Article 12 has direct effect (the application is for the national court)
A “new legal order”
Objective
Creation of rights and obligations for individuals
Establishment of institutions
Effectiveness and uniformity
The Primacy of EU Law
In the event of a conflict within fields of jurisdiction, the law of the federal authority will take precedence over the law of regional authorities
Does not make national law void but conflicting municipal law must be “disapplied”
National law will be disapplied and EU law will prevail (in a conflict)
Costa v ENEL
Facts
Nationalisation of the electricity market
National law adopted after the treaty (lex posterior?)
Questions
Which law prevails?
Two references
Italian constitutional court
Court of Justice of the EU
Facts and reasoning
The treaty takes precedence (no lex posterior)
All national rules which conflict with EU law — irrespective of their legal status at the domestic level must be disapplied
What is the nature of the new legal order (primacy and direct effect)
Effectiveness
Not just the constitutional and supreme courts, national judges can apply EU law and ignore conflicting national procedures
Uniformity
Applicable to all national courts - equal application
Autonomy
Self referentiality
The authority of EU law is grounded in EU law itself
The EU legal system defines its authority (eg, primacy and direct effect) — its legal authority comes from within
Courts like the CJEU interpret and enforce this, not national authorities
Is the new legal order contested?
yes
National courts sometimes challenge the primacy and direct effect of EU law
National constitutional courts
esp German, Italian, French (all broadly dualist)
But the EU usually rejects dualism
Primacy through a national lens
No national constitutional court has accepted primacy unconditionally, and most reserve the right in theory not to apply EU law in some exceptional circumstances (primacy can be theoretical?)
Position taken by the German Federal Constitutional Court
Case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH
National rules of any type must be set aside, including national consitutiional law
Case C-224/97 Erich Ciola v Land Voralberg
EU law enjoys primacy over sub-national administrative measures
Case 118/00 Larsy v INASTI
Not only lower courts but all courts
National administrative agencies
Cases follow that the principle of primacy of EU law requires not only the courts but all bodies of the member states to give full effect to EU rules
Primacy rejections?
In theory, there are limits to the primacy of EU law in the doctrine of national courts; in practice, these limits were not historically applied
This changed in ecent yeas with number of supreme courts issuing decisions not applying EU law
Primacy and UK clash
UK, there were difficulties in reconciling with primacy (notably parliamentary sovereignty, which clashed with the primacy of the UK’s dualist approach)