Essay on "European Parliament vs. Court of Justice"

Home > Topics > Government & Politics My Account

Essay 10 pages (3708 words) Sources: 1+

[EXCERPT] . . . .

European Parliament and the European Court of Justice

The European Parliament (EP) and the Council of the European Union are the legislative branches of the European Union. The EP is the directly-elected parliamentary institution of the European Union (EU), and, as such, is the largest trans-national directly-elected institution in the world. As a result, it is one of the most powerful representative legislative bodies in the world, despite the fact that its powers are limited because each member state is sovereign. Moreover, the Treaty of Maastricht divided the European Union into three distinct pillars, a community (EC) pillar, a common foreign and security policy (CFSP) pillar, and a police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (PJCC) pillar.

The EP's involvement is practically limited to the EC, though it does have some limited power and influence in the CFSP and PJCC pillars. Because the EP's influence is the strongest in the EC, it has a significant amount of control over the EU's economic security. For example, the European Parliament legislates in the following areas: customs, economic markets, agricultural policy, social policy, fisheries policy, economic competition, education, culture, citizenship, immigration, political asylum, consumer protection, healthcare, research, and environmental law. Despite its virtual limitations to one pillar, the EP has significant power. For example, it has control over the EU's budget and can veto appointments to the European Commission.

The Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) is the highest court in the European Union. It does not have jurisdiction over individual member nation's laws an

Continue scrolling to

download full paper ⤓

d legal disputes, but over matters of European Union law. It interprets EU laws. Furthermore, it seeks to obtain uniform application of those laws among the member nations. The ECJ actually predates the modern formation of the EU, and was initially established as part of the European Coal and Steel Community, with the goal of resolving related disputes and questions. Its jurisdiction expanded in 1957 with the establishment of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. When the EU was created in 1993, the ECJ's jurisdiction remained similar to those it held prior to the establishment of the EU, because the EDJ is largely involved in the community pillar of the EU. The ECJ has lower courts. The Court of First Instance hears suits brought by non-EU employees, while the Civil Service Tribunal hears suits brought by EU employees. The ECJ has broad jurisdiction over community, but not national, disputes, and those disputes can be brought by and against Member Nations.

Because the ECJ's primary function is to interpret EU laws and ensure that they are applied in a consistent manner throughout the EU, the ECJ and the European Parliament are interdependent. However, that does not mean that the EP and the ECJ always work towards the same goals. On the contrary, the EP has taken an interest in expanding its power, and that interest sometimes conflicts with the ECJ's role. The ECJ has the duty to interpret the EU's treaties and the laws and provisions promulgated by EU institutions. Member nations can be at fault for failing to adhere to treaty provisions, but the EP can also overstep its boundaries by attempting to exert greater influence and power than allowed by treaty.

Extending the Borders of Parliament's Jurisdiction

While the EP has shown a desire to extend its jurisdiction, the ECJ has a duty to ensure that the EP is not going beyond the legal limits of its power. There are three cases that directly address EP's jurisdiction and demonstrate the ECJ's role in extending or limiting that jurisdiction. In Les Verts, the ECJ determined that it had the jurisdiction to review decisions made by the EP, even in an instance where such jurisdiction was not specifically conferred by law. While that decision did not overtly limit the EP's power, it did give the ECJ the power to review, which has the potential of significantly the EP's power to adopt measures, since such measures are subject to judicial review. In Chernobyl I, the EP brought an action to annul a regulation adopted by Council of Ministers, which objected on the grounds of inadmissibility because the EP did not have authority to bring such an action under Article 146. However, the ECJ determined that the EP could bring an action for annulment against an act of the Council or the Commission as long as such action was aimed only at safeguarding the EP's prerogatives. Despite the ECJ's apparent willingness to extend the EP's jurisdiction, the ECJ has imposed limits on what the EP can do. For example, in Comitology, the ECJ refused to grant the EP the power to bring an action for annulment in a scenario where the other available remedies gave the EP a substantial opportunity to challenge an action by the Council, and the action was not taken to safeguard the EP's prerogatives.

In Case 294/83, Parti Ecologiste 'Les Verts' v. European Parliament, Judgment of the ECJ of 23 April 1986, European Court Reports 1986, p.1339 (Les Verts), the ECJ was called upon to determine an action brought under the second paragraph of the EEC Treaty requesting the ECJ to declare void the decision of the bureau of the EP concerning the allocation of general budget appropriations and a related decision of the Enlarged Bureau of the EP governing use of the appropriations for reimbursement of expenditures related to expenditures for the 1984 European elections. Before it could resolve that dispute, the ECJ had to determine several issues, which touched upon the European Parliament's power.

Most significantly the ECJ had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear and determine an action for annulment brought under article 173 of the EEC treaty against a measure adopted by the EP. The ECJ determined that it did have jurisdiction to hear and determine such an action. First, the ECJ reasoned that both the 1982 decision and the 1983 rules were adopted by organs of the EP and were to be regarded as measures directly adopted by the EP.

The ECJ recognized the applicant's position that the ECJ's power to review the legality of measures adopted under article 173 could not be limited to measures adopted by the Council and the Commission without causing a denial of justice.

Furthermore, the EP acknowledged that the ECJ could review the legality of measures besides those adopted by the Council and the Commission.

The EP did not dispute that the ECJ had the power of judicial review in areas where such review was specifically conferred by treaty. However, the EP contended that if article 173 was broadly interpreted, allowing a challenge in an action of annulment, then the EP should also have the capacity to bring similar actions against the Council and the Commission.

The ECJ reasoned that the European Economic Community (EEC) was a community based on rule of law, because its member states and institutions were subject to judicial review to determine the constitutionality of their actions in light of the treaties governing them. Article 173, combined with articles 184 and 177; provide a complete system of legal remedies and procedures.

Article 173 specifically refers only to acts of the Council and the Commission. However, the ECJ had previously decided that the Treaty made a direct action available against all institutionally-adopted measures that were intended to have legal effects. The fact that the EP was not mentioned in Article 173 was due to the fact that the EEC Treaty merely granted the EP the power of consultation and political control, and not the power to adopt measures. Furthermore, under Article 38 of the ECSC Treaty, when the EP was given the power to adopt binding measures, the measures adopted by it were not made exempt from actions for annulment. Under the EEC Treaty, these types of actions are governed by article 173.

Therefore, the ECJ had jurisdiction to entertain the action.

In Case 70/88, European Parliament v. Council of Ministers, Judgment of the ECJ of 22 March 1990, European Court Reports 1990, p. I-2041 (Chernobyl I), the EP brought an action for annulment of a regulation adopted by the Council. The Council raised an objection of inadmissibility, based on a prior judgment by the ECJ that the EP did not have the capacity to bring an action for annulment. The ECJ disagreed with the Council. First, the ECJ determined that, since this dispute related to the Euratom Treaty, the admissibility of an action for annulment had to be derived from that Treaty.

The ECJ agreed that Article 146 of the Euratom Treaty did not give the EP the right to bring an action of annulment, because it was identical to Article 173 of the EEC Treaty.

The ECJ pointed that in Article 146, the EP was not included among the institutions that could bring an action for annulment against any measure of another institution.

In addition, because the EP was not a legal person, it could not bring an action as a person.… READ MORE

Download Full Paper

Write a New Paper for Me

Quoted Instructions for "European Parliament vs. Court of Justice" Assignment:

“

Problem of the European Parliament in front of the European Court of Justice

The work has to be about the relationship between the European Parliament (EP) and European Court of Justice(ECJ). Paper must consist of 2 parts, including paragraphs, first in general consist of analyze of cases, second mainly on two treaties, Maastricht treaty and Nice Treaty, both parts must contribute to same topic from different angles and must be certain connection between them.

Part 1

The big attention has to be paid to extending borders of Parliament*****s jurisdiction. The paper has contain three main cases which is concerning the EP, on which you must elaborate:

a-Les Verts case(294/83) where the ECJ has rewritten the first para of Art 173 to include the EP both in the list of Community institutions whose acts can be challenged and in the list of *****˜privileged applicants*****. Than it was argued that the EP had been omitted from the list because it had no power to adopt measures *****˜intended to have legal effect vis-Ã -vis third parties***** in the original version of the Treaty. Since it now it has those powers, as an interpretation of Art 173 of the Treaty which excluded measures adopted by the EP from those which could be contested would lead to a result contrary both to the ***** of the treaty as expressed in Art 164 and to its system. Also to write that Parliaments direct action are possible under Les Verts case, discuss contribution of this case. Situation before and after the Les Verts case. Relevance of the judgment in Community dimension. I want you to pay attention what Court said in para 21-24 of the case. Explain theoretical bases for courts judgment, and influence on similar cases. Define in your words what relevance this case has in general for community law.

b-Comitology case(302/87) what the ECJ ruled in this case concerning the EP, the importance of this case for the EP, to discuss the problems occurred between the EP and the ECJ, also to mention the action for annulment under Art 173. in general this is case study, make relevant theoretical analyze, mainly elaborate on Importance of the case

(more general information you can find in the book- The European Court of Justice: the politics of judicial integration, R. Dehousse, page 101-http://books.google.com/books?ei=ZW6NSvrtJ5OD-Qbmj7WADg&ct=result&hl=ru&id=V6JfS5KrejgC&dq=european+parliament+and+ecj+les+verts&ots=JhCwYhby3E&q=nice+treaty#v=onepage&q=nice%20treaty&f=false)

c-Chernobyl I case (70/88) here is important to write about the mind of the Court where he ruled that the absence in the Treaties of any provisions giving the parliament the right to bring an action for annulment may constitute a procedural gap, but it cannot prevail over the fundamental interest in the maintenance and observance of the institutional balance laid in the Treaties establishing European Communities-para 26 of the case. Also, to analyze the judgment where says that an action for annulment brought by the EP against an act of the Council or the Commission is admissible provided that the action seeks only to safeguard its prerogatives and that it is founded only on submissions alleging their infringement. Provided that condition is met, the Parliament*****s action for annulment is subject to the rules laid down in the Treaties for actions for annulment brought by the other institutions. Para 27 of the case. Analyze must be made on both grounds, theoretical and practical, please back up your arguments with indications on paragraphs, relevant literature or academic works.

The big attention has to be paid to judicial activism, the importance of judicial in connection with the Chernobyl case judgment. Please define what contributes to judicial activism in general and in given case, can it be understood negative or positive process, overview judicial activism in similar cases, make parallels and distinctions if possible. Elaborate on judicial activism according to Chernobyl case

Part 2

I want you to write me about the Maastricht Treaty and reinforcement powers of the European Parliament. That the Treaty creates a new co decision procedure which allows the European Parliament to adopt acts in conjunction with the Council and that this procedure entails stronger contacts between the Parliament and the Council in order to reach agreement and to analyze Art 173. Also, that the Treaty involves Parliament in the procedure for confirming the Commission.

The end the work must contain the Treaty of Nice Art 230 and the authority of European Parliament under this article.

Please make relevant comparisons and differences between above said treaties under discussed framework. Use theoretical and case law background as much a possible. Include positive and negative sides of changes occurred, how it will influence community law In general and what can be said if we read the judgment betweens the lines,

General scheme and conclusion

The work has to be based on the relations and problems between the EP and the ECJ, both, in general and on practical basis (case law) As a conclusion please sum up both parts of the paper, make relevant concluding remark about relationship between two institutions, taking into account case law in conjunction with Treaty provisions discussed above.

Important information you can find in the books:

1- Text, cases and materials on European Union law, John Tillotson, Nigel G. Foster, p.509

2- The European Court of Justice, GrÃ¡inne De BÃºrca, Joseph Weiler

3- The European Court of Justice: the politics of judicial integration, Renaud Dehousse

4- European Union law in a global context: text, cases and materials,Trevor C. Hartley

5- The principle of legal certainty in EC law, Juha Raitio

6- The comitology game: European Policymaking with Parliamentary Involvement, Bernard Steunenberg,

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:Lpdo0zE7DA4J:www.uni-saarland.de/fak1/fr12/csle/publications/2000-05_Comitology.PDF+comitology+case(302/87)&hl=ru&gl=ru

7- See attached cases Les Verts and Chornobyl I

It is up to the ***** how many citations and footnotes have to be in the paper, but desirable 3-5 on the each page.

*****

How to Reference "European Parliament vs. Court of Justice" Essay in a Bibliography

“European Parliament vs. Court of Justice.” A1-TermPaper.com, 2009, https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/european-parliament/7287112. Accessed 5 Jul 2024.

European Parliament vs. Court of Justice (2009). Retrieved from https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/european-parliament/7287112

A1-TermPaper.com. (2009). European Parliament vs. Court of Justice. [online] Available at: https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/european-parliament/7287112 [Accessed 5 Jul, 2024].

”European Parliament vs. Court of Justice” 2009. A1-TermPaper.com. https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/european-parliament/7287112.

”European Parliament vs. Court of Justice” A1-TermPaper.com, Last modified 2024. https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/european-parliament/7287112.

[1] ”European Parliament vs. Court of Justice”, A1-TermPaper.com, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/european-parliament/7287112. [Accessed: 5-Jul-2024].

1. European Parliament vs. Court of Justice [Internet]. A1-TermPaper.com. 2009 [cited 5 July 2024]. Available from: https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/european-parliament/7287112

1. European Parliament vs. Court of Justice. A1-TermPaper.com. https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/european-parliament/7287112. Published 2009. Accessed July 5, 2024.

Related Essays: