Cross-pillar litigation before the ECJ: Demarcation of Community and Union competences

European Constitutional Law Review

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 399-419

  van Ooik, Ronald ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67649188742     PISSN: 15740196     EISSN: 17445515     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1574019608003994     Document Type: Article

References (105)

1. Cases discussed in section 2.1. The PNR case is the only 'from pillar 1 to pillar 3' case, see section 2.2.
2. Case C-91/05 Commission v. Council, judgment of 20 May 2008 (a.k.a. 'Small Arms and Light Weapons').
3. Council Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP of 12 July 2002 on the European Union's contribution to combating the destabilising accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons and repealing Joint Action 1999/ 34/CFSP (OJ 2002 L 191, p. 1), hereafter referred to as 'the joint action' or 'the basic decision'.
4. Council Decision 2004/833/CFSP of 2 Dec. 2004 implementing Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP with a view to a European Union contribution to ECOWAS in the framework of the Moratorium on Small Arms and Light Weapons (OJ 2004 L 359, p. 65), hereafter referred to as 'the ECOWAS decision' or 'the implementing decision'.
5. Case C-170/96 Commission v. Council [1998] ECR I-2763.
6. Case C-170/96, paras. 12-18.
7. Case C-176/03 Commission v. Council [2005] ECR I-7879
8. and Case C-440/05 Commission v. Council [2007] ECR I-9097.
9. Case C-176/03, paras. 47 and 48. Cf., e.g., M. Wasmeier and N. Thwaites, 'The 'battle of the pillars': Does the European Community have the power to approximate national criminal laws?', EL Rev. (2004), p. 613-635
10. E. Herlin-Karnell, 'Commission v. Council: Some Reflections on Criminal Law in the First Pillar', European Public Law (2007), p. 69-84.
11. Case C-440/05, para. 70. Cf., A. Dawes & O. Lynskey, 'The ever-longer Arm of EC Law: The Extension of Community Competence into the Field of Criminal Law', CML Rev. (2008), p. 31-158.
12. Case T-338/02 Segi v. Council [2004] ECR II-1647
13. and on appeal, Case C-355/04 P Segi v. Council [2007] ECR I-1657.
14. Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001, L 344/93). All subsequent 'updates' are also based on both pillars, see most recently Common Position 2008/347/CFSP of 29 April 2008 amending Common Position 2007/871/CFSP updating Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2008 L 116/55).
15. Case T-338/02, paras. 41 and 45-46.
16. Case C-355/04 P, para. 21. See further S. Peers, 'Salvation Outside the Church: Judicial Protection in the Third Pillar after the Pupino and Segi Judgments', CML Rev. (2007) p. 883-929.
17. See section 5.3, infra, for my view on the acceptability of such dual legal bases (second and third pillar).
18. Joined Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04 European Parliament v. Council [2006] ECR I-4721.
19. PNR, para. 57. See further the case note by M. Mendez in EU Const (2007/1), p. 127-147.
20. Case C-301/06 Ireland v. Council and European Parliament still pending (summary of Ireland's arguments in OJ 2006 C 237/5).
21. Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105/54).
22. See in particular Arts. 1(1), 4 and 8 of Directive 2006/24/EC.
23. ECOWAS, paras. 31-34.
24. Case C-170/96, paras. 12-18, see also section 2.1 supra.
25. Although with many restrictions for individuals in the well-known para. 4 of this provision (ex Art. 173 E(E)C). Cf., e.g., A. Albors-Llorens, Private parties in European Community law: Challenging Community measures (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1996), 245 p.
26. A. Arnull, 'Private Applicants and the Action for Annulment under Article 173 of the EC Treaty', CML Rev. (1995), p. 7-49
27. N. Neuwahl, 'Article 173 Paragraph 4 EC: Past, Present and Possible Future', EL Rev. (1996), p. 17
28. K. Lenaerts, 'The Rule of Law and the Coherence of the Judicial System of the European Union', CML Rev. (2007), p. 1625-1659.
29. ECOWAS, para. 34.
30. See further sections 4.2.2, 5.1 and 6 infra, and ECOWAS, para. 111.
31. ECOWAS, para. 54.
32. Case 188/92 TWD [1994] I-833, para. 17.
33. This seems to be the view of the academic majority. See, e.g., A. Barav, 'The Exception of Illegality in Community Law: A critical Analysis', CML Rev. (1974), p. 366
34. D. Sinaniotis, 'The Plea of Illegality in EC Law', EPL (2001), p. 103
35. D. Boutet, 'Quelques problèmes concernant les effets de l'exception d'illégalité', Revue du droit public (1990), p. 1735
36. W. Barfuss & D. Czernich, 'Nichtigkeitseinrede von Mitgliedstaaten gegen Richtlinien analog Art. 184 EGV?', EuZW (1996), p. 621
37. T. van Rijn, Exceptie van onwettigheid en prejudiciële procedure inzake geldigheid van gemeenschapshandelingen, (Deventer, Kluwer 1978); EM no. 26.
38. M. Vogt, 'Indirect Judicial Protection in EC Law - The Case of the Plea of Illegality', EL Rev. (2006), p. 364-377.
39. See, in particular, Case C-50/00P, UPA v. Council [2002] ECR I-6677, para. 40.
40. See also J. Usher, 'The Interrelationship of Articles 173, 177 and 184 EEC', EL Rev. (1979), p. 36
41. C. Martinez Capdevila, 'The Action for Annulment, the Preliminary Reference on Validity and the Plea of Illegality: Complementary or Alternative Means?', Yearbook of European law (2006), p. 451-474.
42. Cf., Case 314/85 Foto-Frost [1987] ECR 4199.
43. See the 'Council Information' on the Court's jurisdiction under Art. 35 EU, OJ 2008, L 70/23 and C 69/1. National courts of member states that have accepted the Court's jurisdiction can question the validity of framework decisions, decisions and measures implementing conventions on all grounds (Art. 35(1) EU).
44. See, e.g., Case C-303/05 Advocaten voor de Wereld [2007] ECR I-3633.
45. And to rule on proceedings reviewing the legality of decisions providing for restrictive measures against natural or legal persons adopted by the Council on the basis of Chapter 2 of Title v. of the new Treaty on European Union (TEU). Cf., the well-known Yusuf/Kadi case-law, see, e.g., P. Eeckhout, 'Community Terrorism Listings, Fundamental Rights, and UN Security Council Resolutions.
46. In Search of the Right Fit', EUConst (2007/3), p. 183.
47. Cf., R.H. van Ooik, 'The European Court of Justice and the Division of Competence in the European Union', in D. Obradovic and N. Lavranos (eds.), Interface between EU Law and National Law, ELP (2007), p. 11-40.
48. To be more precise, the current provisions on PJCC will become part of the Union's policy with respect to the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ), subparts 'Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters' and 'Police Cooperation'. See Part 3, Title V, chapters 4 and 5 of the TFEU. Cf., C. Ladenburger, 'Police and Criminal Law in the Treaty of Lisbon. A New Dimension for the Community Method', EUConst (2008/ 1), p. 20.
49. ECOWAS, in particular paras. 60, 73 and 75.
50. Case C-176/03, para. 45.
51. See, in particular, Case C-300/89 Commission v. Council [1991] ECR I-2867 ('Titanium Dioxide'), para. 10: 'The choice of the legal basis for a measure may not depend simply on an institution's conviction as to the objective pursued but must be based on objective factors which are amenable to judicial review. Those factors include in particular the aim and content of the measure'.
52. See on this, e.g., H. Cullen, & A. Charlesworth, 'Diplomacy by other means: The use of legal basis litigation as a political strategy by the European Parliament and Member States', CML Rev. (1999), p. 1244
53. N. Emiliou, 'Opening Pandora's Box: The Legal Basis of Community Measures before the Court of Justice', EL Rev. (1994), p. 488-507
54. S. Breier, 'Der Streit um die richtige Rechtsgrundlage in der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofes', EuR (1995), p. 46.
55. Para. 73 of the ECOWAS judgment, referring to Case C-211/01 Commission v. Council [2003] ECR I-8913, para. 39 ('Transport agreements Bulgaria and Hungary')
56. Case C-338/01 Commission v. Council [2004] ECR I-4829, para. 55 ('Recovery of claims')
57. and Case C-94/03 Commission v. Council [2006] ECR I-1, para. 35 ('Rotterdam Convention').
58. Cf., Case C-211/01, para. 40 ('Transport agreements Bulgaria and Hungary') and Case C-94/03, para. 36 ('Rotterdam Convention'), referred to in para. 75 of the ECOWAS judgment.
59. Case C-300/89, paras. 17-20.
60. See, e.g., Case C-338/01 Commission v. Council [2004] ECR I-4829 ('Recovery of claims'), para. 57: 'However, no dual legal basis is possible where the procedures laid down for each legal basis are incompatible with each other'.
61. Further discussed in section 5.2, infra.
62. ECOWAS, paras. 35-40.
63. ECOWAS, paras. 42-55.
64. Opinion of AG Mengozzi of 19 Sept. 2007, point 213.
65. Cf., Art. 4 of the ECOWAS decision.
66. ECOWAS, para. 108. For the (extensive) analysis of the aims of the ECOWAS decision, see paras. 79-99
67. and for the (equally extensive) analysis of its content, see paras. 100-107.
68. ECOWAS, para. 44.
69. ECOWAS, para. 62, referring to Case C-459/03 Commission v. Ireland [2006] ECR I-4635, para. 93 (the 'MOX plant case').
70. See also the conclusion of A.G. Mengozzi of 19 Sept. 2007, point 98.
71. ECOWAS, para. 61, referring to Joined Cases C-181/91 and C-248/91 Parliament v. Council and Commission [1993] ECR I-3685, para. 16 ('Emergency aid Bangladesh')
72. and Case C-316/91 Parliament v. Council [1994] ECR I-625, para. 26 ('Lomé Convention').
73. The term used by the Council, see ECOWAS, para. 43.
74. As we will discover in section 6, infra.
75. Case 22/70 Commission v. Council [1971] ECR 263. Cf., e.g., S. Stadlmeier, 'Die 'Implied Powers' der Europäischen Gemeinschaften', Austr. JIL (1998), p. 353
76. M. Cremona, 'External Relations and External Competence: The Emergence of an Integrated Policy', in P. Craig and G. de Búrca, The Evolution of EU Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press 1998), p. 137-175
77. K. Lenaerts and E. de Smijter, 'The European Community's Treaty-Making Competence', Yearbook of European Law (1996), p. 1-58
78. P.J. Kuijper, Of 'Mixity' and 'Double-Hatting': External relations of the European Union explained, 2008 (inaugural address).
79. An interesting illustration of the far-reaching consequences of the ERTA doctrine can be found in Opinion 1/03 [2006] ECR I-1145 ('Lugano Convention').
80. ECOWAS, para. 76.
81. Case C-300/89, para. 13: 'It follows that, according to its aim and content, as they appear from its actual wording, the [titanium dioxide] directive is concerned, indissociably, with both the protection of the environment and the elimination of disparities in conditions of competition'.
82. Case C-440/05, paras. 72-74.
83. Case C-376/98 Germany v. European Parliament and Council [2000] ECR I-8419, para. 117: 'A directive prohibiting certain forms of advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products could have been adopted on the basis of Art. 100a of the Treaty [now Art. 95 EC]. However, given the general nature of the prohibition of advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products laid down by the Directive, partial annulment of the Directive would entail amendment by the Court of provisions of the Directive. Such amendments are a matter for the Community legislature. It is not therefore possible for the Court to annul the Directive partially'.
84. See already R.H. van Ooik, De keuze der rechtsgrondslag voor besluiten van de Europese Unie (The Hague, Kluwer (1999), p. 401-404 (diss.).
85. See also C.W.A. Timmermans, 'The Uneasy Relationship between the Communities and the Second Union Pillar: Back to the 'Plan Fouchet'?, Legal Issues of European Integration (1996), p. 61-70.
86. For a different view, see R.A. Wessel, The European Union's Foreign and Security Policy (The Hague, Kluwer 1999), p. 302 (diss.).
87. See section 4.1, supra.
88. See Art. 202 EC, which however includes the possibility that the Council, in exceptional cases, confers implementing powers on itself. Cf., recently, Case C-133/06 European Parliament v. Council, judgment of 6 May 2008 ('Refugee Status Directive').
89. See, e.g., R. Barents, The autonomy of Community law (The Hague, Kluwer Law International 2004) (European monographs; 45)
90. C.W.A. Timmermans, in P.J.G. Kapteyn c.s. (eds.), The Law of the European Union and the European Communities, (Kluwer 2008, 4th ed.), p. 71-82.
91. Cf., R. Gosalbo Bono, 'Some Reflections on the CFSP Legal Order', CML Rev. (2006), p. 337-394.
92. In Titanium Dioxide, for example, former Art. 100A EEC (internal market) and former Art. 130S EEC (environmental protection) could not be used together since co-operation with the EP under Art. 100A EEC) does not go together with unanimous voting in the Council (required by Art. 130S EEC).
93. On the other hand, in BATCO/Imperial Tobacco, for example, the combined use of Arts. 95 and 133 EC (both providing for QMV) was accepted by the Court. See Case C-491/01 British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd & Imperial Tobacco Ltd [2002] ECR I- 11453, para. 98.
94. Section 2.2, supra.
95. Although, as stated before (section 2.2, supra), I share the view of Ireland that the third pillar should have been used.
96. Which implies that subsequently a choice between the two has to be made, or that the directive, if possible, has to be split into two parts. See further section 5.1 and the next section 6.
97. Section 2.1, supra.
98. Assuming that at present such a combination is possible, cf., the previous section 5.3.
99. See Part 3, Title V, Chapters 4 and 5, TFEU.
100. Of course, unless Titanimum Dioxide incompatibilities arise ( see section 4.1, supra). This may occur if the AFSJ legal basis requires unanimous voting in the Council, whereas the other TFEU legal basis refers to the ordinary legislative procedure (including QMV in the Council).
101. ECOWAS, para. 77.
102. See also the opinion of A.G. Mengozzi, point 176. With respect to dual EC legal bases which contain incompatible decision-making procedures, I have argued in a similar way, while admitting that a logical choice is impossible, that preference should be given to the most 'EP friendly' EC legal base.
103. See Van Ooik, supra n. 56, p. 241.
104. See, e.g., R.A. Wessel, 'The Constitutional Unity of the European Union: The Increasing Irrelevance of the Pillar Structure?', in Ph. Kiiver, L. Verhey and J. Wouters (eds.), European Constitutionalism beyond the EU Constitution (Antwerp, Intersentia 2008).
105. Cf. R.A. Wessel, 'Veiligheidsbeleid of toch ontwikkelingssamenwerking? De afbakening van de externe bevoegdheden tussen de EU, de EG en de lidstaten' [Security policy, or development cooperation after all? The distribution of external powers among the EU, the EC and the member states] in Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Europees Recht, Oct. 2008.