The principle of democracy in the case law of the European court of justice

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 62, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 271-315

  Lenaerts, Koen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

access to documents; accountability; administrative agencies; democracy; democratic deficit; European Court of Justice; European Parliament; institutional balance; national democracies; national parliaments; parliamentary immunity; parliamentary independence; representative democracy; social dialogue; transparency

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876167574     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020589313000080     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. See P Berglar, Thomas More: A Lonely Voice Against the Power of the State (Scepter Publishers 1999).
2. F Mancini and DT Keeling, 'Democracy and the European Court of Justice' (1994) 57 ModLRev 175, 176-7.
3. But see A Moravcsik, 'Is there a 'Democratic Deficit' in World Politics? A Framework for Analysis' (2002) 39 JComMarSt 336-63
4. G. Majone, 'Europe's "Democratic Deficit": The Question of Standards' (1998) 4 ELJ 5.
5. See A Follesdal and S Hix, 'Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik' (2006) 44 JComMarSt 533.
6. P Craig, 'Integration, Democracy, and Legitimacy' in P Craig and G De Búrca (eds), The Evolution of EU Law (2nd edn, OUP 2011) 13, 30-1.
7. See Follesdal and Hix (n 5) 547.
8. See S Bredt, 'Prospects and Limits of Democratic Governance in the EU' (2011) 17 ELJ 35, 39-41.
9. See Craig (n 6) 30.
10. A von Bogdandy, 'The European Lesson for International Democracy : The Significance of Articles 9 to 12 EU Treaty for International Organizations' (2011) Jean Monnet Working Paper Series, No 02/11, available at .
11. von Bogdandy (n 10) 7. See generally K Lenaerts and P Van Nuffel, European Union Law (3rd edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2011) 735-49.
12. See R Schütze, '"Delegated" Legislation in the (new) European Union: A Constitutional Analysis' (2011) 74 MLRev 661, 663.
13. Perhaps, this is the reason why Craig argues that '[the European Parliament] is accorded an important power that it did not have hitherto'. See P Craig, 'The Role of the European Parliament under the Lisbon Treaty' in S Griller and J Ziller (eds), The Lisbon Treaty: EU Constitutionalism without a Constitutional Treaty? (Springer 2008) 109, 115.
14. See Schütze (n 22) 685.
15. Lenaerts and Van Nuffel (n 13) 746 ff.
16. Joined Cases C-92/09 and 93/09 Volker und Markus Schecke [2010] ECR I-11063, para 68.
17. See S Prechal and ME De Leeuw, 'Transparency: A General Principle?' in U Bernitz, J Nergelius and C Cardner (eds), General Principles of EC Law in a Process of Development, European Monograph 62 (Kluwer 2008) 201.
18. This obligation is now laid down in art 15(3) TEU.
19. See ME De Leeuw, 'Openness in the Legislative Process in the European Union' (2007) 32 ELRev 295.
20. See Prechal and De Leeuw (n 30) 207.
21. See art 16(8) TEU.
22. See K Lenaerts and N Cambien, 'The Democratic Legitimacy of the EU after Lisbon' in J Wouters, L Verhey and P Kiiver (eds), European Constitutionalism beyond Lisbon (Intersentia 2009) 185.
23. Lenaerts and Van Nuffel (n 13) 741.
24. See art 5(2) TEU which provides that '[c]ompetences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States'.
25. See art 2 TFEU.
26. See arts 3-6 TFEU.
27. See Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens' initiative [2011] OJ L 65/1.
28. See also art 2 TEU ('solidarity' as one of the values on which the European Union is founded) and art 3(3) TEU ('combating social exclusion', 'social justice', 'social protection', 'equality between women and men', 'solidarity between generations'and 'protection of the rights of the child'). See also art 31 of the Charter.
29. See the Opinion of AG Cruz Villalón in Case C-515/08 dos Santos Palhota and Others, delivered on 5 May 2010, not yet reported, para 51 (defining art 9 TFEU as a 'cross-cutting' social protection clause).
30. See generally F Scharpf, Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? (Oxford University Press 1999).
31. The same applies in relation to democratically elected regional or local officials. See, in this regard, K Lenaerts and N Cambien, 'Regions and the European Court: Giving Shape to the Regional Dimension of the Member States' (2010) 35 ELR 609
32. K Lenaerts, 'Federalism in 3-D' in E Cloots, G De Baere and S Sottiaux (eds), Federalism in the European Union (Hart Publishing 2012) 13.
33. See T Tridimas and G Gari, 'Winners and losers in Luxembourg: a statistical analysis of judicial review before the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance (2001-2005)' (2010) 35 ELRev 131, 172 (who point out that '[i]n the 1990s, the European Parliament was an active litigant following a tactical litigation policy under which it challenged practically any policy measure which allegedly breached its prerogatives even if it agreed with its substantive provisions. But as successive [T]reaty amendments increased its legislative powers, the need to rely on litigation to influence the legislative process steadily declined and the Parliament now finds itself much more often in the role of the defendant than in the role of the applicant').
34. See art 294 TFEU.
35. Case C-130/10 Parliament v Council, judgment of 19 July 2012, not yet reported.
36. Council Regulation (EU) No 1286/2009 of 22 December 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, [2009] OJ L 346/42.
37. Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I-6351.
38. A Johnston and E Nanopoulos, Case Comment: 'The new UK Supreme Court, the separation of powers and anti-terrorism measures' (2010) 69 Cambridge Law Review 217, 220.
39. The latest version of the Rules of Procedure can be found at the website of the European Parliament: .
40. See Case T-222/99 Martinez and Others v Parliament [2001] ECR II-02823 (confirmed on appeal by order of the CJEU in Case C-486/01P Front National v Parliament [2004] ECR I-6289).
41. See RS Mehta, 'Sir Thomas' Blushes: Protecting Parliamentary Immunity in Modern Parliamentary Democracies' (2012) 3 EHRLR 309, 313.
42. See eg ECtHR, Castells v. Spain, judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, pp. 22-23, section 42.
43. See eg ECtHR, Fayed v the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B, pp. 49-50, section 65.
44. Case C-163/10 Patriciello, judgment of 6 September 2011, not yet reported.
45. Joined Cases C-200/07 and C-201/07 Marra [2008] ECR I-7929.
46. Y Tew, Case Note on R v. Chaytor (2011) 70 CLJ 282, at 284.
47. See K Lenaerts, '"In the Union we trust": Trust-enhancing principles of Community law' (2004) 41 CMLRev 317.
48. See generally M Thatcher and A Stone Sweet, 'Theory and Practice of Delegation to Non-Majoritarian Institutions' (2002) 25 West European Politics 1.
49. See eg S Bredt (n 8) 55 ff.
50. The expression 'discrete and insular minorities' is borrowed from fn 4 in United States v Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938).
51. Case C-518/07 Commission v Germany [2010] ECR I-1885. See also Case C-614/10 Commission v Austria, judgment of 16 October 2012, not yet reported.
52. Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, [1995] OJ L 281/31.
53. Emphasis added.
54. Case C-518/07 Commission v Germany (n 105) para 9.
55. See Opinion of AG Mazák in Case C-518/07 Commission v Germany (n 105) para 30.
56. Case C-518/07 Commission v Germany (n 105) para 18.
57. Case T-135/96 UEAPME v Council [1998] ECR II-2335.
58. Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, [1996] OJ L 145/4.
59. B Bercusson, 'Democratic Legitimacy and European Labour Law' (1999) 28 ILJ 153, 154.
60. Case T-135/96 UEAPME v Council (n 127) para 89.
61. B Bercusson, 'Democratic Legitimacy and European Labour Law' (1999) 28 ILJ 153, 165-70
62. M.-A. Moreau, 'Sur la représentativité des partenaires sociaux européens' (1999) 62 Droit Social 53, 56-7
63. A Adinolfi, 'Admissibility of Action for Annulment by Social Partners and "Sufficient Representativity" of European Agreements' (2000) 25 ELR 165, 176.
64. Bercusson (n 132) 155-9; Moreau (n 132) 56.
65. COM (93) 600 final, para 24.
66. Case T-135/96 UEAPME v Council (n 127) para 102. This has also been the subject of criticism; see Bercusson (n 132) 159; Adinolfi (n 132) 176.
67. Case T-135/96 UEAPME v Council (n 127) para 89.
68. Cases C-514/07 P, C-528/07 P and C-532/07 P Sweden and Others v API and Commission [2010] ECR I-8533, para 73.
69. Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P Sweden and Turco v Council (n 142) para 50
70. Case C-139/07 P Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau [2010] ECR I-5885, para 54
71. Case C-506/08P Sweden v Commission and MyTravel, judgment of 21 July 2011, not yet reported.
72. Case T-233/09 Access Info Europe v Council, judgment of 22 March 2011, not yet reported.
73. Case T-342/99 Airtours v Commission [2002] ECR II-2585.
74. Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, [2004] OJ L 24/1. See also Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 of 7 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, [2004] OJ L 133/1.
75. D Adamski, 'Approximating a Workable Compromise on Access to Official Documents: The 2011 Developments in the European courts' (2012) 49 CMLRev 521, 528-9 (opining that 'the General Court established an overarching general presumption of non-disclosure').
76. Case T-212/03 MyTravel v Commission [2008] ECR II-1967.
77. Case C-506/08P Sweden v Commission and MyTravel (n 150) para 80.
78. See Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P Sweden and Turco v Council (n 142) paras 59 ff.