How the concept of essential elements of a legislative act continues to elude the Court. Parliament v. Council

Common Market Law Review

Volumn 50, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 849-860

  Chamon, Merijn ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881488912     PISSN: 01650750     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. To be precise, Art. 290 TFEU puts the Parliament virtually on par with the Council. See Driesen, "Delegated legislation after the Treaty of Lisbon: An analysis of Art. 290 TFEU", 35 EL Rev. (2010), 847.
2. Decision (EU) 2010/252 of the Council supplementing the Schengen Borders Code as regards the surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, O.J. 2010, L 111/20.
3. Regulation (EC) 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) O.J. 2006, L 105/1.
4. The Commission has already made a proposal to update the SBC and replace the references to the PRAC with references toArt. 290TFEU. See European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) and the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, COM(2011)118 final.
5. The Poseidon operation targets the illegal migration at the Turkish-Greek Border. The Hermes operation was initiated at the request of Italy because of the large influx of North-African immigrants around the isle of Lampedusa.
6. European Commission, Proposal for a Council Decision supplementing the Schengen Borders Code as regards the surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of the operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders, COM(2009)658 final.
7. Regulation (EC) 2007/2004 of the Council establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, O.J. 2004 L 349/1.
8. Motion for a Resolution on the draft Council decision supplementing the Schengen Borders Code as regards the surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of the operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders, B7-0227/2010, 17 March 2010.
9. Decision (EC) 2006/512 of the Council amending Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, O.J. 2006, L 200/11.
10. However, the CAP is not completely isolated from these issues either. See e.g. the recent Bonda case in which the question was raised whether the combination of administrative penalties (provided for in EU legislation) and criminal penalties for making false declarations in an application for CAP funding, was in violation of the ne bis in idem principle. See Case C-489/10, Criminal proceedings against Lukasz Marcin Bonda, judgment of 5 June 2012, nyr.
11. Case 25/70, Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel v. Köster and Berodt & Co, [1970] ECR 1161, para 6.
12. Bianchi, "La comitologie est morte! vive la comitologie! - Premières réflexions sur l'exécution du droit de l'Union après leTraité de Lisbonne - L'exemple de la Politique agricole commune", 48 RTDE (2012), 88.
13. Case 22/88, Industrie- en Handelsonderneming Vreugdenhil BV and Gijs van der Kolk - Douane Expediteur BV v. Minister van Landbouw enVisserij, [1989] ECR 2049, para 17. See also Türk, The concept of legislation in European community law: a comparative perspective, (Kluwer Law International, 2006), p. 229.
14. See e.g. Case C-417/93, European Parliament v. Council of the European Union, [1995] ECR I-1185, para 30; Case C-403/05, European Parliament v. Commission of the European Communities, [2007] ECR I-9045, para 51.
15. Case C-240/90, Federal Republic of Germany v. Commission of the European Communities, [1992] ECR I-5383, para 41.
16. The English language version of the A.G.'s Opinion speaks of "strong measures" but inter alia the French and German language versions "mesures incisives" or "eingreifende Maßnahmen" better reflect the original "misure incisive".
17. Case T-475/07, Dow Agrosciences Ltd v. European Commission, judgment of 9 Sept. 2011, nyr, para 151.
18. It should be noted that the Court did not lay down an absolute prohibition for delegated acts to affect persons' fundamental rights.