The Concept of the "Legislative" Act in the Constitutional Treaty

German Law Journal

Volumn 6, Issue 11, 2005, Pages 1555-1570

  Türk, Alexander ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881739301     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20718322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S2071832200014504     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. See JOSEPH H.H. WEILER, THE CONSTITUTION OF EUROPE 221 (1999).
2. Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, Dec. 16, 2004, 2004 O.J. (C310) (hereinafter: Constitutional Treaty or CT). Articles without references are those of the Constitutional Treaty.
3. For a detailed analysis of the British, French and German constitutions on the concept of legislation, see Alexander Türk, The Concept of Legislation in European Community Law (2004) (PhD thesis, University of London) in Part One.
4. The reference to the directly elected institution is relevant for the qualification of acts adopted by institutions, other than parliament, that are directly elected. This is relevant to certain acts of the French President.
5. See JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU, DU CONTRAT SOCIAL 61-64 (1992).
6. However, it should be noted that, quite confusingly, a European Regulation can be in substance a Directive or a Regulation within the meaning of Treaty Establishing the European Community, Art. 249, Nov. 10, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C340).
7. Laeken Declaration, Dec. 15, 2001, available at: http://www.europa.eu.int/futurum/documents/offtext/doc151201-en.htm.
8. BVerfGE 89, 155 (para. 51).
9. See GIANDOMENICO MAJONE, REGULATING EUROPE (1996); Giandomenico Majone, Delegation of Regulatory Powers in a Mixed Polity, 8 EUROPEAN LAW JOURNAL 319 (2002).
10. See GIANDOMENICO MAJONE, REGULATING EUROPE (1996); Giandomenico Majone, Delegation of Regulatory Powers in a Mixed Polity, 8 EUROPEAN LAW JOURNAL 319 (2002).
11. P.L. Lindseth, Democratic Legitimacy and the administrative Character of Supranationalism: the Example of the European Community, 99 COLUMBIA LAW JOURNAL 628 (1999).
12. AMARYLLIS VERHOEVEN, THE EUROPEAN UNION IN SEARCH OF A DEMOCRATIC AND CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY 160 (2002).
13. Joseph H.H. Weiler, Does Europe Need a Constitution? Demos, Telos and the German Maastricht Decision, 1 EUROPEAN LAW JOURNAL 219, 256 (1995).
14. Neil MacCormick, Beyond the Sovereign State, 56 MODERN LAW REVIEW 1, 2 (1993)
15. See also Neil MacCormick, The Maastricht-Urteil: Sovereignty Now, 1 EUROPEAN LAW JOURNAL 259, 264 (1995) and Paul Kirchhof, The Balance of Powers Between National and European Institutions, 5 EUROPEAN LAW JOURNAL 225, 241-242 (1999).
16. See also Neil MacCormick, The Maastricht-Urteil: Sovereignty Now, 1 EUROPEAN LAW JOURNAL 259, 264 (1995) and Paul Kirchhof, The Balance of Powers Between National and European Institutions, 5 EUROPEAN LAW JOURNAL 225, 241-242 (1999).
17. See the contributions in TRANSNATIONAL GOVERNANCE AND CONSTITUTIONALISM (Christian Joerges et al. eds., 2004).
18. The possibility of constructing a European demos on the basis non-statal parameters, as outlined above, does not alleviate the concern on the limitation of a European public sphere. Therefore, and despite its enhanced role within the Union's legal order, the European Parliament cannot be considered as being equally representative as a national parliament.
19. See Treaty Establishing the European Community, Arts. 2 and 3, Nov. 10, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C340).
20. Dietrich Rometsch & Wolfgang Wessels, The Commission and the Council of the Union, in THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION 213, 220 (Geoffrey Edwards & David Spence eds., 1997).
21. See Treaty Establishing the European Community, Art. 26, Nov. 10, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C340).
22. See Treaty Establishing the European Community, Art. 23, Nov. 10, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C340).
23. See Treaty Establishing the European Community, Art. 20, Nov. 10, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C340).
24. In the narrow sense that the EP provides a forum in which the arguments for and against legal acts are voiced, even though it might fail in the wider sense of providing a public sphere.
25. RICHARD CORBETT ET AL., THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 197 (2003).
26. See Article 251(2). See also Article 9(1)(a) of the Council's Rules of Procedure 2004, which provides for a publication of the results of votes, the explanation of votes and statements in the Council minutes and the items in those minutes in relation to the adoption of a common position.
27. See also Rule 74 of the EP's Rules of Procedure.
28. It should be emphasised that a distinction has to be made between the deliberations on the one hand and the discussion in the parliamentary committees or in plenary on the other hand. It is not argued that the discussions that takes place in public in these fora reflect in their entirety the deliberations which take place informally between the EP and the Council, or the deals that are struck behind closed doors or in the corridors between the political groups. At public display are the arguments for and against a proposed act.
29. Arts. III-125(2), III-126, III-127, III-157(3), III-171, III-176(2), III-184(13), III-185(6), III-210(3), III-234(2), III-251(3), III-256(3), III-269(3), III-275(3), III-277, III-393 sentence 4, III-424 sentence 1 CT.
30. Arts. III-124(1), III-129, III-223(2), III-274(1), III-330 CT.
31. Arts. III-390(2), III-333 sentence 3, III-335(4) CT.
32. Art. III-163 CT.
33. See Case C-388/92, European Parliament v. Council, 1994 E.C.R. I-2067.
34. Arts. III-130(3), III-151(5), III-159, III-160(2), III-163, III-167(3)(e), III-169, III-183(2), III-184(13), III-186(2), III-187(4), III-190(3), III-198(3), III-201(2), III-212(2), III-230(2), III-231(3), III-232(2), III-240(3), III-253, III-260, III-263, III-266(3), III-400(1) and (2), III-424(1), III-433 CT.
35. Arts. III-165, III-166(3) and III-168(4) CT.
36. Art. III-190(1) CT.
37. See, e.g., Art. III-163 CT.
38. See Armin von Bogdandy & Jürgen Bast, La Loi Europeénne: Promise and Pretence, in THE EU CONSTITUTION: THE BEST WAY FORWARD? (Deirdre Curtin et al., eds.) (forthcoming, 2005).
39. Case 25/70, Einfuhrstelle v. Köster, 1970 E.C.R. 1161, para. 6. See also Case C-240/90, Germany v. Commission, 1992 E.C.R. I-5383, para. 36, and Case C-104/97P, Atlanta and Others v. Council and Commission, 1999 E.C.R. I-6983, para. 76.
40. Case 25/70, Einfuhrstelle v. Köster, 1970 E.C.R. 1161, para. 6. See also Case C-240/90, Germany v. Commission, 1992 E.C.R. I-5383, para. 36, and Case C-104/97P, Atlanta and Others v. Council and Commission, 1999 E.C.R. I-6983, para. 76.
41. Case 25/70, Einfuhrstelle v. Köster, 1970 E.C.R. 1161, para. 6. See also Case C-240/90, Germany v. Commission, 1992 E.C.R. I-5383, para. 36, and Case C-104/97P, Atlanta and Others v. Council and Commission, 1999 E.C.R. I-6983, para. 76.
42. See Alexander Türk, The Role of the Court of Justice, in DELEGATED LEGISLATION AND THE ROLE OF COMMITTEES IN THE EC 217, 224-227 (Mads Andenas & Alexander Türk eds., 2000).
43. See Art. I-36 CT.
44. See Art. I-37 CT.
45. However, see Arts. I-46(1) and (2) CT.
46. See Case C-104/97P, Atlanta AG and Others v. Council and Commission, 1999 E.C.R. I-6983, paras. 37 and 38 and Joined Cases C-48/90 and C-66/90, Netherlands and Others v. Commission, 1992 ECR I-565, in which the Court seemed to have accepted a right to be heard, where the individuals are directly and individually concerned.
47. See Case C-104/97P, Atlanta AG and Others v. Council and Commission, 1999 E.C.R. I-6983, paras. 37 and 38 and Joined Cases C-48/90 and C-66/90, Netherlands and Others v. Commission, 1992 ECR I-565, in which the Court seemed to have accepted a right to be heard, where the individuals are directly and individually concerned.
48. The term Court of Justice is used in the meaning of Article I-29(1) CT.
49. The application of such marginal review is not entirely consistent. On the link between the nature of the act and the margin of review of the Community Courts, see on fundamental rights: PAUL CRAIG & GRÁINNE DEBÚRCA, EU LAW: TEXT, CASES, AND MATERIALS 323 (2003). On proportionality: see Francis Jacobs, Recent Developments in the Principle of Proportionality in European Community Law, in THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY, 20 (Evelyn Ellis, ed., 1999); TAKIS TRIDIMAS, THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF EC LAW 89-123 (1999); Gráinne DeBúrca, The Principle of Proportionality and its Application in EC Law, 13 YEARBOOK OF EUROPEAN LAW 105, 111 (1993); on equality: TRIDIMAS (above), at 57.
50. The application of such marginal review is not entirely consistent. On the link between the nature of the act and the margin of review of the Community Courts, see on fundamental rights: PAUL CRAIG & GRÁINNE DEBÚRCA, EU LAW: TEXT, CASES, AND MATERIALS 323 (2003). On proportionality: see Francis Jacobs, Recent Developments in the Principle of Proportionality in European Community Law, in THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY, 20 (Evelyn Ellis, ed., 1999); TAKIS TRIDIMAS, THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF EC LAW 89-123 (1999); Gráinne DeBúrca, The Principle of Proportionality and its Application in EC Law, 13 YEARBOOK OF EUROPEAN LAW 105, 111 (1993); on equality: TRIDIMAS (above), at 57.
51. The application of such marginal review is not entirely consistent. On the link between the nature of the act and the margin of review of the Community Courts, see on fundamental rights: PAUL CRAIG & GRÁINNE DEBÚRCA, EU LAW: TEXT, CASES, AND MATERIALS 323 (2003). On proportionality: see Francis Jacobs, Recent Developments in the Principle of Proportionality in European Community Law, in THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY, 20 (Evelyn Ellis, ed., 1999); TAKIS TRIDIMAS, THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF EC LAW 89-123 (1999); Gráinne DeBúrca, The Principle of Proportionality and its Application in EC Law, 13 YEARBOOK OF EUROPEAN LAW 105, 111 (1993); on equality: TRIDIMAS (above), at 57.
52. The definition in Article 2 of Protocol 1 and equally in Article 2 of Protocol 2 of a draft legislative act refers to proposals or initiatives that lead to the adoption of European legislative acts, a term that encompasses European laws and European Framework laws in accordance with Article I-33(1) CT.
53. Art. II-107 CT. See also the discussion in Case C-50/00P, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v. Council, 2002 E.C.R. I-6677 (opinion of AG Jacobs).