EU Powers Under External Pressure

Author(s):  
Christina Eckes

This book argues that external actions of the European Union result in an acceleration of national politics being locked into a tightening net of EU law. It brings to light the -hidden effects of EU external actions on, for example, the interpretation of organizational principles, pre-emption, and international obligations of the Member States. It then connects these effects to the broader debate on the democratic crisis, by engaging with the basic structures of the EU legal order and the Union’s relations with its citizens. The focus of this book is on the ‘outside-in’ effects of EU external relations. More specifically, the book sheds light on how the Union’s external actions affect the power division between the EU and its Member States, the structures that shape the relationship between the Union and its citizens, as well as the autonomy, effectiveness, and legitimacy of EU law. It examines, for example, the interpretation and potential of organizational principles, such as loyalty, subsidiarity, primacy, and coherence, in the context of external relations. It analyses how the choice of an external legal basis affects Member States’ powers. It traces how the European Parliament represents EU citizens in external relations. The book then analyses these legal findings through the lens of ‘structure of bonding’, that is, basic structures that have the potential to frame and affect the Union’s relations with its citizens. It shows how bonding structures could be used to justify that the Union takes external actions, including where they constrain Member States.

2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 492-501
Author(s):  
Adam Cygan

The relationship between EU law and international law has, again, recently occupied the European Court of Justice with respect to the compatibility of the EU Treaty with international obligations. It will be recalled that in the Kadi judgment1 the Court examined whether adoption of a UN Resolution in the form of a Council Regulation2 which, prima facie, restricted the fundamental rights of Kadi was congruent with principles of EU law. In Kadi, the Court, adopting a constitutionalist position with regard to the protection of fundamental rights, held that protecting the applicant's fundamental rights under the Treaty was a priority which could not be diminished, even when the EU was implementing a UN Resolution into EU law. Thus, in Kadi, the Court concluded that providing clear fundamental rights safeguards through judicial review of the Regulation was a fundamental principle of EU law. To this extent, the Court was only prepared to accept compliance with internal obligations if they were harmonious with principles of fundamental rights norms, as understood through the case law of the Court.


Author(s):  
Christina Eckes

Chapter 4 discusses the constitutional consequences of the choice of legal basis in the context of external relations. The Union and its Member States are interlocked in a tight embrace, which leads to a far more complicated power division than may appear from a straightforward reading of the Treaty provisions on competences. The choice of the appropriate legal basis is the legal emanation of political power struggles between the Member States and the Union and among the EU institutions. The chapter identifies situations, in which the fact that law-making moves from the internal EU sphere to the external (i.e. international) sphere places more far-reaching restrictions on the Member States’ exercise of powers than would apply internally. It also argues that clarity in attributing responsibilities is a foundational requirement for bonding structures in a divided representative democracy, in which individuals are represented as EU citizens and national citizens. An adequate level of clarity on who is responsible for what is a necessary, albeit insufficient, condition for feeling represented and for limiting the ability of representatives to deny responsibilities. Finally, the chapter illustrates how the international obligations of the Member States are vested with the particular bite (i.e. effectiveness) of EU law when the question of who should take action, which is at the centre of the choice of legal basis, is avoided by concluding a mixed agreement. This limits the scope of manoeuvre of Member States as international actors.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (56) ◽  
pp. 171-182
Author(s):  
Jacek Zaleśny

The article is focused on the effect of the establishment and application the European Union law in Poland immediately after 2004. By becoming the law binding in Poland (and other member states of the EU), the EU law effected significant changes in the sphere of law creation and application. Traditionally, in the national legal order, the law of the highest force is the constitution, while in accordance with the EU legal order, the regulations of the European law are superior in their application in the territory of the member states, including the regulations of the constitution. The present analysis explains how the dilemma of the simultaneous superiority of the regulations of the constitution and the regulations of the EU law was solved in Poland and what importance is attributed to the concept of favourable interpretation of the national law and the EU law. The present paper poses the hypothesis that the model of reconciling the regulations of the Polish law and the regulations of the European law developed in Poland immediately after 2004 was correctly established. It contributes well to Poland meeting international obligations, at the same time respecting the superior position of the constitution.


Author(s):  
Cremona Marise ◽  
Leino-Sandberg Päivi

This chapter will focus on the relations of the European Union (EU) and euro area with the main international financial institutions (IFIs) from the perspective of EU law. Among the IFIs the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the more informal groupings of the G20, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Financial Stability Board (FSB) will be highlighted. The aim, in a chapter of this length, is not to give an account of the activities of these bodies and the EU’s policy positions and priorities; rather it is to highlight, from the perspective of EU law, the legal-institutional questions and challenges that arise from EU participation. The unified representation of the euro area in the IFIs has surfaced repeatedly in the context of the on-going discussions concerning the development of the Economic Monetary Union (EMU) (see below in Section II). These discussions, however, primarily reflect the EU institutional interest (Commission, the European Central Bank (ECB)) to strengthen their institutional presence in the IFIs: something that is met with strong reluctance by the Member States. While the Member States ostensibly support increased EU influence in the IFIs, they are also concerned about preserving their own individual positions and status.


2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1663-1700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clelia Lacchi

The Constitutional Courts of a number of Member States exert a constitutional review on the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU, national courts of last instance, namely courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, are required to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary question related to the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of acts of European Union (EU) institutions. The CJEU specified the exceptions to this obligation inCILFIT. Indeed, national courts of last instance have a crucial role according to the devolution to national judges of the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the CJEU, the full application of EU law in all Member States and the judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. With preliminary references as the keystone of the EU judicial system, the cooperation of national judges with the CJEU forms part of the EU constitutional structure in accordance with Article 19(1) TEU.


Author(s):  
Ivan Yakovyuk ◽  
Suzanna Asiryan ◽  
Anastasiya Lazurenko

Problem setting. On October 7, 2021, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland ruled in favor of Polish law over European Union law, which in the long run may violate the principles according to which the Union operates and the rights enjoyed by citizens of the state. Such a precedent can further serve as a basis for identical decisions of the bodies of constitutional jurisdiction of those states that have problems in fulfilling their obligations in the European community. Analysis of recent researches and publications. The problems of the functioning of the bodies of the European Union, the implementation of their decisions and the general status in EU law are widely studied in national science. In particular, many scholars have studied the legal nature of the EU, including: TM Anakina, VI Muravyov, NM Ushakov, A. Ya. Kapustina, NA Korolyova, Yu. Yumashev, BN Topornin, OYa Tragniuk, SS Seliverstov, IV Yakovyuk and others. Target of research is to establish the foundations of EU law in the functioning of Union bodies, especially the Court, as well as to determine the hierarchy of national law and EU law. Article’s main body. Over the years, the Court has, within its jurisdiction, issued a large number of judgments which have become the source of the Union’s Constituent Treaties and of EU law in general. Over the last two decades, the powers of the Court of Justice have changed significantly. In particular, this is due to the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, which amended the EU’s founding treaties on the powers of the Court, then the reform of the European Court took place in 2015-2016, which concerned a change in the organizational structure of the Court. Despite the generally well-established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the unification of the observance by the Member States of the basic principles of the European Union, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland adopted a decision on 7 October. Conclusions and prospects for the development. Following the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Polish authorities found themselves in a situation that significantly complicated its internal and external situation. The way out of which requires answers to fundamental questions about the legal nature of the EU. Undoubtedly, this is an issue not only between Poland and the EU, but also between other member states.


Author(s):  
Christina Eckes

Chapter 2 discusses the legal consequences and deeper meaning of EU loyalty with particular attention to external relations. It identifies specific active and passive obligations flowing from the principle of sincere cooperation in the context of EU external relations and argues that they are best understood as forming part of a comprehensive duty of loyalty. EU loyalty endows EU membership with a distinctive meaning. It is central to imposing a quasi-federal discipline and making sovereign states ‘Member States of the EU’ by acting as a tool that can at times take specific legal obligations beyond the letter of the law. EU loyalty legally restrains Member States from exercising their rights as independent international actors in a way that finds no parallel beyond the European Union. It may require placing the common Union interest above national interests. The concept of unity of international representation has a particular capacity to deepen and widen the obligations flowing from EU loyalty. It amplifies the effects of EU loyalty on the scope of legal action of the Member States, including in the field of reserved competences. It is also part of the explanation of why loyalty has more stringent consequences externally rather than internally. This in turn means that the duty of loyalty has a particular integrative force in the context of external relations. Chapter 2 also argues that this stringent understanding of EU loyalty is justified by the nature of external relations and that this justification should be (better) explicated by the EU institutions in order to justify EU external actions vis-à-vis EU citizens.


2019 ◽  
pp. 64-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marise Cremona

This chapter explores the ways in which the EU uses its external relations powers and its wide range of external instruments to extend the reach of EU law, and the ways in which law shapes the EU’s external action. It examines three dimensions of the relationship between law and external action: first, the role law plays in the construction of the EU’s international presence as a ‘Union of values’; second, the use of law by the EU as a way of conducting its foreign policy and constructing its relationships; third, the EU as a regulatory actor engaged in shaping, importing and promoting international legal norms. These dynamics illustrate different aspects of the notion of the global reach of EU law and in so doing they raise questions about the ambivalent role that law plays in these processes, challenging our understanding of law as the foundation of the EU’s external power and the instrument through which, and in accordance with which, it expresses that power.


Author(s):  
Joni Heliskoski

Whatever terminology one might wish to employ to describe the form of integration constituted by the European Union and its Member States, one fundamental attribute of that arrangement has always been the division, as between the Union and its Member States, of competence to conclude international agreements with other subjects of international law. Today, the fact that treaty-making competence—as an external facet of the more general division of legal authority—is divided and, to some extent, shared between the Union and its Member States is reflected by some of the opening provisions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Notwithstanding the changes to the scope and nature of the powers conferred upon the Union, resulting from both changes to primary law and the evolution of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the basic characteristics of the conferment as an attribution of a limited kind has always been the same; there has always existed a polity endowed with a treaty-making authority divided between and, indeed, shared by, the Union and its Member States. In the early 1960s mixed agreements—that is, agreements to which the European Union


Author(s):  
Sandra Marco Colino

This chapter focuses on the current interaction between European Union and UK law. EU law is currently a source of UK law. However, the relationship between the two regimes is expected to change in the future as a consequence of the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 stipulates that the European Communities Act 1972 will be ‘repealed on exit day’, which would be 29 March 2019 provided that the two-year period since Article 50 TEU was triggered is not extended. Once the European Communities Act 1972 has been repealed, EU law will cease to be a source of UK law. No major immediate changes to the national competition legislation are to be expected, but future reforms could distance the UK system from the EU rules.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document