scholarly journals Institutional logics and the EU’s limited sanctioning capacity under Article 7 TEU

2020 ◽  
pp. 019251212090832 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Closa

Several European Union (EU) governments have infringed the obligation to respect ‘rule of law’ as demanded by the European Union Treaty but, despite its supranational features, the EU has done little to sanction those violations. Why? The European Union’s institutional features paradoxically permit (and even encourage) logics that might be inhibiting its sanctioning capacity. Thus, a partisanship logic informs the European Parliament and this protects errant states. Then, the Commission, rather than acting assertively, anticipates the Council’s stance and adapts also its actions to anticipate a ‘compliance dilemma’ (i.e. compliance depends ultimately on the good will and cooperation of domestic authorities). The Commission prefers to channel its sanctioning activity via other softer instruments (e.g. infringement procedures). Finally, a distaste for increasing EU competence, ideological sympathy for illiberal governments, or fears of spillovers from sanctioning activity inform the action of governments within the Council. Those three institutional logics combine to explain the unexpectedly low sanctioning record for breaches of EU values.

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Tamás Molnár

On June 3, 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), closely following the Advocate General's Opinion, delivered its Grand Chamber judgment in case C-650/18 Hungary v. European Parliament by dismissing Hungary's action. The ruling confirms that the European Parliament (EP) acted within the procedural boundaries of its powers when initiating, by a two-thirds majority vote of its members, proceedings against Hungary for the situation in the country regarding the rule of law, democracy, and other values on which the European Union (EU) is founded. The ruling comes after the Hungarian government decided to challenge the validity of the resolution of the European Parliament of September 12, 2018, which triggered the proceedings foreseen in the event of a clear risk of serious breaches of the foundational values of the EU, including the rule of law, pursuant to Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).


Author(s):  
Panagiotis Delimatsis

Secrecy and informality rather than transparency traditionally reign trade negotiations at the bilateral, regional, and multilateral levels. Yet, transparency ranks among the most basic desiderata in the grammar of global governance and has been regarded as positively related to legitimacy. In the EU’s case, transparent trade diplomacy is quintessential for constitutional—but also for broader political—reasons. First, even if trade matters fall within the EU’s exclusive competence, the EU executive is bound by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to inform the European Parliament, the EU co-legislator, in regular intervals. Second, transparency at an early stage is important to address public reluctance, suspicion, or even opposition regarding a particular trade deal. This chapter chronicles the quest for and turning moments relating to transparency during the EU trade negotiations with Canada (CETA); the US (TTIP), and various WTO members on services (TiSA).


Author(s):  
Petr YAKOVLEV

The decision on Britain’s secession from the European Union, taken by the British Parliament and agreed by London and Brussels, divided the Union history into “before” and “after”. Not only will the remaining member states have to “digest” the political, commercial, economic and mental consequences of parting with one of the largest partners. They will also have to create a substantially new algorithm for the functioning of United Europe. On this path, the EU is confronted with many geopolitical and geo-economic challenges, which should be answered by the new leaders of the European Commission, European Council, and European Parliament.


Author(s):  
Artur Nowak-Far

AbstractAt present, the European rule of law enforcement framework under Article 7 TEU (RLF) is vulnerable to unguaranteed, discretionary influences of the Member States. This vulnerability arises from its procedural format which requires high thresholds in decision-making with the effect that this procedure is prone to be terminated by the EU Member States likely to be scrutinized under it, if only they collude. Yet, the Framework may prove effective to correct serious breaches against human rights (in the context of ineffective rule of law standards). The European Commission is bound to pursue the RLF effectiveness for the sake of achieving relative uniformity of application of EU law (at large), and making the European Union a credible actor and co-creator of international legal order. The RLF is an important tool for the maintenance of relative stability of human rights and the rule of law in the EU despite natural divergence propensity resulting from the procedural autonomy of the EU Member States. By achieving this stability, the EU achieves significant political weight in international dialogue concerning human rights and the rule of law and preserves a high level of its global credibility in this context. Thus, RLF increases the EU’s effectiveness in promoting the European model of their identification and enforcement.


Author(s):  
Federico Fabbrini

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the Withdrawal Agreement of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU). The Withdrawal Agreement, adopted on the basis of Article 50 Treaty on European Union (TEU), spells out the terms and conditions of the UK departure from the EU, including ground-breaking solutions to deal with the thorniest issues which emerged in the context of the withdrawal negotiations. Admittedly, the Withdrawal Agreement is only a part of the Brexit deal. The Agreement, in fact, is accompanied by a connected political declaration, which outlines the framework of future EU–UK relations. The chapter then offers a chronological summary of the process that led to the adoption of the Withdrawal Agreement, describing the crucial stages in the Brexit process — from the negotiations to the conclusion of a draft agreement and its rejection, to the extension and the participation of the UK to European Parliament (EP) elections, to the change of UK government and the ensuing constitutional crisis, to the new negotiations with the conclusion of a revised agreement, new extension, and new UK elections eventually leading to the departure of the UK from the EU.


Author(s):  
Neil Parpworth

The aims of this chapter are threefold. It first briefly considers the events that have led to the creation of the European Community (EC) and the European Union (EU). Secondly, it introduces the reader to the principal institutions of the Union: the European Council; the Council of Ministers; the European Commission; the European Parliament; and the Court of Justice of the EU and General Court. The nature and functions of each of these bodies is considered. Thirdly, the chapter indicates, where appropriate, the nature of the institutional reforms which have occurred following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by the member states.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 252-278
Author(s):  
Matej Navrátil

Summary This article argues that by using the European Union Delegation (EUD) in Sarajevo as an organisational proxy, the EU creates tools allowing it to participate in the enhancement of external administrative co-governance in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Inspired by the organisation theory approach, this article conceives of the EUD Sarajevo as a hybrid organisation. Such organisations are defined as a product of a combination of two sovereign organisations pursuing a common interest. They recombine multiple institutional logics, stimulate institutional change and spark innovative practices. The conceptualisation of the EUD Sarajevo as a hybrid organisation offers analytical insight for understanding the EU’s role in the society of states and allows us to theorise more concretely about the impact that a non-state actor has on the transformation of the institutions of diplomacy and sovereignty, which are foundational institutions of the international system of states.


Author(s):  
Neil Parpworth

This chapter has three aims. It first briefly considers the origins of the what is now the European Union (EU). Secondly, it discusses the institutions of the Union, the European Council, the Council of Ministers, the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Court of Justice of the EU and General Court. The nature and functions of these bodies is considered. Thirdly, the chapter indicates the nature of institutional reforms which have occurred following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.


2013 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan Boucht

This article consists of a principled analysis of extended confiscation as a legal phenomenon according to Article 4 of the Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime in the European Union (COM (2012) 85 final). The analysis aims at creating a theoretical framework by which the legitimacy of schemes on extended confiscation can be assessed, both at EU level and at national level. This model utilises three parameters of assessment: the target area of extended confiscation, procedural safeguards and fairness (proportionality). The Commission proposal is set against these parameters and a suggestion is made for how the provision in the proposal could be revised in order to better fulfil the conditions put forward.


2020 ◽  
pp. 77-88
Author(s):  
Nikolay Kaveshnikov ◽  

The article explores the evolution of decision-making procedures and their use in the EU as one of the parameters of integration depth. The study used a database of secondary legislation covering 1990-2019. The final empirical data consists of 5,427 documents, including 1,272 directives and 4,155 regulations. The research empirically confirmed the increase in the frequency of procedures application that envisage a more active participation of the European Parliament in the legislative process. At the same time, the authorreveals that a significant part of secondary legislation is still adopted by the Council without the EPinvolvement. An important difference in the use of adaptation procedures of directives and regulations has been identified; working hypotheses about the reasons for such differences have been formulated.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document