The Role of Institutional Principles in the Judicial Development of the European Union Legal Order

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 587-617
Author(s):  
Veronika Fikfak

AbstractThis chapter investigates the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the international legal order in light of its decision in Kadi and the forthcoming Kadi II. It focuses on establishing how the Court perceives its relationship with the UN Security Council and its position in the international legal order. The CJEU’s approach is analysed by identifying the characteristics of review adopted by it as a ‘constitutional court of a municipal legal order’. In this context, the chapter reveals how the CJEU’s review resembles that employed by domestic courts seeking to give force to the same or similar actions of international institutions and shows which motives may have led the CJEU to follow the practice of national courts in constructing its relationship with the international organs. This practice is contrasted with Advocate General Bot’s desire to depart from the image of an all-powerful but isolated CJEU, a court ignorant of other legal orders. Bot insists that what the CJEU ought to do in Kadi II is adopt both a more modest, deferential role in reviewing international sanctions and a rather more active role as a participant in the international legal order.


Author(s):  
Justine Pila ◽  
Paul L.C. Torremans

This chapter discusses the role of the EU in the IP field before and since the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty. To that end it introduces the EU legal order itself, including its founding Treaties, institutions, and authority to act (competence), with a focus on IP. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 2.2 traces the establishment of the European Economic Community and its development to the European Union. Section 2.3 describes the seven EU institutions: the European Council, European Commission, European Parliament, Council, Court of Justice of the EU, European Central Bank, and Court of Auditors. Section 2.4 explains the legal authority of the EU, in relation particularly to IP. Section 2.5 covers EU measures and their legal effects. And Section 2.6 discusses the actions of the Court of Justice.


2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramses A. Wessel

Institutional and normative convergence – Common Foreign and Security Policy – Pillar Structure – External Relations – Role of the Court – Normative Consistency – EU Legal Order – Legal Nature CFSP – Treaty of Lisbon – Legal Instruments – Decision-Making


2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 587-617
Author(s):  
Veronika Fikfak

AbstractThis chapter investigates the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the international legal order in light of its decision inKadiand the forthcomingKadi II. It focuses on establishing how the Court perceives its relationship with the UN Security Council and its position in the international legal order. The CJEU’s approach is analysed by identifying the characteristics of review adopted by it as a ‘constitutional court of a municipal legal order’. In this context, the chapter reveals how the CJEU’s review resembles that employed by domestic courts seeking to give force to the same or similar actions of international institutions and shows which motives may have led the CJEU to follow the practice of national courts in constructing its relationship with the international organs. This practice is contrasted with Advocate General Bot’s desire to depart from the image of an all-powerful but isolated CJEU, a court ignorant of other legal orders. Bot insists that what the CJEU ought to do inKadi IIis adopt both a more modest, deferential role in reviewing international sanctions and a rather more active role as a participant in the international legal order.


Author(s):  
Miguel Poiares Maduro ◽  
Benedita Menezes Queiroz

The rule of law is under threat in the European Union. Systemic violations of fundamental rights are affecting the rule of law, democracy, and judicial independence in some Member States and consequently the EU legal order. The level of interdependence between the Member States and the EU legal order is such that systemic violations of those principles in the Member States end up impacting on EU compliance with the same principles. Article 7 TEU did not prove, however, to be the most effective tool to face these problems due to its political nature. The EU’s intervention in the form of infringement actions to safeguard the rule of law at the national level may be a suitable action to address some these serious violations of fundamental rights. Despite of the earlier hesitation to take a bolder action in this regard, the EU Commission, after the Court of Justice’s recent decisions in Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portuguese and LM, brought infringement proceedings against Poland challenging this country reforms that put into question the independence of its judiciary. The Court established its power of judicial review over the rule of law in the Member States in C-619/18 Commission v Poland. Ultimately, this decision highlighted the role of EU law in safeguarding the rule of law in its Member States, but more importantly in safeguarding the rule of law in the EU legal order as a whole.


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-36
Author(s):  
Jacek Przybojewski

Abstract Indication of conditions constituting necessity of modifications within the scope of the Constitution shall be considered while perceiving the leading role of the Constitution in Polish legal order. Constitutional regulations determine standards for the entire legal system of the Republic of Poland. It is also worth a while to consider the need for unambiguous determination of relations of constitutional norms, also with regard to the law of the European Union. Doubts appearing within the scope of systemic rules concern mainly regulations specifying the rule of division and balancing of powers. Actually, they consist in lacks with regard to organization of bodies of each of three powers. Another issue is improvement of solutions determining coexistence of government and local government administration within the broader scope of principles of uniformity of the state and decentralization of public power. The article presents an analysis related to the aforementioned issues.


2014 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 935-962 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joris Larik

AbstractAfter the Lisbon Treaty, the objectives of the European Union are more numerous and ambitious than ever. But what is their importance and function within the ‘thickening’ legal order of the EU? Combining insights from both the law of international organizations and comparative constitutional law, the article traces the diverging role of objectives for, on the one hand, a traditional international organization marked by the principle of ‘speciality’ and, on the other, a maturing legal order increasingly exhibiting ‘constitutional’ traits. It argues that in the case of the EU, objectives and competences have developed into two related but distinct norm categories. While objectives serve to bolster arguments to shape such powers, they no longer represent a rationale in their own right for founding competences. The EU no longer justifies its existence solely by striving for a particular set of goals. Rather, these norms represent an entrenched duty to pursue these objectives through the actors, structures and procedures available, regardless of the Union's ultimate form (finalité). Today, the EU stands for certain values and has been endowed with powers, the exercise of which is guided by promoting these various aspects of the ‘common good’.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document