No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
The constitutionalism of the Community legal order as an evolutionary process of transforming an international organisation into a constitutional legal order has found its latest expression in the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. This document evokes the language of the constitutional state when it refers to “this Constitution” in Article I-1 and expresses its gratitude to the “European Convention for having prepared the draft of this Constitution on behalf of the citizens and States of Europe.” However, ambiguity is not far behind. The length of the document resembles a carefully drafted prenuptial agreement rather than a constitutional text. Moreover, the reference to the Constitution cannot disguise the fact that it has been adopted as an international treaty in the usual procedure of an Intergovernmental Conference and will have to be ratified by each and every Member State to enter into force.
1 See Joseph H.H. Weiler, The Constitution of Europe 221 (1999).Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
5 See Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Du Contrat Social 61-64 (1992).Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
7 Laeken Declaration, Dec. 15, 2001, available at: http://www.europa.eu.int/futurum/documents/offtext/doc151201_en.htm.Google Scholar
8 BVerfGE 89, 155 (para. 51).Google Scholar
9 See Giandomenico Majone, Regulating Europe (1996); Giandomenico Majone, Delegation of Regulatory Powers in a Mixed Polity, 8 EUROPEAN LAW JOURNAL 319 (2002).Google Scholar
10 Lindseth, P.L., Democratic Legitimacy and the administrative Character of Supranationalism: the Example of the European Community, 99 Columbia Law Journal 628 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Amaryllis Verhoeven, The European Union in Search of a Democratic and Constitutional Theory 160 (2002).Google Scholar
12 Weiler, Joseph H.H., Does Europe Need a Constitution? Demos, Telos and the German Maastricht Decision, 1 European Law Journal 219, 256 (1995). On a discussion of multiple demoi, see also Weiler, supra note 2, at 344-348.Google Scholar
13 MacCormick, Neil, Beyond the Sovereign State, 56 Modern Law Review 1, 2 (1993); Verhoeven, supra note 11, at 122.Google Scholar
14 See Verhoeven, , supra note 11, at 124 in relation of the nature of the European Union.Google Scholar
15 See MacCormick note 13; Verhoeven, supra note 11, at 296. 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).Google Scholar
16 See the contributions in Transnational Governance and Constitutionalism (Christian Joerges et al. eds., 2004).Google Scholar
17 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.Google Scholar
18 Verhoeven, , supra note 11, at 362 in relation to the EU.Google Scholar
19 Id. at 362.Google Scholar
20 See Treaty Establishing the European Community, Arts. 2 and 3, Nov. 10, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C340).Google Scholar
21 Rometsch, Dietrich & Wessels, Wolfgang, The Commission and the Council of the Union, in The European Commission 213, 220 (Geoffrey Edwards & David Spence eds., 1997).Google Scholar
22 See Treaty Establishing the European Community, Art. 26, Nov. 10, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C340).Google Scholar
23 See Treaty Establishing the European Community, Art. 23, Nov. 10, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C340).Google Scholar
24 See Treaty Establishing the European Community, Art. 20, Nov. 10, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C340).Google Scholar
25 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.Google Scholar
26 Richard Corbett et al., The European Parliament 197 (2003).Google Scholar
27 Until 2002, this happened in 25% of all co-decision procedures, see id., at 186.Google Scholar
28 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.Google Scholar
29 See also Rule 74 of the EP's Rules of Procedure.Google Scholar
30 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.Google Scholar
31 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.Google Scholar
32 Arts. III-124(1), III-129, III-223(2), III-274(1), III-330 CT.Google Scholar
33 Arts. III-390(2), III-333 sentence 3, III-335(4) CT.Google Scholar
34 Art. III-163 CT.Google Scholar
35 Corbett, et al., supra note 26, 119.Google Scholar
36 See Case C-388/92, European Parliament v. Council, 1994 E.C.R. I-2067.Google Scholar
37 Corbett, et al., supra note 26, 119.Google Scholar
38 These are decisions “in principle” or “subject to Parliament's opinion,” see Corbett et al., supra note 26, 176.Google Scholar
39 See Corbett, et al., supra note 26, at 199.Google Scholar
40 For a discussion of the concept, see Türk, supra note 3, at 89-198.Google Scholar
41 Id.Google Scholar
42 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.Google Scholar
43 Arts. III-165, III-166(3) and III-168(4) CT.Google Scholar
44 Art. III-190(1) CT.Google Scholar
45 See, supra note 32.Google Scholar
46 See, e.g., Art. III-163 CT.Google Scholar
47 See Bogdandy, Armin von & Bast, Jürgen, La Loi Europeénne: Promise and Pretence, in The EU Constitution: The Best Way Forward? (Deirdre Curtin et al., eds.) (forthcoming, 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48 Id.Google Scholar
49 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.Google Scholar
50 See Türk, Alexander, 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).Google Scholar
51 See Art. I-36 CT.Google Scholar
52 See Art. I-37 CT.Google Scholar
53 However, , see Arts. I-46(1) and (2) CT‥Google Scholar
54 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.Google Scholar
55 The term Court of Justice is used in the meaning of Article I-29(1) CT.Google Scholar
56 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.Google Scholar
57 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.Google Scholar
58 See Bogdandy, von & Bast, , supra note 47.Google Scholar
59 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).Google Scholar
You have
Access