Abstract
This Chapter discusses the different instruments of secondary EU law, their legal effects and the choices made by the institutions when giving effect to policies. It aims to provide an analysis of the overlaps and conflicts between the various EU legal instruments and the resulting inter-institutional disputes. It further evaluates the Court’s approach when scrutinising such cases for their correct choice of legal instrument and recommends the application of general criteria of legal basis litigation in order to provide a maximum degree of legal certainty.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For an analysis of the relationship between primary and secondary EU law and their interpretation by the courts, see Syrpis (2015).
- 2.
- 3.
See Final report of Working Group IX on Simplification CONV 424/02.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
This is discussed more thoroughly in Chap. 4.
- 8.
- 9.
Case 106/77, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA, EU:C:1978:49, para 15.
- 10.
See e.g. Case 43-71, Politi s.a.s. v Ministry for Finance of the Italian Republic, EU:C:1971:122.
- 11.
- 12.
Case C-403/98, Azienda Agricola Monte Arcosu Srl v Regione Autonoma della Sardegna, Organismo Comprensoriale no 24 della Sardegna and Ente Regionale per l’Assistenza Tecnica in Agricoltura (ERSAT), EU:C:2001:6.
- 13.
Art 288 TFEU.
- 14.
Case 41-74, Yvonne van Duyn v Home Office, EU:C:1974:133, para 12. See also Pescatore (1983).
- 15.
Case 8/81, Ursula Becker v Finanzamt Münster-Innenstadt, EU:C:1982:7, para 19.
- 16.
See e.g. Craig (1997), pp. 519–538.
- 17.
Case C-287/98, Grand Duchy of Luxemburg v Berthe Linster, Aloyse Linster and Yvonne Linster, EU:C:2000:468, para 32. See commentary by Somsen (2000).
- 18.
Case 152/84, M. H. Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (Teaching), EU:C:1986:84, para 48. See commentary on this development by Dashwood (2007), pp. 81–109.
- 19.
Schütze (2006), p. 124.
- 20.
Case C-91/92, Paola Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl, EU:C:1994:292, para 20.
- 21.
See e.g. Case 103/88, Fratelli Costanzo SpA v Comune di Milano, EU:C:1989:256, para 29.
- 22.
See also Figueroa (2002).
- 23.
Case C-91/92, Paola Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl, EU:C:1994:292, para 24. See also Case T-390/94, Aloys Schröder, Jan and Karl-Julius Thamann v Commission of the European Communities, EU:T:1997:51, para 54.
- 24.
Case C-80/06, Carp Snc di L. Moleri e V. Corsi v Ecorad Srl, EU:C:2007:327, para 20.
- 25.
- 26.
Von Bogdandy et al. (2004), pp. 97–100.
- 27.
Eur-Lex (2017).
- 28.
Case 8-73, Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven v Massey-Ferguson, EU:C:1973:90.
- 29.
Regulation No 803/68/EEC of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes (OJ 1968 L 148, p. 6).
- 30.
Case 8-73, Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven v Massey-Ferguson, EU:C:1973:90, p. 902.
- 31.
Ibid, para 3, last indent.
- 32.
Case 9-70, Franz Grad v Finanzamt Traunstein, EU:C:1970:78.
- 33.
Council Decision No 65/271/EEC of 13 May 1965 on the harmonization of certain provisions affecting competition in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ Special Edition 1965, p. 67).
- 34.
Art 288 TFEU.
- 35.
Case 9-70, Franz Grad v Finanzamt Traunstein, EU:C:1970:78, para 5.
- 36.
Schütze (2006), p. 131.
- 37.
Case 40-69, Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Oberelbe v Firma Paul G. Bollmann, EU:C:1970:12, para 4.
- 38.
Case 55-77, Marguerite Maris, wife of Roger Reboulet v Rijksdienst voor Werknemerspensioenen, EU:C:1977:203, para 18.
- 39.
Case C-316/10, Danske Svineproducenter v Justitsministeriet, EU:C:2011:863, para 41 and cited case law.
- 40.
See above. See also Schütze (2012), pp. 371 and 372.
- 41.
Case 38-77, Enka BV v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen Arnhem, EU:C:1977:190, para 12.
- 42.
Council Directive No 69/74/EEC of 4 March 1969 on the harmonization of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to customs warehouse procedure (OJ 1969 I, p. 82).
- 43.
Král (2016).
- 44.
Case C-346/14, European Commission v Republic of Austria (Surface Water), EU:C:2016:322, para 42 and cited case law.
- 45.
Ibid, p. 146. See also Bast (2009).
- 46.
See e.g. Art 114 TFEU which merely provides that measures shall be adopted, regardless of the type of legal instrument.
- 47.
See e.g. Arts 50, 59, 82(2), 83 TFEU providing for the adoption of directives only.
- 48.
Art 290(1) second indent, second sentence TFEU, emphasis added.
- 49.
Art 290(1) first indent TFEU, emphasis added.
- 50.
Final report of Working Group IX on Simplification CONV 424/02, p. 10.
- 51.
Art 291(2) TFEU.
- 52.
- 53.
- 54.
- 55.
This is the case e.g. in the area of fiscal policy.
- 56.
Möllers and Von Achenbach (2011), p. 44.
- 57.
Case C-427/12, Commission v Parliament and Council (Biocides), EU:C:2014:170.
- 58.
Case C-88/14, Commission v Parliament and Council (Visa reciprocity), EU:C:2015:499.
- 59.
Schütze (2011), pp. 690 and 691.
- 60.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Implementation of Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. COM(2009) 673, p. 3.
- 61.
Driessen (2010), p. 843.
- 62.
Hofmann (2009), p. 499.
- 63.
Vosa (2017), pp. 738 and 742.
- 64.
Art 290(1) second indent, first sentence TFEU.
- 65.
Eur-Lex (2017).
- 66.
Art 290(2) TFEU. The conditions for this have to be explicitly defined in the legislative act.
- 67.
Art 291(2) TFEU in conjunction with Arts 24 and 26 TEU.
- 68.
Art 291(3) TFEU. The conditions for this have to be defined in advance by the European Parliament and the Council.
- 69.
- 70.
- 71.
As was argued by Buchanan (2014), p. 272, it is unclear which provision grants greater powers to the respective institutions, although practical considerations, such as time-consuming consultations of committees might play a role.
- 72.
Case C-427/12, Commission v Parliament and Council (Biocides), EU:C:2014:170.
- 73.
Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).
- 74.
Case C-427/12, Commission v Parliament and Council (Biocides), EU:C:2014:170, para 31.
- 75.
Ibid, para 22.
- 76.
Ibid, para 25.
- 77.
Case C-88/14, Commission v Parliament and Council (Visa reciprocity), EU:C:2015:499.
- 78.
Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 74).
- 79.
Case C-88/14, Commission v Parliament and Council (Visa reciprocity), EU:C:2015:499, para 21.
- 80.
Ibid, paras 23 and 25.
- 81.
Ibid, para 27.
- 82.
Van der Mei (2016), p. 540.
- 83.
Vosa (2017), p. 747.
- 84.
- 85.
Case C-427/12, Commission v Parliament and Council (Biocides), EU:C:2014:170, para 38.
- 86.
Ibid, para 39.
- 87.
Ibid, para 40.
- 88.
- 89.
Case C-88/14, Commission v Parliament and Council (Visa reciprocity), EU:C:2015:499, para 32.
- 90.
Ibid, para 34.
- 91.
Ibid, paras 35 and 42.
- 92.
Ibid, para 44.
- 93.
Ibid, para 45.
- 94.
- 95.
Case C-427/12, Commission v Parliament and Council (Biocides), EU:C:2014:170, para 35.
- 96.
See e.g. Chamon (2015), p. 1633.
- 97.
Case C-286/14, European Parliament v European Commission (Connecting Europe Facility), EU:C:2016:183.
- 98.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 275/2014 of 7 January 2014 amending Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility (OJ 2014 L 80, p. 1).
- 99.
Case C-286/14, European Parliament v European Commission (Connecting Europe Facility), EU:C:2016:183, para 19.
- 100.
Ibid, para 27.
- 101.
Ibid, paras 41 and 42, emphases added.
- 102.
Ibid, para 46.
- 103.
Ibid, paras 50–57.
- 104.
Ibid, para 53.
- 105.
Tovo (2017), p. 679.
- 106.
Van der Mei (2016), p. 547.
- 107.
See discussion in Chap. 4.
- 108.
I.e. ‘to detail’ funding priorities.
- 109.
- 110.
Case C-133/06, European Parliament v Council of the European Union, EU:C:2008:257, para 56.
- 111.
Bradley (2016), p. 63.
- 112.
Case C-65/13, European Parliament v European Commission (EURES), EU:C:2014:2289.
- 113.
Commission Implementing Decision 2012/733/EU of 26 November 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Paliament and of the Council as regards the clearance of vacancies and applications for employment and the re-establishment of EURES (OJ 2012 L 328, p. 21).
- 114.
Case C-65/13, European Parliament v European Commission (EURES), EU:C:2014:2289, para 35.
- 115.
Ibid, para 36.
- 116.
Case C-478/93, Netherlands v Commission, EU:C:1995:324; Case C-159/96, Portugal v Commission, EU:C:1998:550; Case C-403/05, Parliament v Commission, EU:C:2007:624; and Joint Cases C-14/06 and C-295/06, Parliament and Denmark v Commission, EU:C:2008:176.
- 117.
Case C-65/13, European Parliament v European Commission (EURES), EU:C:2014:2289, para 44.
- 118.
Ibid.
- 119.
Ibid, paras 49–58.
- 120.
Schütze (2010), pp. 1397–1400.
- 121.
- 122.
- 123.
See Art 290(1) TFEU for delegated acts and Art 291(1) TFEU for implementing acts.
- 124.
- 125.
Case 25-70, Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel v Köster and Berodt & Co, EU:C:1970:115, para 6.
- 126.
Ibid.
- 127.
Case C-355/10, European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Schengen Borders Code), EU:C:2012:516.
- 128.
Council Decision 2010/252/EU of 26 April 2010 supplementing the Schengen Borders Code as regards the surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (OJ 2010 L 111, p. 20).
- 129.
Case C-355/10, European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Schengen Borders Code), EU:C:2012:516, para 47.
- 130.
Ibid, para 43.
- 131.
Ibid, para 45.
- 132.
Ibid, para 46.
- 133.
Ibid, para 65.
- 134.
Ibid, para 67. This was also confirmed in Case C-363/14, European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Europol), EU:C:2015:579, paras 46–51.
- 135.
Ibid, para 68.
- 136.
See also Xhaferri (2013), p. 565.
- 137.
Case C-355/10, European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Schengen Borders Code), EU:C:2012:516, para 76.
- 138.
Tovo (2017), p. 681.
- 139.
Chamon (2016), p. 1515.
- 140.
Vosa (2017), p. 743.
- 141.
Case C-240/90, Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities, EU:C:1992:408, para 37.
- 142.
Case C-355/10, European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Schengen Borders Code), EU:C:2012:516, para 77.
- 143.
Ritleng (2016), p. 153.
- 144.
See discussion in Chap. 2.
- 145.
See also discussion in Chap. 4 in relation to the development of special criteria in legal basis litigation based on procedural differences.
References
Arnull A (2006) The European Union and its Court of Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Bast J (2009) Legal instruments and judicial protection. In: von Bogdandy A, Bast J (eds) Principles of European constitutional law. Hart, Oxford, pp 345–398
Bast J (2012) New categories of acts after the Lisbon reform: dynamics of parliamentarization in EU law. Common Mark Law Rev 49(3):885–928
Bergström CF (2005) Comitology: delegation of powers in the European Union and the committee system. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Blom-Hansen J (2011) The EU comitology system: taking stock before the new Lisbon regime. J Eur Public Policy 18(4):607–617
Bradley K (2016) Delegation of powers in the European Union: political problems, legal solutions? In: Bergström CF, Ritleng D (eds) Rulemaking by the European Commission: the new system for delegation of powers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 55–84
Brandsma GJ (2013) Controlling comitology: accountability in a multi-level system. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
Buchanan C (2014) The conferral of power to the commission put to the test. Eur J Risk Regul 5(2):267–272
Chamon M (2015) The dividing line between delegated and implementing acts, part two: the Court of Justice settles the issue in Commission v Parliament and Council (Visa reciprocity). Common Mark Law Rev 52(6):1617–1634
Chamon M (2016) Institutional balance and community method in the implementation of EU legislation following the Lisbon treaty. Common Mark Law Rev 53(6):1501–1544
Craig P (1997) Directives: direct effect, indirect effect and the construction of national legislation. Eur Law Rev 22(6):519–538
Craig P (2008) The role of the European Parliament under the Lisbon treaty. In: Griller S, Ziller J (eds) The Lisbon treaty: EU constitutionalism without a constitutional treaty? Springer, Wien, pp 109–134
Craig P (2011) Delegated acts, implementing acts and the new comitology regulation. Eur Law Rev 36(5):671–687
Dashwood A (2007) From Van Duyn to Mangold via Marshall: reducing direct effect to absurdity? Camb Yearb Eur Leg Stud 9:81–109
De Witte B (2008) Legal instruments and law-making in the Lisbon treaty. In: Griller S, Ziller J (eds) The Lisbon treaty: EU constitutionalism without a constitutional treaty? Springer, Wien, pp 79–108
De Witte B (2011) Direct effect, primacy, and the nature of the legal order. In: Craig P, de Burca G (eds) The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 323–362
Driessen B (2010) Delegated legislation after the treaty of Lisbon: an analysis of article 290 TFEU. Eur Law Rev 35(6):837–848
Eur-Lex (2017) Legal acts – statistics. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/statistics/2017/legislative-acts-statistics.html. Accessed 28 June 2018
Falkner G, Treib O et al (2005) Complying with Europe: EU harmonisation and soft law in the Member States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Figueroa PV (2002) Invocability of substitution and invocability of exclusion: bringing legal realism to the current developments of the case-law of “horizontal” direct effect of directives. Jean Monnet working paper 07/2002
Hofmann H (2009) Legislation, delegation and implementation under the treaty of Lisbon: typology meets reality. Eur Law J 15(4):482–505
Král R (2016) On the choice of methods of transposition of EU directives. Eur Law Rev 41(2):220–242
Lenaerts K, Desomer M (2005) Towards a hierarchy of legal acts in the European Union? Simplification of legal instruments and procedures. Eur Law J 11(6):744–765
Möllers C, Von Achenbach J (2011) Die Mitwirkung des Europäischen Parlaments an der abgeleiteten Rechtsetzung der Europäischen Kommission nach dem Lissabonner Vertrag. Europarecht 46(1):39–60
Pescatore P (1983) The doctrine of “direct effect”: an infant disease of community law. Eur Law Rev 8(3):155–177
Piris J-C (2010) The Lisbon treaty: a legal and political analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Ponzano P (2008) ‘Executive’ and ‘delegated’ acts: the situation after the Lisbon treaty. In: Griller S, Ziller J (eds) The Lisbon treaty: EU constitutionalism without a constitutional treaty? Springer, Wien, pp 135–141
Ponzano P (2016) The reform of comitology and delegated acts: an executive’s view. In: Bergström CF, Ritleng D (eds) Rulemaking by the European Commission: the new system for delegation of powers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 37–54
Ritleng D (2015) The dividing line between delegated and implementing acts: the Court of Justice sidesteps the difficulty in Commission v. Parliament and Council (Biocides). Common Mark Law Rev 52(1):243–258
Ritleng D (2016) The reserved domain of the legislature: the notion of ‘essential elements of an area’. In: Bergström CF, Ritleng D (eds) Rulemaking by the European Commission: the new system for delegation of powers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 133–155
Schütze R (2006) The morphology of legislative power in the European Community: legal instruments and the federal division of powers. Yearb Eur Law 25(1):91–151
Schütze R (2010) From Rome to Lisbon: “Executive Federalism” in the (new) European Union. Common Mark Law Rev 47(5):1385–1427
Schütze R (2011) ‘Delegated’ legislation in the (new) European Union: a constitutional analysis. Mod Law Rev 74(5):661–693
Schütze R (2012) European constitutional law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Schütze R (2015) European Union law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Senden L (2004) Soft law in European community law. Hart, Oxford
Somsen H (2000) European Court of Justice: Case Report – case C-287/98. Eur Environ Law Rev 9(12):336–342
Stefan O (2012) European Union soft law: new developments concerning the divide between legally binding force and legal effects. Mod Law Rev 75(5):879–893
Stelkens U (2011) Art. 291 AEUV, das Unionsverwaltungsrecht und die Verwaltungsautonomie der Mitgliedstaaten. FÖV Discus Pap 68:1–44
Syrpis P (2015) The relationship between primary and secondary law in the EU. Common Mark Law Rev 52(2):461–488
Terpan F (2015) Soft law in the European Union – the changing nature of EU law. Eur Law J 21(1):68–96
Tovo C (2017) Delegation of legislative powers in the EU: how EU institutions have eluded the Lisbon reform. Eur Law Rev 42(5):677–705
Van der Mei AP (2016) Delegation of rulemaking powers to the European Commission post-Lisbon. EuConst 12:538–548
Von Bogdandy A, Arndt F et al (2004) Legal instruments in European Union law and their reform: a systematic approach on an empirical basis. Yearb Eur Law 23(1):91–136
Vosa G (2017) Delegation or implementation? The ambiguous divide. Eur Law Rev 42(5):737–750
Ward A (2007) Judicial review and the rights of private parties in EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Winter G (1972) Direct applicability and direct effect: two distinct and different concepts in community law. Common Mark Law Rev 9(4):425–438
Xhaferri Z (2013) Delegated acts, implementing acts, and institutional balance implications post-Lisbon. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 20(4):557–575
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Engel, A. (2018). The Choice of Legal Instrument: A Choice of Legal Basis?. In: The Choice of Legal Basis for Acts of the European Union. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00274-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00274-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00273-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00274-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)