Conflicts Between the Union’s Different Types of Competences

  • Annegret Engel


EU law provides a vast variety of different provisions in various policy areas. Unfortunately, the delimitation between these provisions is not always clearly defined. Therefore, in some cases it may happen that a proposed measure could be adopted on two or more legal bases. In general, the legal basis of a measure determines inter alia the type of competence for the actors involved, i.e. who is acting and to which extent. It is thus necessary to look at these differences in competences as they constitute the basis for the courts’ analysis in legal basis litigation, including flaws in the approach taken by the courts and the suggestion for new criteria of legal basis litigation.


  1. Adam S, Mena Parras F-J (2013) The European stability mechanism through the legal meanderings of Union’s constitutionalism: comment on Pringle. Eur Law Rev 38(4):848–865Google Scholar
  2. Baratta R (2002) Overlaps between European Community competence and European Union foreign policy activity. In: Cannizzaro E (ed) The European Union as an actor in international relations. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 51–75Google Scholar
  3. Bebr G (1991) Court of Justice. Case C-70/88, European Parliament v. Council, Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 May 1990, not yet reported. Common Mark Law Rev 28(3):663–680Google Scholar
  4. Boucon L (2014) EU law and retained powers of Member States. In: Azoulai L (ed) The question of competence in the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 168–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley K (1991) European Communities. Institutional and jurisdictional questions. Case C-70/88, Parliament v. Council (Chernobyl). Eur Law Rev 16(3):245–257Google Scholar
  6. Breier S (1995) Der Streit um die richtige Rechtsgrundlage in der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofes. Europarecht 30(1/2):46–53Google Scholar
  7. Bridge J (1988) Court of Justice. Case 68/86, United Kingdom v. Council, judgment of 23 February 1988, not yet reported; and Case 131/86, United Kingdom v. Council, judgment of 23 February 1988, not yet reported. Common Mark Law Rev 25(4):733–742Google Scholar
  8. Cornides J (2001) Eine Richtlinie löst sich in Rauch auf: zur Aufhebung der Richtlinie 98/43/EG über Werbung und Sponsoring zugunsten von Tabakerzeugnissen durch den Eurpäischen Gerichtshof (Rechtssache C-376/98). Zeitschrift für Rechtsvergleichung, internationales Privatrecht und Europarecht 42(4):130–135Google Scholar
  9. Craig P (2010) The Lisbon treaty: law, politics, and treaty reform. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craig P (2013) Pringle: legal reasoning, text, purpose and teleology. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 20(1):3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cremona M (2006) External Relations of the EU and the Member States: Competence, Mixed Agreements, International Responsibility, and Effects of International Law. EUI Working Paper LAW No. 2006/22Google Scholar
  12. Crosby S (1991) The single market and the rule of law. Eur Law Rev 16(6):451–465Google Scholar
  13. Cullen H, Charlesworth A (1999) Diplomacy by other means: the use of legal basis litigation as a political strategy by the European Parliament and Member States. Common Mark Law Rev 36(6):1243–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dashwood A (2009) Article 308 EC as the outer limit of expressly conferred community competence. In: Barnard C, Odudu O (eds) The outer limits of European Union law. Hart, Oxford, pp 35–44Google Scholar
  15. De Sadeleer N (2012) Environmental governance and the legal bases conundrum. Yearb Eur Law 31(1):373–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Witte B (2006) Non-market values in internal market legislation. In: Shuibhne N-N (ed) Regulating the internal market. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 61–86Google Scholar
  17. De Witte B (2015) Five years after the Lisbon Treaty’s entry into force: variable geometry running wild? Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 22(1):3–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Witte B, Beukers T (2013) The Court of Justice approves the creation of the European Stability Mechanism outside the legal order: Case C-370/12, Thomas Pringle v. Government of Ireland, Ireland, The Attorney General, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Full Court) of 27 November 2012. Common Mark Law Rev 50(3):805–848Google Scholar
  19. Denza E (2002) The intergovernmental pillars of the European Union. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dougan M (2000) Minimum harmonization and the internal market. Common Mark Law Rev 37(4):853–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Emiliou N (1994) Opening Pandora’s box: the legal basis of community measures before the Court of Justice. Eur Law Rev 19(5):488–507Google Scholar
  22. Fahey E (2016) Joining the dots: external norms, AFSJ Directives and the EU’s role in the global legal order. Eur Law Rev 41(1):105–121Google Scholar
  23. Granat K (2018) The principle of subsidiarity and its enforcement in the EU legal order: the role of national parliaments in the early warning system. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Gundel J (2009) Vorratsdatenspeicherung und Binnenmarktkompetenz: die ungebrochene Anziehungskraft des Art. 95 EGV; Anmerkung zu EuGH Rs. C-301/06 – Irland/Rat und Parlament. Europarecht 2009(4):536–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herlin-Karnell E (2008) The Lisbon treaty and the area of criminal law and justice. Eur Policy Anal 3:1–10Google Scholar
  26. Herrmann C (2008) Much Ado about Pluto? The ‘Unity of the European Union Legal Order’ revisited. In: Cremona M, De Witte B (eds) EU foreign relations law: constitutional fundamentals. Hart, Oxford, pp 20–52Google Scholar
  27. Herrnfeld H-H (2013) Rechtsgrundlage für “smart sanctions” zur Bekämpfung des Terrorismus: Anmerkungen zum Urteil des Gerichtshofs in der Rs. C-130/10, Europäisches Parlament/Rat, v. 19.7.2012. Europarecht 48(1):87–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hillion C, Wessel RA (2009) Competence distribution in EU external relations after ECOWAS: clarification or continued fuzziness? Common Mark Law Rev 46(2):551–586Google Scholar
  29. Hofmann H (2009) Legislation, delegation and implementation under the treaty of Lisbon: typology meets reality. Eur Law J 15(4):482–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kau M (2008) Justice and home Affairs in the European Constitutional Process - keeping the faith and substance of the constitution. In: Griller S, Ziller J (eds) The Lisbon treaty: EU constitutionalism without a constitutional treaty? Springer, Wien, pp 223–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klip A (2009) European criminal law: an integrative approach. Intersentia, AntwerpGoogle Scholar
  32. Konstadinides T (2010) Wavering between centres of gravity: comment on Ireland v Parliament and Council. Eur Law Rev 35(1):88–102Google Scholar
  33. Konstadinides T (2012) Drawing the line between circumvention and gap-filling: an exploration of the conceptual limits of the Treaty’s flexibility clause. Yearb Eur Law 31(1):227–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Koutrakos P (2016) Reviewing harmonization: the tobacco products directive judgments. Eur Law Rev 41(3):305–306Google Scholar
  35. Ladenburger C (2008) Police and criminal law in the treaty of Lisbon: a new dimension for the community method. EuConst 4:20–40Google Scholar
  36. Maletic I (2009) The boundaries of the internal market after the Lisbon treaty: a closer look at Article 95 EC. Croatian Yearb Eur Law Policy 5:19–30Google Scholar
  37. Mendez M (2007) Passenger name record agreement: European Court of Justice. Annulment of commission adequacy decision and council decision concerning conclusion of passenger name record agreement with US. Grand chamber judgment of 30 May 2006, joined cases C-317/04 and C-318/04, “European Parliament v. Council and Commission”. EuConst 3(1):127–147Google Scholar
  38. Miettinen S (2013) Criminal law and policy in the European Union. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Mitsilegas V (2009) EC criminal law. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Moore S (2002) Challenge to the biotechnology directive: Kingdom of the Netherlands v. European Parliament and EU Council, case C-377/98, ECJ. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 24(3):149–154Google Scholar
  41. Nicoll W (1984) The Luxembourg compromise. J Common Mark Stud 23(1):35–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Öberg J (2018) The legal basis for EU criminal law harmonisation: a question of federalism? Eur Law Rev 43(3):366–393Google Scholar
  43. Peers S (2001) EU justice and home affairs law, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Peers S (2008a) EU criminal law and the treaty of Lisbon. Eur Law Rev 33(4):507–529Google Scholar
  45. Peers S (2008b) Finally ‘Fit for Purpose’? The treaty of Lisbon and the end of the third pillar legal order. Yearb Eur Law 27(1):47–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Peers S (2011a) EU justice and home affairs law (non-civil). In: Craig P, De Burca G (eds) The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 269–298Google Scholar
  47. Peers S (2011b) Mission accomplished? EU justice and home affairs law after the treaty of Lisbon. Common Mark Law Rev 48(3):661–693Google Scholar
  48. Peers S (2016) EU justice and home affairs law, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  49. Piris J-C (2010) The Lisbon treaty: a legal and political analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Piris J-C (2012) The future of Europe: towards a two-speed EU? Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. Poli S (2010) European Court of Justice: the legal basis of internal market measures with a security dimension. Comment on Case C-301/06 of 10/02/2009, Ireland v. Parliament/Council, nyr. EuConst 6(1):137–157Google Scholar
  52. Puig GV, Al-Haddab B (2011) The common commercial policy after Lisbon: an analysis of the reforms. Eur Law Rev 36(2):289–301Google Scholar
  53. Randazzo V (2007) Case C-217/04, “United Kingdom v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union”, judgment of the Grand Chamber of 2 May 2006, nyr. Common Mark Law Rev 44(1):155–169Google Scholar
  54. Schütze R (2003) Organized change towards an ‘Ever Closer Union’: article 308 EC and the limits to the community’s legislative competence. Yearb Eur Law 22(1):79–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schütze R (2008) Lisbon and the federal order of competences: a prospective analysis. Eur Law Rev 33(5):709–722Google Scholar
  56. Schütze R (2009) The European Community’s federal order of competences - a retrospective analysis. In: Dougan M, Currie S (eds) 50 years of the European treaties: looking back and thinking forward. Hart, Oxford, pp 63–92Google Scholar
  57. Schütze R (2012) European constitutional law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schütze R (2014) Limits to the Union’s ‘internal market’ competence(s): constitutional comparisons. In: Azoulai L (ed) The question of competence in the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 215–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Somsen H (1992) Case law. Court of Justice. Case C-300/89, Commission v. Council (titanium dioxide), judgment of 11 June 1991. Common Mark Law Rev 29(1):140–151Google Scholar
  60. Steenbergen J (1987) Case 45/86, Commission v. Council, Judgment of 26 March 1987, not yet reported. Common Mark Law Rev 24(4):731–737Google Scholar
  61. Szwarc M (2015) The pillars of the European Union still exist? European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), Judgment of 6 May 2014, Case C-43/12, Commission v European Parliament and Council. EuConst 11(2):357–372Google Scholar
  62. Tekin F (2012) Opt-Outs, Opt-Ins, Opt-Arounds? Eine Analyse der Differenzierungsrealität im Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts. Integration 35(4):237–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thym D (2006) The political character of supranational differentiation. Eur Law Rev 31(6):781–799Google Scholar
  64. Tridimas T (2012) Competence after Lisbon: the elusive search for bright lines. In: Ashiagbor D, Countouris N et al (eds) The European Union after the treaty of Lisbon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 47–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Trüe C (2002) Das System der Rechtsetzungskompetenzen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft und der Europäischen Union. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  66. Trüe C (2004) Das System der EU-Kompetenzen vor und nach dem Entwurf eines Europäischen Verfassungsvertrags. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 64:391–427Google Scholar
  67. Van Meerbeeck J (2016) The principle of legal certainty in the case-law of the European Court of Justice: from certainty to trust. Eur Law Rev 41(2):275–288Google Scholar
  68. Van Oik R (2008) Cross-pillar litigation before the ECJ: demarcation of community and Union competences. EuConst 4:399–419Google Scholar
  69. Van Vooren B (2012) EU external relations law and the European neighbourhood policy: a paradigm for coherence. Routledge, AbingdonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Waddington (1997) Towards a healthier and more secure European social policy? Case C-84/94 United Kingdom v. Council judgment of 12 November 1996, not yet reported. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 4(1):83–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wasmeier M, Thwaites N (2004) The “battle of the pillars”: does the European Community have the power to approximate national criminal laws? Eur Law Rev 29(5):613–635Google Scholar
  72. Weatherill S (2005) Competence creep and competence control. In: Eeckhout P, Tridimas T (eds) Yearbook of European law, 23, 2004. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–55Google Scholar
  73. Weatherill S (2012) The limits of legislative harmonisation ten years after Tobacco Advertising: how the Court’s case law has become a “drafting guide”. Germ Law J 12(3):827–864Google Scholar
  74. Wolff S (2015) Integrating in justice and home affairs – a case of new Intergovernmentalism par excellence? In: Bickerton CJ, Hodson D et al (eds) The new intergovernmentalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 129–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wyatt D (2009) Community competence to regulate the internal market. In: Dougan M, Currie S (eds) 50 years of the European treaties: looking back and thinking forward. Hart, Oxford, pp 93–136Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annegret Engel
    • 1
  1. 1.Cardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations