The Choice of Legislative Procedure: A Matter of Institutional Preference?

  • Annegret Engel


This Chapter discusses the various procedural requirements provided for in the treaty provisions, assigning different degrees of involvement for the key actors in the legislative/non-legislative process. The European institutions have an interest in maximising their own influence as well as restricting those of other institutions involved which may have an impact on the choice of legal basis. The Chapter aims to provide an analysis of the potential conflicts between legal bases due to procedural differences and the resulting inter-institutional disputes. It further evaluates the courts’ approach taken and the criteria developed to reflect such different procedural requirements and institutional interests in legal basis litigation.


  1. Barnard C (1992) European Communities. Institutional and Jurisdictional Questions. Case C-300/89, Commission of the European Communities v. Council of the European Communities. Eur Law Rev 17(2):127–133Google Scholar
  2. Bono RG (1992) The international powers of the European Parliament, the democratic deficit, and the treaty of Maastricht. Yearb Eur Law 12(1):85–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradley K (1988) The European Court and the legal basis of community legislation. Eur Law Rev 13(6):379–402Google Scholar
  4. 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 55–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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):1617–1634Google Scholar
  7. Chamon M (2016) Institutional balance and community method in the implementation of EU legislation following the Lisbon treaty. Common Mark Law Rev 53(6):1501–1544Google Scholar
  8. Christiansen T, Dobbels M (2013) Non-legislative rule making after the Lisbon treaty: implementing the new system of comitology and delegated acts. Eur Law J 19(1):42–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corthaut T (2011) Case C-166/07, “European Parliament v. Council of the European Union”, judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 3 September 2009, ECR I-7135: institutional pragmatism or constitutional mayhem? Common Mark Law Rev 48(4):1271–1296Google Scholar
  10. Craig P, De Burca G (2015) EU law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Curtin D, Leino P (2017) In search of transparency for EU law-making trilogues on the Cusp of Dawn. Common Mark Law Rev 54(6):1673–1712Google Scholar
  13. Dashwood A (1998) States in the European Union. Eur Law Rev 23(3):201–216Google Scholar
  14. Driessen B (2010) Delegated legislation after the treaty of Lisbon: an analysis of Article 290 TFEU. Eur Law Rev 35(6):837–848Google Scholar
  15. Fritzsche A (2010) Discretion, scope of judicial review and institutional balance in European law. Common Mark Law Rev 47(2):361–403Google Scholar
  16. Gattini A (2009) Joined cases C-402/05 P and 415/05 P, “Yassin Abdullah Kadi, Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council and Commission”, judgment of the Grand Chamber of 3 September 2008. Common Mark Law Rev 46(1):213–239Google Scholar
  17. Hatzopoulos V (2013) Actively talking to each other: the Court and the political institutions. In: Dawson M, De Witte B et al (eds) Judicial activism at the European Court of Justice. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 102–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Héritier A, Moury C et al (2016) The contest for power in delegated rulemaking. In: Bergström CF, Ritleng D (eds) Rulemaking by the European Commission: the new system for delegation of powers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 105–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hofmann H (2009) Legislation, delegation and implementation under the treaty of Lisbon: typology meets reality. Eur Law J 15(4):482–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hosli MO (1996) Coalitions and power: effects of qualified majority voting on the Council of the European Union. J Common Mark Stud 34(2):255–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hosli MO, Mattila M et al (2011) Voting in the Council of the European Union after the 2004 enlargement: a comparison of old and new Member States. J Common Mark Stud 49(6):1249–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacqué J-P (2004) The principle of institutional balance. Common Mark Law Rev 41(2):383–391Google Scholar
  23. Koutrakos P (2007) Case C-94/03, “Commission v. Council”, judgment of the Second Chamber of 10 January 2006, (2006) ECR I-1; Case C-178/03, “Commission v. Parliament and Council”, judgment of the Second Chamber of 10 January 2006, (2006) ECR I-107. Common Mark Law Rev 44(1):171–194Google Scholar
  24. Koutrakos P (2008) Legal basis and delimitation of competence in EU external relations. In: Cremona M, De Witte B (eds) EU foreign relations law: constitutional fundamentals. Hart, Oxford, pp 171–198Google Scholar
  25. Mendes J (2013) Delegated and implementing rule making: proceduralisation and constitutional design. Eur Law J 19(1):22–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mendes J (2016) The making of delegated and implementing acts: legitimacy beyond institutional balance. In: Bergström CF, Ritleng D (eds) Rulemaking by the European Commission: the new system for delegation of powers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 233–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Middeke A (1993) Der Kompetenznormenkonflikt umweltrelevanter Gemeinschaftsakte im Binnenmarkt. Zugleich Anmerkung zum Urteil des EuGH vom 17.3.1993 in der Rechtssache C-155/91. Deutsches Verwaltunsblatt 108(14):769–777Google Scholar
  28. Moberg A (2002) The nice treaty and voting rules in the council. J Common Mark Stud 40(2):259–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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):39–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nettesheim M (1993) Horizontale Kompetenzkonflikte in der EG. Europarecht 28(3/4):243–260Google Scholar
  31. Peers S, Costa M (2012) Accountability for delegated and implementing acts after the treaty of Lisbon. Eur Law J 18(3):427–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Puetter U (2015) The European Council – the centre of new intergovernmentalism. In: Bickerton CJ, Hodson D et al (eds) The new intergovernmentalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 165–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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):243–258Google Scholar
  34. Rizzuto F (2010) The private enforcement of European Union competition law: what next? Glob Competition Litigation Rev 3(2):57–68Google Scholar
  35. Schöer T (1991) Mehr Demokratie statt umwelpolitischer Subsidiarität? Anmerkung zum Titanium-Dioxid Urteil des EuGH. Gerichtshof der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, Urteil vom 11. Juni 1991, Rs. C-300/89. Europarecht 26(4):355–368Google Scholar
  36. Schütze R (2010) From Rome to Lisbon: “Executive Federalism” in the (new) European Union. Common Mark Law Rev 47(5):1385–1427Google Scholar
  37. Schütze R (2011) ‘Delegated’ legislation in the (new) European Union: a constitutional analysis. Modern Law Rev 74(5):661–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwarz K-A (2003) Die Aussenkompetenzen der Gemeinschaft im Spannungsfeld internationaler Umwelt- und Handelspolitik: zugleich eine Anmerkung zum Gutachten 2/00 des EuGH vom 6.12.2001. Zeitschrift für europarechtliche Studien 6(1):51–71Google Scholar
  39. Smulders B, Eisele K (2012) Reflections on the institutional balance, the community method and the interplay between jurisdictions after Lisbon. Yearb Eur Law 31:112–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. Tovo C (2017) Delegation of legislative powers in the EU: how EU institutions have eluded the Lisbon reform. Eur Law Rev 42(5):677–705Google Scholar
  43. Tridimas T (2009) Terrorism and the ECJ: empowerment and democracy in the EC legal order. Eur Law Rev 34(1):103–126Google Scholar
  44. Tsebelis G (2013) Bridging qualified majority and unanimity decisionmaking in the EU. J Eur Public Policy 20(8):1083–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Xhaferri Z (2013) Delegated acts, implementing acts, and institutional balance implications post-Lisbon. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 20(4):557–575Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annegret Engel
    • 1
  1. 1.Cardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations