Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Choice of Legal Instrument: A Choice of Legal Basis?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Choice of Legal Basis for Acts of the European Union

  • 819 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For an analysis of the relationship between primary and secondary EU law and their interpretation by the courts, see Syrpis (2015).

  2. 2.

    For a general analysis of this development, see Lenaerts and Desomer (2005). Bast (2012) argues that the categories of delegated and implementing acts merely “constitute a horizontal, rather than a vertical divide at the same level of the pyramid of EU law”, Bast (2012), p. 924.

  3. 3.

    See Final report of Working Group IX on Simplification CONV 424/02.

  4. 4.

    Bast (2009) identifies three other types of legal instruments emanating from these general instruments under Art 288 TFEU: state-addressed decisions, addressee-less decisions, as well as other non-binding legal instruments, such as resolutions. Bast (2009), pp. 364–366.

  5. 5.

    According to Terpan (2015), soft law “helps to encapsulate the complexity of the European legal order while placing law in the wider social and political context” despite of its “blurring effect”. Terpan (2015), p. 70. See also Falkner et al. (2005).

  6. 6.

    It has to be acknowledged that soft law may also be relied upon before the courts, albeit in a less coercive way, see Stefan (2012). Soft law cannot entail direct effect, see Senden (2004).

  7. 7.

    This is discussed more thoroughly in Chap. 4.

  8. 8.

    “Direct applicability (…) only makes direct effect possible, but the former will not automatically imply the latter”, Schütze (2015), p. 91. See also Winter (1972).

  9. 9.

    Case 106/77, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA, EU:C:1978:49, para 15.

  10. 10.

    See e.g. Case 43-71, Politi s.a.s. v Ministry for Finance of the Italian Republic, EU:C:1971:122.

  11. 11.

    On a historical analysis of the development of direct effect within the EU, see De Witte (2011). See also Arnull (2006), pp. 184–252.

  12. 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. 13.

    Art 288 TFEU.

  14. 14.

    Case 41-74, Yvonne van Duyn v Home Office, EU:C:1974:133, para 12. See also Pescatore (1983).

  15. 15.

    Case 8/81, Ursula Becker v Finanzamt Münster-Innenstadt, EU:C:1982:7, para 19.

  16. 16.

    See e.g. Craig (1997), pp. 519–538.

  17. 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. 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. 19.

    Schütze (2006), p. 124.

  20. 20.

    Case C-91/92, Paola Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl, EU:C:1994:292, para 20.

  21. 21.

    See e.g. Case 103/88, Fratelli Costanzo SpA v Comune di Milano, EU:C:1989:256, para 29.

  22. 22.

    See also Figueroa (2002).

  23. 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. 24.

    Case C-80/06, Carp Snc di L. Moleri e V. Corsi v Ecorad Srl, EU:C:2007:327, para 20.

  25. 25.

    Schütze (2006), p. 107. See also analysis of the nature of directives and regulations in Ward (2007), pp. 25–85.

  26. 26.

    Von Bogdandy et al. (2004), pp. 97–100.

  27. 27.

    Eur-Lex (2017).

  28. 28.

    Case 8-73, Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven v Massey-Ferguson, EU:C:1973:90.

  29. 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. 30.

    Case 8-73, Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven v Massey-Ferguson, EU:C:1973:90, p. 902.

  31. 31.

    Ibid, para 3, last indent.

  32. 32.

    Case 9-70, Franz Grad v Finanzamt Traunstein, EU:C:1970:78.

  33. 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. 34.

    Art 288 TFEU.

  35. 35.

    Case 9-70, Franz Grad v Finanzamt Traunstein, EU:C:1970:78, para 5.

  36. 36.

    Schütze (2006), p. 131.

  37. 37.

    Case 40-69, Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Oberelbe v Firma Paul G. Bollmann, EU:C:1970:12, para 4.

  38. 38.

    Case 55-77, Marguerite Maris, wife of Roger Reboulet v Rijksdienst voor Werknemerspensioenen, EU:C:1977:203, para 18.

  39. 39.

    Case C-316/10, Danske Svineproducenter v Justitsministeriet, EU:C:2011:863, para 41 and cited case law.

  40. 40.

    See above. See also Schütze (2012), pp. 371 and 372.

  41. 41.

    Case 38-77, Enka BV v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen Arnhem, EU:C:1977:190, para 12.

  42. 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. 43.

    Král (2016).

  44. 44.

    Case C-346/14, European Commission v Republic of Austria (Surface Water), EU:C:2016:322, para 42 and cited case law.

  45. 45.

    Ibid, p. 146. See also Bast (2009).

  46. 46.

    See e.g. Art 114 TFEU which merely provides that measures shall be adopted, regardless of the type of legal instrument.

  47. 47.

    See e.g. Arts 50, 59, 82(2), 83 TFEU providing for the adoption of directives only.

  48. 48.

    Art 290(1) second indent, second sentence TFEU, emphasis added.

  49. 49.

    Art 290(1) first indent TFEU, emphasis added.

  50. 50.

    Final report of Working Group IX on Simplification CONV 424/02, p. 10.

  51. 51.

    Art 291(2) TFEU.

  52. 52.

    On a brief overview of the old comitology system, see Piris (2010), pp. 98–102. For a more extensive analysis, see Bergström (2005).

  53. 53.

    For an analysis of the reformed comitology system from an executive’s point of view, see Ponzano (2016). See also Brandsma (2013).

  54. 54.

    De Witte (2008), p. 95. See also Blom-Hansen (2011).

  55. 55.

    This is the case e.g. in the area of fiscal policy.

  56. 56.

    Möllers and Von Achenbach (2011), p. 44.

  57. 57.

    Case C-427/12, Commission v Parliament and Council (Biocides), EU:C:2014:170.

  58. 58.

    Case C-88/14, Commission v Parliament and Council (Visa reciprocity), EU:C:2015:499.

  59. 59.

    Schütze (2011), pp. 690 and 691.

  60. 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. 61.

    Driessen (2010), p. 843.

  62. 62.

    Hofmann (2009), p. 499.

  63. 63.

    Vosa (2017), pp. 738 and 742.

  64. 64.

    Art 290(1) second indent, first sentence TFEU.

  65. 65.

    Eur-Lex (2017).

  66. 66.

    Art 290(2) TFEU. The conditions for this have to be explicitly defined in the legislative act.

  67. 67.

    Art 291(2) TFEU in conjunction with Arts 24 and 26 TEU.

  68. 68.

    Art 291(3) TFEU. The conditions for this have to be defined in advance by the European Parliament and the Council.

  69. 69.

    See Chap. 4, Sect. 4.4.

  70. 70.

    Craig (2008), pp. 123 and 124. See also Craig (2011). For an opposing view, see van der Mei (2016), p. 541.

  71. 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. 72.

    Case C-427/12, Commission v Parliament and Council (Biocides), EU:C:2014:170.

  73. 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. 74.

    Case C-427/12, Commission v Parliament and Council (Biocides), EU:C:2014:170, para 31.

  75. 75.

    Ibid, para 22.

  76. 76.

    Ibid, para 25.

  77. 77.

    Case C-88/14, Commission v Parliament and Council (Visa reciprocity), EU:C:2015:499.

  78. 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. 79.

    Case C-88/14, Commission v Parliament and Council (Visa reciprocity), EU:C:2015:499, para 21.

  80. 80.

    Ibid, paras 23 and 25.

  81. 81.

    Ibid, para 27.

  82. 82.

    Van der Mei (2016), p. 540.

  83. 83.

    Vosa (2017), p. 747.

  84. 84.

    See Chap. 2, Sect. 2.2.2.

  85. 85.

    Case C-427/12, Commission v Parliament and Council (Biocides), EU:C:2014:170, para 38.

  86. 86.

    Ibid, para 39.

  87. 87.

    Ibid, para 40.

  88. 88.

    Ritleng (2015), p. 251. See also Buchanan (2014), p. 271.

  89. 89.

    Case C-88/14, Commission v Parliament and Council (Visa reciprocity), EU:C:2015:499, para 32.

  90. 90.

    Ibid, para 34.

  91. 91.

    Ibid, paras 35 and 42.

  92. 92.

    Ibid, para 44.

  93. 93.

    Ibid, para 45.

  94. 94.

    See more detailed discussion in Chap. 4, Sect. 4.4.

  95. 95.

    Case C-427/12, Commission v Parliament and Council (Biocides), EU:C:2014:170, para 35.

  96. 96.

    See e.g. Chamon (2015), p. 1633.

  97. 97.

    Case C-286/14, European Parliament v European Commission (Connecting Europe Facility), EU:C:2016:183.

  98. 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. 99.

    Case C-286/14, European Parliament v European Commission (Connecting Europe Facility), EU:C:2016:183, para 19.

  100. 100.

    Ibid, para 27.

  101. 101.

    Ibid, paras 41 and 42, emphases added.

  102. 102.

    Ibid, para 46.

  103. 103.

    Ibid, paras 50–57.

  104. 104.

    Ibid, para 53.

  105. 105.

    Tovo (2017), p. 679.

  106. 106.

    Van der Mei (2016), p. 547.

  107. 107.

    See discussion in Chap. 4.

  108. 108.

    I.e. ‘to detail’ funding priorities.

  109. 109.

    Craig (2008), pp. 120–122. See also Bast (2012), p. 920. On a contradictory view see Ponzano (2008), p. 140.

  110. 110.

    Case C-133/06, European Parliament v Council of the European Union, EU:C:2008:257, para 56.

  111. 111.

    Bradley (2016), p. 63.

  112. 112.

    Case C-65/13, European Parliament v European Commission (EURES), EU:C:2014:2289.

  113. 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. 114.

    Case C-65/13, European Parliament v European Commission (EURES), EU:C:2014:2289, para 35.

  115. 115.

    Ibid, para 36.

  116. 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. 117.

    Case C-65/13, European Parliament v European Commission (EURES), EU:C:2014:2289, para 44.

  118. 118.

    Ibid.

  119. 119.

    Ibid, paras 49–58.

  120. 120.

    Schütze (2010), pp. 1397–1400.

  121. 121.

    See the discussion on the principle of lex specialis derogat legi generali in Chap. 2, Sect. 2.3.

  122. 122.

    See Chap. 4, Sect. 4.4. See also Stelkens (2011).

  123. 123.

    See Art 290(1) TFEU for delegated acts and Art 291(1) TFEU for implementing acts.

  124. 124.

    There is, of course, also a procedural side to this legislative versus non-legislative divide, which will be discussed in Chap. 4, Sect. 4.4.

  125. 125.

    Case 25-70, Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel v Köster and Berodt & Co, EU:C:1970:115, para 6.

  126. 126.

    Ibid.

  127. 127.

    Case C-355/10, European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Schengen Borders Code), EU:C:2012:516.

  128. 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. 129.

    Case C-355/10, European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Schengen Borders Code), EU:C:2012:516, para 47.

  130. 130.

    Ibid, para 43.

  131. 131.

    Ibid, para 45.

  132. 132.

    Ibid, para 46.

  133. 133.

    Ibid, para 65.

  134. 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. 135.

    Ibid, para 68.

  136. 136.

    See also Xhaferri (2013), p. 565.

  137. 137.

    Case C-355/10, European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Schengen Borders Code), EU:C:2012:516, para 76.

  138. 138.

    Tovo (2017), p. 681.

  139. 139.

    Chamon (2016), p. 1515.

  140. 140.

    Vosa (2017), p. 743.

  141. 141.

    Case C-240/90, Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities, EU:C:1992:408, para 37.

  142. 142.

    Case C-355/10, European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Schengen Borders Code), EU:C:2012:516, para 77.

  143. 143.

    Ritleng (2016), p. 153.

  144. 144.

    See discussion in Chap. 2.

  145. 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergström CF (2005) Comitology: delegation of powers in the European Union and the committee system. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blom-Hansen J (2011) The EU comitology system: taking stock before the new Lisbon regime. J Eur Public Policy 18(4):607–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brandsma GJ (2013) Controlling comitology: accountability in a multi-level system. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan C (2014) The conferral of power to the commission put to the test. Eur J Risk Regul 5(2):267–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig P (1997) Directives: direct effect, indirect effect and the construction of national legislation. Eur Law Rev 22(6):519–538

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Craig P (2011) Delegated acts, implementing acts and the new comitology regulation. Eur Law Rev 36(5):671–687

    Google Scholar 

  • Dashwood A (2007) From Van Duyn to Mangold via Marshall: reducing direct effect to absurdity? Camb Yearb Eur Leg Stud 9:81–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Driessen B (2010) Delegated legislation after the treaty of Lisbon: an analysis of article 290 TFEU. Eur Law Rev 35(6):837–848

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann H (2009) Legislation, delegation and implementation under the treaty of Lisbon: typology meets reality. Eur Law J 15(4):482–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Král R (2016) On the choice of methods of transposition of EU directives. Eur Law Rev 41(2):220–242

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pescatore P (1983) The doctrine of “direct effect”: an infant disease of community law. Eur Law Rev 8(3):155–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Piris J-C (2010) The Lisbon treaty: a legal and political analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schütze R (2010) From Rome to Lisbon: “Executive Federalism” in the (new) European Union. Common Mark Law Rev 47(5):1385–1427

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze R (2011) ‘Delegated’ legislation in the (new) European Union: a constitutional analysis. Mod Law Rev 74(5):661–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schütze R (2012) European constitutional law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schütze R (2015) European Union law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Senden L (2004) Soft law in European community law. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Somsen H (2000) European Court of Justice: Case Report – case C-287/98. Eur Environ Law Rev 9(12):336–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stelkens U (2011) Art. 291 AEUV, das Unionsverwaltungsrecht und die Verwaltungsautonomie der Mitgliedstaaten. FÖV Discus Pap 68:1–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Syrpis P (2015) The relationship between primary and secondary law in the EU. Common Mark Law Rev 52(2):461–488

    Google Scholar 

  • Terpan F (2015) Soft law in the European Union – the changing nature of EU law. Eur Law J 21(1):68–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Mei AP (2016) Delegation of rulemaking powers to the European Commission post-Lisbon. EuConst 12:538–548

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosa G (2017) Delegation or implementation? The ambiguous divide. Eur Law Rev 42(5):737–750

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward A (2007) Judicial review and the rights of private parties in EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Winter G (1972) Direct applicability and direct effect: two distinct and different concepts in community law. Common Mark Law Rev 9(4):425–438

    Google Scholar 

  • Xhaferri Z (2013) Delegated acts, implementing acts, and institutional balance implications post-Lisbon. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 20(4):557–575

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

    Annegret Engel

Authors
  1. Annegret Engel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation