Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

  • 737 Accesses

Abstract

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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
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.

    On an analysis how the enlargement of the EU and the promotion of qualified majority voting has impacted on Member States’ voting leverage, see Hosli (1996); see also Hosli et al. (2011).

  2. 2.

    See also Tsebelis (2013).

  3. 3.

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

  4. 4.

    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).

  5. 5.

    Case 45/86, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities (Generalized Tariff), EU:C:1987:163. For an analysis of this case, see Steenbergen (1987).

  6. 6.

    Council Regulation (EEC) No 3599/85 of 17 December 1985 applying generalized tariff preferences for 1986 in respect of certain industrial products originating in developing countries (OJ 1985 L 352, p. 107).

  7. 7.

    Case 45/86, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities (Generalized Tariff), EU:C:1987:163, para 13.

  8. 8.

    See e.g. Moberg (2002).

  9. 9.

    Art 294 TFEU.

  10. 10.

    Art 292 TFEU, which provides that the Council “shall act unanimously in those areas in which unanimity is required for the adoption of a Union act.”

  11. 11.

    See e.g. Case C-426/93, Federal Republic of Germany v Council of the European Union, EU:C:1995:367, para 18.

  12. 12.

    See e.g. discussion by Puetter (2015).

  13. 13.

    For a general discussion on the institutional balance, see Jacqué (2004). See also Smulders and Eisele (2012).

  14. 14.

    It was held that “[a]ccording to the institutional balance of the Union, the Council is not a mere ‘executive body’ of the Commission”, Case C-40/10, European Commission v Council of the European Union, EU:C:2010:713, para 51.

  15. 15.

    Bradley (1988), p. 394.

  16. 16.

    See e.g. Bono (1992).

  17. 17.

    For more information on the evolution of the legislative procedures, in particular on the role of the European Parliament, see Craig and De Burca (2015), pp. 126–134.

  18. 18.

    First mentioned in Case 138/79, SA Roquette Frères v Council of the European Communities, EU:C:1980:249, para 33; and Case 139/79, Maizena GmbH v Council of the European Communities, EU:C:1980:250, para 34.

  19. 19.

    Case C-70/88, European Parliament v Council of the European Communities, EU:C:1990:217.

  20. 20.

    Ibid, paras 21–23.

  21. 21.

    Dashwood (1998), p. 207.

  22. 22.

    See Jacqué (2004), p. 390.

  23. 23.

    The latter has been described as an ‘ill-defined’ institutional balance, Koutrakos (2008), p. 184.

  24. 24.

    Fritzsche (2010).

  25. 25.

    See e.g. European Parliament resolution of 26 March 2009 on the White Paper on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules (2008/2154(INI)) (OJ C 117, p. 161) in relation to measures being adopted on the basis of Art 103 which requires mere consultation rather than co-decision as under the ordinary legislative procedure. See also discussion in Rizzuto (2010).

  26. 26.

    As has been argued by Curtin and Leino (2017), the EU institutions are in fact exercising highly political functions in addition to their legislative functions which requires additional transparency in the legislative process.

  27. 27.

    Case 45/86, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities, EU:C:1987:163, para 11.

  28. 28.

    Council Regulation (EEC) No 3599/85 of 17 December 1985 applying generalized tariff preferences for 1986 in respect of certain industrial products originating in developing countries (OJ 1985 L 352, p. 107); and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3600/85 of 17 December 1985 applying generalized tariff preferences for 1986 to textile products originating in developing countries (OJ 1985 L 352, p. 107).

  29. 29.

    The contested measures did not state any express legal basis.

  30. 30.

    Case 45/86, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities, EU:C:1987:163, para 10, emphasis added.

  31. 31.

    Opinion 1/78, Opinion given pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 228(1) of the EEC Treaty (International Agreement on Natural Rubber), EU:C:1979:224.

  32. 32.

    Case 45/86, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities, EU:C:1987:163, paras 19 and 20.

  33. 33.

    See also commentary by Steenbergen (1987).

  34. 34.

    Council Directive 85/649/EEC of 31 December 1985 prohibiting the use in livestock farming of certain substances having a hormonal action (OJ 1985 L 382, p. 228).

  35. 35.

    Case 68/86, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Communities, EU:C:1988:448, para 24.

  36. 36.

    Ibid, para 4.

  37. 37.

    See also commentary by Bridge (1988).

  38. 38.

    Case C-269/97, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union, EU:C:2000:183, para 44.

  39. 39.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 of 21 April 1997 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 1).

  40. 40.

    Case C-269/97, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union, EU:C:2000:183, paras 9 and 18.

  41. 41.

    Ibid, para 24.

  42. 42.

    Ibid, para 26.

  43. 43.

    Ibid, para 27.

  44. 44.

    Ibid, para 59.

  45. 45.

    Case C-131/87, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities, EU:C:1989:581.

  46. 46.

    Council Directive 87/64 of 30 December 1986 amending Directive 72/461 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat and Directive 72/462 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine animals and swine and fresh meat from third countries (OJ 1987 L 34, p. 52).

  47. 47.

    Case C-131/87, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities, EU:C:1989:581, paras 4 and 5.

  48. 48.

    Ibid, para 7 and cited case law.

  49. 49.

    Ibid, para 8.

  50. 50.

    Ibid, paras 27–29.

  51. 51.

    See Chaps. 2 and 3.

  52. 52.

    Final Communiqué of the extraordinary session of the Council (“Luxembourg Compromise”), Bulletin of the European Communities, March 1966, 5–11, p. 9.

  53. 53.

    Case 165/87, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities, EU:C:1988:458.

  54. 54.

    Council Decision 87/369 of 7 April 1987 concerning the conclusion of the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (OJ 1987 L 198, p. 1).

  55. 55.

    Case 165/87, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities, EU:C:1988:458, para 11.

  56. 56.

    Ibid, paras 13, 17 and 18.

  57. 57.

    Case 131/86, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Communities, EU:C:1988:86, para 9.

  58. 58.

    Case C-300/89, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities (Titanium Dioxide), EU:C:1991:244.

  59. 59.

    Council Directive 89/428/EEC of 21 June 1989 on procedures for harmonizing the programmes for the reduction and eventual elimination of pollution caused by waste from the titanium dioxide industry (OJ 1989 L 201, p. 56).

  60. 60.

    See e.g. commentary by Barnard (1992). See also Schöer (1991).

  61. 61.

    Case C-300/89, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities (Titanium Dioxide), EU:C:1991:244, paras 18–21.

  62. 62.

    Case 131/86, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Communities, EU:C:1988:86.

  63. 63.

    Council Directive 86/113/EEC of 25 March 1986 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens kept in battery cages (OJ 1986 L 95, p. 45).

  64. 64.

    Case 131/86, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Communities, EU:C:1988:86, para 8.

  65. 65.

    Ibid, para 29.

  66. 66.

    See also, more recently, Case C-178/03, Commission of the European Communities v European Parliament and Council of the European Union, EU:C:2006:4, para 55; Case C-155/07, European Parliament v Council of the European Union, EU:C:2008:605, para 34.

  67. 67.

    Tridimas (2009), p. 110.

  68. 68.

    Opinion 2/00, Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, EU:C:2001:664. See commentary by Schwarz (2003).

  69. 69.

    Council Decision 93/626/EEC of 25 October 1993 concerning the conclusion of the Convention on Biological Diversity (OJ 1993 L 309, p. 1).

  70. 70.

    Opinion 2/00, Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, EU:C:2001:664, p I-9722.

  71. 71.

    Ibid, para 23.

  72. 72.

    Ibid, para 42.

  73. 73.

    Case C-338/01, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union, EU:C:2004:253.

  74. 74.

    Council Directive 2001/44/EC of 15 June 2001 amending Directive 76/308/EEC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of agricultural levies and customs duties and in respect of value added tax and certain excise duties (OJ 2001 L 175, p. 17).

  75. 75.

    Case C-338/01, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union, EU:C:2004:253, paras 14 and 15.

  76. 76.

    Ibid, para 58.

  77. 77.

    Case 68/86, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Communities, EU:C:1988:85, para 6; Case 131/86, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Communities, EU:C:1988:86, para 11; Case C-131/87, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities, EU:C:1989:581, para 8.

  78. 78.

    See e.g. discussion in Bridge (1988).

  79. 79.

    Case 165/87, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities, EU:C:1988:458.

  80. 80.

    Council Decision 87/369 of 7 April 1987 concerning the conclusion of the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (OJ 1987 L 198, p. 1).

  81. 81.

    Case 165/87, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities, EU:C:1988:458, para 19.

  82. 82.

    Case C-491/01, The Queen v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and Imperial Tobacco Ltd, EU:C:2002:741, paras 100–111.

  83. 83.

    Case C-300/89, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities (Titanium Dioxide), EU:C:1991:244.

  84. 84.

    Council Directive 89/428/EEC, supra note 157.

  85. 85.

    See case comment by Somsen (1992).

  86. 86.

    Case C-300/89, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities (Titanium Dioxide), EU:C:1991:244, para 16.

  87. 87.

    Ibid, paras 18–20.

  88. 88.

    Ibid, para 20.

  89. 89.

    Case C-155/91, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities (Waste I), EU:C:1993:98; Case C-187/93, European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Waste II), EU:C:1994:265. For a commentary on Waste I case, see Middeke (1993).

  90. 90.

    Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32); Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1).

  91. 91.

    Case C-155/91, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities (Waste I), EU:C:1993:98, para 20; Case C-187/93, European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Waste II), EU:C:1994:265, para 25.

  92. 92.

    “Aus diesem Blickwinkel bedeutet das Urteil zur Abfallrichtlinie sowohl einen Schritt nach vorn als auch einen solchen zurück: Indem der EuGH darauf verzichtet, seine Kompetenznormrechtsprechung vom Vehikel des Integrationsfortschritts zu machen, erkennt er zutreffend die gegenwärtigen Grenzen seiner Akzeptanz”, Nettesheim (1993), p. 258.

  93. 93.

    See also Cullen and Charlesworth (1999), p. 1248.

  94. 94.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9).

  95. 95.

    For a similar case see Case T-47/03, Jose Maria Sison v Council of the European Union, EU:T:2007:207.

  96. 96.

    Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, EU:C:2008:461, para 235. See e.g. case discussion by Gattini (2009).

  97. 97.

    Case C-155/07, European Parliament v Council of the European Union, EU:C:2008:605.

  98. 98.

    E.g. Case C-94/03, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union, EU:C:2006:2, para 52; Case C-178/03, Commission of the European Communities v European Parliament and Council of the European Union, EU:C:2006:4, para 57. For a commentary on these two cases, see Koutrakos (2007).

  99. 99.

    Case C-166/07, European Parliament v Council of the European Union, EU:C:2009:499.

  100. 100.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 1968/2006 of 21 December 2006 concerning Community financial contributions to the International Fund for Ireland (2007 to 2010) (OJ 2006 L 409, p. 86).

  101. 101.

    Case C-166/07, European Parliament v Council of the European Union, EU:C:2009:499, para 22.

  102. 102.

    Ibid, para 31.

  103. 103.

    Ibid, para 69.

  104. 104.

    See also Corthaut (2011).

  105. 105.

    Chapter 3, Sect. 3.4.

  106. 106.

    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.

  107. 107.

    See Driessen (2010) and Hofmann (2009).

  108. 108.

    See discussion above.

  109. 109.

    Schütze (2011), p. 685.

  110. 110.

    Bradley (2016), p. 64.

  111. 111.

    Mendes (2016), p. 238.

  112. 112.

    Tovo (2017), pp. 700 and 703.

  113. 113.

    Xhaferri (2013) observes “a de facto dominance of the Council vis-à-vis the Parliament (…) for implementing acts”, p. 574.

  114. 114.

    See also Peers and Costa (2012).

  115. 115.

    See Schütze (2010).

  116. 116.

    Chamon (2016), p. 1501.

  117. 117.

    Mendes (2016), p. 243.

  118. 118.

    See discussion above, Sect. 4.2.2.

  119. 119.

    See also discussion on transparency and participation in Mendes (2013).

  120. 120.

    Héritier et al. (2016), p. 123.

  121. 121.

    Christiansen and Dobbels (2013), p. 55.

  122. 122.

    See e.g. discussion in Möllers and Von Achenbach (2011).

  123. 123.

    See discussion in relation to the ‘essential elements’ divide in Chap. 3, Sect. 3.4.

  124. 124.

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

  125. 125.

    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).

  126. 126.

    See in relation to prerogatives of the European Parliament Case C-303/94, European Parliament v Council of the European Union, EU:C:1996:238, paras 19 and 20.

  127. 127.

    Case C-355/10, European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Schengen Borders Code), EU:C:2012:516, para 40.

  128. 128.

    See discussion in Chap. 3, Sect. 3.4.

  129. 129.

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

  130. 130.

    See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.3.

  131. 131.

    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).

  132. 132.

    Case C-88/14, Commission v Parliament and Council (Visa reciprocity), EU:C:2015:499, para 18.

  133. 133.

    Ibid, para 32.

  134. 134.

    Ibid, para 22.

  135. 135.

    Ibid, para 25.

  136. 136.

    Ibid, para 26.

  137. 137.

    Ibid, para 40.

  138. 138.

    Ibid, para 45. See also Case C-65/13, European Parliament v European Commission (EURES), EU:C:2014:2289.

  139. 139.

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

  140. 140.

    Chamon (2015), p. 1633. See also Ritleng (2015).

  141. 141.

    This does not mean, however, that the Court’s decisions may not be influenced in some other way by the political choices of the legislative organs of the EU, see discussion in Hatzopoulos (2013).

References

  • 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):127–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Bono RG (1992) The international powers of the European Parliament, the democratic deficit, and the treaty of Maastricht. Yearb Eur Law 12(1):85–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley K (1988) The European Court and the legal basis of community legislation. Eur Law Rev 13(6):379–402

    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 

  • 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):733–742

    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 

  • 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):42–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1271–1296

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig P, De Burca G (2015) EU law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1243–1270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1673–1712

    Google Scholar 

  • Dashwood A (1998) States in the European Union. Eur Law Rev 23(3):201–216

    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 

  • Fritzsche A (2010) Discretion, scope of judicial review and institutional balance in European law. Common Mark Law Rev 47(2):361–403

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):213–239

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 102–141

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 105–129

    Chapter  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 

  • Hosli MO (1996) Coalitions and power: effects of qualified majority voting on the Council of the European Union. J Common Mark Stud 34(2):255–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1249–1270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacqué J-P (2004) The principle of institutional balance. Common Mark Law Rev 41(2):383–391

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):171–194

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 171–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendes J (2013) Delegated and implementing rule making: proceduralisation and constitutional design. Eur Law J 19(1):22–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 233–254

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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):769–777

    Google Scholar 

  • Moberg A (2002) The nice treaty and voting rules in the council. J Common Mark Stud 40(2):259–282

    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 

  • Nettesheim M (1993) Horizontale Kompetenzkonflikte in der EG. Europarecht 28(3/4):243–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Peers S, Costa M (2012) Accountability for delegated and implementing acts after the treaty of Lisbon. Eur Law J 18(3):427–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 165–184

    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 

  • Rizzuto F (2010) The private enforcement of European Union competition law: what next? Glob Competition Litigation Rev 3(2):57–68

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):355–368

    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. Modern Law Rev 74(5):661–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):51–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Smulders B, Eisele K (2012) Reflections on the institutional balance, the community method and the interplay between jurisdictions after Lisbon. Yearb Eur Law 31:112–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):140–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenbergen J (1987) Case 45/86, Commission v. Council, Judgment of 26 March 1987, not yet reported. Common Mark Law Rev 24(4):731–737

    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 

  • Tridimas T (2009) Terrorism and the ECJ: empowerment and democracy in the EC legal order. Eur Law Rev 34(1):103–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsebelis G (2013) Bridging qualified majority and unanimity decisionmaking in the EU. J Eur Public Policy 20(8):1083–1103

    Article  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 Legislative Procedure: A Matter of Institutional Preference?. In: The Choice of Legal Basis for Acts of the European Union. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00274-9_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00274-9_4

  • 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