The European Court of Justice's Financial Accountability. How the European Parliament Incites and Monitors Judicial Reform through the Budgetary Process

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Krenn
Keyword(s):  
European Parliament ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Budgetary Process ◽  
Financial Accountability ◽  
European Court

The European Court of Justice’s Financial Accountability

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 453-474 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Krenn
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Budgetary Process ◽  
Amicus Curiae ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
Financial Accountability ◽  
Judicial Efficiency ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

European Court of Justice – European Parliament – Accountability through the budgetary process – Fostering the European Court of Justice’s democratic legitimacy through financial accountability – Accountability for how the European Court of Justice organises the institution and conducts its procedures – Efficiency versus quality as yardsticks to assess the Court’s performance – The European Parliament’s ambivalent practice of focusing solely on judicial efficiency – Proposals how the Parliament could take the quality of the European Court of Justice’s judicial process into account when assessing the Court – A different use of judicial statistics – Inciting quality-oriented reforms such as the introduction of amicus curiae participation and bilingual (French/English) deliberations

Initialzündung oder Katalysator einer wettbewerbsorientierten Verkehrspolitik? Die Untätigkeitsklage und Verurteilung des Rats durch den EuGH im Mai 1985

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-266
Author(s):  
Christian HENRICH-FRANKE
Keyword(s):  
European Parliament ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Transport Policy ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

The European Court of Justice condemned the EC-Council (of transport ministers) in an unprecedented process for inaction in the realisation of a common transport policy on 22nd May 1985. The Court confirmed the plaintiff’s (the European Parliament) statement of claim that the Council hadn’t met his obligation to enact a competition order, to provide freedom services in crossborder transportation and to regulate access to domestic transport markets. This contribution analyses the Court’s verdict within the context of the EC transport policy in the 1980s. This also sheds new light on the realisation of the EC internal market, especially regarding sectors like infrastructures which define fundamental conditions for market operations within the EC.

2. The Union institutions

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Central Bank ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Roles And Responsibilities ◽  
European Central ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Council Of Ministers ◽  
Committee Of The Regions

This chapter focuses on the institutions responsible for executing the different tasks of the European Union (EU). The main seven institutions are complemented by two advisory bodies, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), which are responsible for gathering inputs for use in decision-making. The initial institutions of the Commission, Council, European Parliament, and Court of Justice were expanded to five to include the European Council, Court of Auditors, and the European Central Bank in 2009 with the entry into force of the Maastricht and the Lisbon Treaties. This chapter also describes the roles and responsibilities of the institutions, including the Council of Ministers of the European Union, the European Parliament, and the European Court of Justice (CoJ).

The European Parliament's Role in EU Treaty-Making

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 1009-1039 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Ott
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
National Parliaments ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
External Relations

The European Parliament's role in EU external relations and treaty-making has increased over the years through constitutional practice and Treaty amendments. Finally, with the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Parliament's constitutional rights in treaty-making establish – in the words of the European Court of Justice (CJEU) – ‘symmetry between legislation-making and treaty-making in compliance with institutional balance provided for by the Treaties’. In a comparative overview, the European Parliament has ascertained more extensive powers over treaty-making compared to the majority of national parliaments which are only involved in politically important international treaties. This contribution addresses the consequences of this symmetry or parallelism and asks whether it leads to structural symmetry or even procedural symmetry which synchronizes the acts of legislating and treaty-making with each other. This contribution analyses the role of the European Parliament in the different phases of international treaty-making against the backdrop of this constitutional practice. This constitutional practice is shaped by intergovernmental agreements, bilateral arrangements and European Parliament resolutions and is influenced by the mounting case law of the CJEU. It also assesses the European Parliament's role in concluding international administrative agreements concluded by the Commission and Europol and how far the constitutional practice is in line with EU primary law.

3. The EU’s Institutions

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Corbett ◽  
John Peterson ◽  
Daniel Kenealy
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
National Level ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Power Sharing ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Council ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Council Of Ministers ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines five of the European Union's key institutions: the European Commission, the Council of Ministers, the European Council, the European Parliament, and the European Court of Justice. It draws analogies to these institutions' counterparts at the national level while also highlighting their distinct and unique features. It discusses the structures and formal powers of the five EU institutions and how they ‘squeeze’ influence out of their limited Treaty prerogatives. It concludes by explaining why these institutions matter in determining EU politics and policy more generally, focusing on three central themes: the extent to which the EU is an experiment in motion; the importance of power sharing and consensus; and the capacity of the EU structures to cope with the Union's expanding size and scope.

scholarly journals Peculiarities of application of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights in the justice in Ukraine

2021 ◽  
pp. 14-17
Author(s):  
Andrii Rybalkin ◽  
Yuliia Nosenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Reform Process ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Standards

The scientific article examines the activities of the European Court of Human Rights and identifies the significance of the relevant case law of the European Court for the case law of Ukraine. It is noted, that one of the issues, studied within the topic, is the sources and legal framework, which is especially relevant in the adoption of the Law of Ukraine «On Enforcement of Decisions and Application of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights», according to which courts use the Agreement and case law as a legal source in cases. The activity of the European Court of Human Rights, the role and impact on the judicial system of Ukraine are analyzed, the relevant examples are given. It is concluded, that the implementation of international human rights law into Ukrainian law is a complex procedure that requires special doctrinal consideration, as today Ukrainian citizens are among the most active complainants to the European Court of Human Rights, which indicates a fairly high insecurity by national legal mechanisms. In order to increase the credibility of the judiciary, courts should take into account the European experience, decisions and observations of the Court in their work. The Court's case law is said to play an important role in the judicial reform process as it approaches the European legal framework for human rights standards in Europe. The current law cannot fully protect a person or build justice if it is not applied properly. Based on existing ECtHR rulings, judges can accurately understand the rule of law and apply it properly, which will help improve human rights, accurate understanding and implementation of the Agreement on Ukraine. Based on the study, it was concluded, that it is necessary and appropriate to implement the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, as in this way it is possible to ensure the protection and defense of human and civil rights and freedoms

THE PRINCIPLE OF DEMOCRACY IN THE CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koen Lenaerts
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Universal Suffrage ◽  
Societal Changes ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis article seeks to explore the way in which the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) has interpreted and applied the principle of democracy. It examines first the democratization process upon which the EU has embarked since the adoption of the Treaty of Maastricht and how that transformation was a positive reaction to those voices arguing that the EU suffers from a ‘democratic deficit’. Next, it is argued that the CJEU has understood the principle of democracy in a way which is respectful of the two sources of democratic legitimacy at EU level, namely the Member States and the peoples of Europe. Accordingly, that understanding of the principle of democracy is illustrated by some relevant examples taken from the case law of the CJEU and the European General Court (‘EGC’). Those examples show that the CJEU has strived to protect the prerogatives of the European Parliament, the only political institution of the EU whose members have, since 1979, been elected for a term of five years by direct universal suffrage in a free and secret ballot. Yet, they also show that the principle of democracy is not limited to protecting parliamentary prerogatives. That principle, like all EU constitutional principles, pervades the whole of EU law and, as such, must be read in light of societal changes. As democracy within the EU is not limited to the participation by the European Parliament in the legislative process but also encompasses other forms of governance, in particular rule-making by administrative agencies and the achievement of consensus by social partners, it is for the EU judiciary to make sure that those other forms of governance remain as democratic as possible. This can be achieved, inter alia, by making sure that they enjoy sufficient representation or are subject to parliamentary control. Furthermore, the CJEU and the EGC also take into account new mechanisms which seek to strengthen the principle of democracy, such as the principle of transparency. In so doing, they aim to enhance the democratic legitimacy of the EU by providing sufficient means for EU citizens to hold their representatives accountable. Finally, it is contended that the principle of democracy, as interpreted by the CJEU, draws inspiration from national democracies. In so doing, the CJEU strives to place national and supranational democracies in a mutually reinforcing relationship.

The Cause of the European Democracy Deficit is Sought in the Wrong Place

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dieter Grimm
Keyword(s):  
European Parliament ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
National Parliaments ◽  
Full Account ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Democracy ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Wrong Place ◽  
The Eu

This chapter considers the proposal that increasing the clout of the European Parliament will solve the EU’s legitimacy problem. It first examines the argument that giving the Parliament the powers national parliaments typically enjoy will enable the EU to gain democratic legitimacy. It then discusses the importance of making a full account of standards, such as representation, in ascertaining whether increasing the powers of the European Parliament will deliver on its promise. It also examines the asymmetry between negative and positive integration as the root of the liberalizing tendency of the European Court of Justice’s jurisprudence. The chapter contends that the EU must develop a self-interest in strong democracy in the Member States, rather than undermining it by increasingly crippling national powers, and calls for an end to the detachment of the European Commission and the ECJ from the democratic processes in the EU and the Member States.

TOBACCO ADVERTISING: IF YOU MUST, YOU MAY

2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe Hillion
Keyword(s):  
European Parliament ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Tobacco Products ◽  
Member States ◽  
Tobacco Advertising ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
European Court

InGermany v. European Parliament and Council (Case C-376/98, judgment of 5 October 2000) the European Court of Justice held that Directive 98/43/EC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products ([1998] O.J. L 213/9), the legality of which had been challenged in various earlier cases (e.g., Cases T-172/98 and T-175/98 to T-177/98 Salamander AG et al. v. European Parliament and Council; Case C-74/99 The Queen and Secretary of State for Health ex parte Imperial Tobacco Ltd. and Others), was invalid.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document