Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Legal And Constitional Limit Notes

Law Notes > European Law Notes

This is an extract of our Legal And Constitional Limit document, which we sell as part of our European Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our European Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

EU Law

Competence

Short

Models of Integration

*
Art 2(1) - exclusive competence (dual federalism)

*
Art 2(2) - shared competence (co-op federalism)

*
Art 2(3)-(5) - no legislative competence but primacy if conflict arises Competence Creep

*
Art A TEU - tension: EU integration v preservation of nat. identity & autonomy

*
Art 4 TEU - more explicit on preserving nat. autonomy/deference to nat. authorities Remit of Legal Authority

*
Doctrine of conferred powers (Art 5(1))

*
Flexibility provision (Art 352(1)) - potential to be used for creating a gapless system of competencies... how far it will go depends on ECJ interpretation. If too wide, it leaves areas excluded from Treaty at risk of intrusion.

*
Signs of safeguarding nat. constit. identities ? Germany: 352(1) is wide, if used, will require approval of Parl. chambers + can't be used in central areas of crim. law, social policy, religion Limits of EU law making

1. Competence - does Comm. have legal basis to act? (Art 5(1) + Art 362(1))

2. Subsidiarity & proportionality - exercise of those powers (Art 5(3) + 5(4)) Legal

1. Is Comm. legislator acting within its competence ? must identify specific legal basis for the action in Treaty
? Technique of attribution highly specific & though some bases (e.g. Art 114 TFEU) are open ended & broad, yet not completely uncontrolled

2. Has it acted on correct legal basis?
? Dir. went outside Art 114 ('internal market') into 'public health regulation' = no correct legal basis o Germany v Parl. & Commission - Tobacco Ad Dir. under Art 114 imposed complete ban on advertising & sponsorship of tobacco products in EC. ECJ: designed to regulate public health, not promote operation of IM = void. Harmonising IM measures must be market making. Art 114 Threshold a. obstacles to trade b. appreciable distortions of competition c. how will proposed measure address these
? Comm. drew up a narrower ban = valid, even though incidentally harmonised public health laws too o Tobacco Advertising II-Comm. followed guidance, narrower, not blanket, ban = Art 114 valid legal basis. Incidental harmonisation of public health laws permissible, since market making measure.
? Weatherhill: expansionism is the key trend. Legislative competence ltd in principle but broad in practice
? If Dir. meets 114 threshold, even though public health considerations are "decisive matter", it has a correct legal basis o Swedish Match - Labelling Dir. under 114 prohibited marketing tobacco for oral use; Swed. Company wanted to export to UK, where banned (Sw. had exception) - unsuccessful challenge. ECJ: when ban was introduced, some MS already legislated + public health concerns suggested more will legislate, so eventually would distort competition/impact free movement of goods. Dir. introduced to eliminate these likely risks.
? If Dir. meets 114 threshold, reliance on health concerns doesn't deprive it from valid legal basis o Alliance for Natural Health - different food supplement laws = clear distortion of IM which Dir. eliminates. Need direct effect on functioning of IM, not mere finding of disparities, like in Tobacco I.
? Weatherhill: competence conferred isn't static - depends on nat. reg. practices + reported impact on economic operators. Relatively easy for Comm. to manipulate threshold criteria, relatively hard for ECJ to obtain independent evidence of the impact.
? If Dir. meets 114 threshold, Comm. legislature can rely on it, even for consumer protection o Vodafone - roaming reg. capping charges imposed by mob. phone operators on consumers for roaming services within EU argued by Vod. to be invalid b/c no correct legal basis + disproportionate + offend subsidiarity. AG Maduro didn't think 114 threshold met but ECJ did. ECJ: Reg. adopted in response to likelihood of diverging price control measures = classic preventative harmonisation & improvement of IM conditions.
? Weatherhill: court decided the case by ref to EU institutions own observations & attachments to measure - failed to be an outside observed but instead aligned itself with institutions whose acts were being challenged by C.
= In practice, case law on competency has become a drafting guide for legislature which now finds it all too easy to ensure compliance in a manner unreviewable in practice... Constitutional

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our European Law Notes.

More European Law Samples