The Functioning of the European Union - Essay Example

Articles 263-265 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Legal provisions play an important role in guiding decision making at different levels. They ensure that the decisions made are not only credible but also objective and relatively informative. Article 263 of the Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provide that the court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) shall analyze the legal standing of the legislative acts of bodies, agencies, offices, central bank and the council against third parties. Further, the court shall have jurisdiction in any actions presented by member states, the commission, the council, or the European Government regarding incompetence, infringement on elemental procedural requirement, on vital provisions of the treaties and any issue pertaining to the rule of powers with respect to the application or possible misuse of powers. Further, the court would have jurisdiction and be guided by similar conditions when addressing relative concerns raised by the court of Auditors, Committee of regions or the European Central Bank. The court of auditors was granted this privilege by the Treat of Amsterdam. The European parliament on the other hand was added to the list of the privileged members by the Nice Treaty. This has raised various controversies with arguments revolving around the possibility of the European Union social partners claiming this desirable status. Non privileged applicants ranging from employers and employees to trade unions are also at liberty to launch complaints regarding European Union Institutions directly with the court. Seemingly, the court has interpreted these provisions very strictly as exemplified in Plaumann & Co. V Commission. In this, the court allowed individuals to make direct complaints accordingly. Seemingly, the courts have denied the collective organizations seeking to represent their members as individuals a chance to enjoy this provision. For instance, it refrained from hearing the cases Comite Central d’Entreprise de la Societe Generale des Grandes Sources v. Commission and Vittel v. Commission. In this respect, it is not easy for individuals to complain against the European Union institutions regardless of their activities having direct effect on matters pertaining to industrial relations and employment. The privileged applicants that largely constitute member states have unconditional access with respect to making complaints to the court. These include the council, the commission, and the European Parliament or member states. This is well illustrated in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Council of the European Union in which the United Kingdom raised a complain to the court about the council’s decision regarding the working time directive. Article 264 of this treaty further provides that in instances where a measure reviewed under article 263 is found to be unlawful or illegal, it is void. The European Union in this respect does not have any power to substitute their individual reasoning for the reasoning of the author of the respective contested measure. The courts further have the liberty to make a decision with regard to whether an error demands for annulment of the respective contested measure. A classic exemplification of this pertains to the Hercules Chemicals NV v Commission case. In this, the court ruled that the contentious issue relating to access to the file of competition cases should be considered as the right of the defense. In this, any infringement on this right could culminate in annulment especially if it had the potential to breach the defense’s rights. This could not be merely countered by underscoring that access to the respective file was allowed at later stages of the legal proceedings, like after an annulment action had already been sought. Further, this article provides that the court, whenever it considers necessary, needs to definitively state the effects of the act have been declared void. Seemingly, the provisions of Article 265 complement those of article 263. In this, it is stated that should the European Union institutions including the Council, European Council and the European Commission fail to act upon the complaints of the other institutions and member states, they may be brought before the overall court of Justice in a bid to establish possible infringement. However, it is worth noting that the action in this respect can only be considered admissible if the institution was initially called upon to take an action. The period within which the institutions are supposed to work is strictly two months. In particular, it provides that within the two months after being so called upon, the body, office, institution or/and agency in question fails to clearly define its position, the action needs to be taken within the following two weeks. This article further states that any legal or natural person has a right under the preceding provisions to complain to the court regarding an institution’s failure to address any acts apart from an opinion or recommendation. The provision further states that no action would be taken in instances where an institution has already defined its position. Just like under article 263, the legal or natural persons’ locus standi is limited. In this, their standing is probably limited to the right to make a demand that the respective decision be solely addressed to themselves as opposed to other persons. At this point, it is worth noting that his restricts the position of the involved parties. To counter this, the court provides that an applicant has a right to challenge any decision addressed to a third party provided that this is based on the fact that the decision has direct impact on the applicant and would therefore concern him or her in different ways. This provision was underscored in the Lord Bethell v Commission case. Certainly, the need for a judicial review with regard to failure of any institutions needs to be based on its failure that also constitutes a contravention of the provisions of the treaty. In this regard, the institution is legally obliged to take up a particular action. The failure to take the respective action involves a breach of its duty. Put differently, the failure to assume this duty constitutes an illegality. The institution does not have an option and the decision to either act or fail to is not discretionary. Further, the article provides that the declaration be made in a bid to adopt any measure that can terminate possible infringement by the institutions. At this point, it cannot be disputed that legal provisions play an important role in enhancing objective, critical and creative decision making. This is fundamental in ensuring that all parties are accorded the justice that they deserve. Relative provisions are also informative as exemplified in the case studies. Seemingly, they act as a basement upon which legal decision making can be made in a credible manner. Read More