The EU Law Institutional Balance - Essay Example

European Union Law Introduction This is a thesis on European Union Law, a complex set of laws that governs the legal relations and intricacies among the member states comprising the European Union, itself a complex organization. Before proceeding to the legalese proper, it is necessary to take a look at the Union to which the law under scrutiny and review applies. The European Union is a regional integration of several nations established for the common economic and political interests of its members, now numbering twenty seven. The idea of a union came when the Second World War ended and there were moves to dismantle the intense sense of nationalism then inherent in each individual. Initially, the crusade was focused on centralizing the coal and steel industries of Europe for better control and protection. It was thus evident at the start that the reason for the amalgamation was economics which explains why the group was earlier created as the European Economic Community.1 Since the interrelations and interactions among the members of the community were embodied in treaties or equivalent covenants, there was a need for an adjudicatory body to ensure that the provisions and terms of those agreements between and among independent territories or jurisdictions were religiously kept and to see to it that the institutions and agencies under the Union formulate and execute acts and deeds which are legally in pursuance of those treaties and covenants. This led to the establishment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the year 1952. The tribunal is now one of the seven pillars of the European Union and its judicial authority cooperating with the courts of the member states.2 The coordination includes matters of interpretation of the relevant laws and rules. European Union Law The most important sources of law are legislation and jurisprudence, also called case law or common law. In the case of the European Union, it key institutions have legislative powers. The three main agencies are the Council of the European Union, the European Commission and the European Parliament. Owing to its decision-making authority, the Court of Justice of the European Union, likewise known as the European Court of Justice, is also a source of laws. However, even without these law-making bodies, there are already several treaties between and among member states which have been in force and effect and which necessarily become components of European Union Law. Most of these legal agreements are now incorporated in the European Union Consolidated Versions of the Treaty on European Union and of the Treaty Establish the European Community. The European Council Treaty and Protocols which was amended by the Treaties: Merger Treaty, the several Acts of Accession, the Budgetary Treaties and others also form part of the European Union Law. Secondary legislations in the nature of regulations, directives and decisions issued and adopted by the European Council, as well as international agreements for and in behalf of the Union, are also included in the whole legal framework. It is worth to note that the European Council, known today as the Council of the European Union, is composed of the representatives of the Member States who hold ministerial level positions. While there is only one Council, it is not a fixed institution and its designation and membership depend on the subject matter then at hand. Hence, if the issue then prevailing is about agriculture, the respective agriculture ministers will be the participants and the body will then be called the Agricultural Council.3 There can therefore also be a Council of Foreign Affairs, or of Finance, or of Home Affairs, etc. It is likewise important to observe that institutional balance is of fundamental significance in the political sphere of the European Union. No less than the key institutions of the union zealously advocate this kind of neutralization in order to conserve and maintain order, working harmony and decorum among all the branches and instrumentalities of the organization. All the foregoing backdrops have to be laid down because the specific cases to be discussed and analyzed below have bearing on the overlapping of functions or powers under several institutions and sub-institutions of the European Union. There has to be always a proper and equitable balance of powers.4 As a matter of fact, attempts for further administrative reforms continue to flourish in the organization. The Meroni case The first sign of making Europe one was the unification of its coal and steel industries with the perceived idea advanced by then French foreign minister Robert Schuman of making wars impossible between the nations inside particularly France and Germany5. The integration led to the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty (or Treaty for brevity), the central point of the legal issues to be tackled in this case. The relevant facts follow. Meroni & Co., or Meroni for short, was in the import business in Italy. It was levied by the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community certain charges or sanctions for a certain period due to excess in the import of ferrous scrap. The said sanctions were provided for in the Treaty for the purpose of ensuring regular supply of ferrous scrap to the common market. Whatever were collected were remitted to the Equalization Fund, a committee created for the purpose under the High Authority. The High Authority was represented by its Brussels Agencies. One of the main questions posed was whether the powers of the High Authority passed on to the Brussels Agencies constituted a true and due delegation. Meroni went to the European Court of Justice for the resolution of this issue while asking for the annulment of the decision of the High Authority. It included allegations of fraud and other improprieties on the part of the agencies or persons representing the High Authority. In its defence, the High Court claimed, among others, that it adopted the data given to it by the Brussels Agencies and that it did not add anything anymore. It further reasoned out that the import prices, the qualities of the imported scrap and the weighted average price were among the considerations taken into account by Brussels Agencies in arriving at the equalization rate imposed upon Meroni. The Court commented that the High Authority did not argue, when it should have argued, that the powers of its representatives, once exercised, were subject to the approval of the High Authority. Along this line, the Court opined that this was to be construed that the High Authority did not consent to the deliberations of the Brussels Agencies which led to the fixing of the equalization rate and to its attempt to finally impose the same upon Meroni. The Court proceeded to determine whether the delegation was in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Treaty. The Court also noted that the Treaty provided for certain conditions which the High Authority must meet in the exercise of its pertinent powers. In delegating to its Brussels Agencies, the High Authority omitted those conditions. Hence, it was therefore improper and illegal for the High Authority to convey powers different from what were granted to it by the Treaty and amounted to a situation where the Brussels Agencies obtained extensive powers from the High Authority more than the latter acquired from the Treaty and which it could delegate in turn. These facts and circumstances thus showed that the High Authority did not make the decisions of the Brussels Agencies subject to the rules to which the decisions of the High Authority itself were subject to within the purview of the Treaty. On these premises, it was resolved by the Court that the delegation which resulted from the assailed decision of the High Authority infringed the provisions of the Treaty. Therefore, the questioned decision must be annulled. The Court emphasized that the aims set forth in Article 3 of the Treaty bound not only the High Authority. All the institutions under the European Coal and Steel Community were likewise bound by the provisions of the Treaty, that is, within the limits of their respective powers for the common good and interests of all those belonging to the Community. The Court gave a concluding opinion that "from that provision there can be seen in the balance of powers which is characteristic of the institutional structure of the Community a fundamental guarantee granted by the Treaty in particular to the undertakings and associations of undertakings to which it applies". It was also ruled that improperly delegating a discretionary power which were not within what the Treaty established rendered the said fundamental guarantee useless and without effect. The remark enunciated by the Court poignantly declared that Article 3 of the Treaty made known the fact that there is and there must be a balance of powers among the bodies and agencies that comprised the Community, and that this was characteristic of the structure of the Community as an institution. In this balance of powers, there was a basic guarantee granted by the Treaty that the specific undertakings or set of undertakings provided therein could and or should be applied in accordance with the provisional guarantees. The clear provisions of the Treaty must not entertain interpretations which were outside its scope.6 The Roquette Frres case Roquette Frres was a producer of isoglucose in France. It questioned before the European Court of Justice the allocation of quota to it by the European Community assailing the same to be illegal. This was after it filed a similar action before the national court for the same cause. Its basis before the national court was likewise its basis before the Court. The Court ruled that, as provided for in Article 230C, an isoglucose produced had no standing or personality to question the production allocation to it for quantities which Member States are entitled to at Community level since that privilege is within the ambit of the common organization as far as markets in the sugar sector are concerned. Corollary to that, it was pronounced by the Court that the allocation as implemented by the Community is under a scheme or system under which it was up to the individual Member State to distribute its allocation from the Community to its (Member State's) own producers. No producer could therefore bring an action to annul the applicable provisions that governed the allocation of production. In effect, such person may, instead, raise the illegality of those provisions before the national court in proceedings brought before it even without considering or observing the time limits set by the Community Courts as specified in Article 230 EC. It was also mentioned that since allocation policy was a Community concern, its international commitments must be considered, implying therefore that any rule or regulation on the allocation was not within the reach of individual persons who were producers in the Member States.7 In essence, the internal laws and rules of any Member State must be confined within its national framework if the same did not have any bearing on the business of the Community in the same manner that matters within the Community level must remain therein. As declared in the Meroni decision, there must be a balance of powers and that any provision or policy guaranteed by the applicable treaty, covenant or agreement must be applied in accordance therewith and without entertaining constructions or interpretations that would otherwise give a different meaning or spirit to the pertinent law. Conclusion Despite the structure of the European Union that it is an amalgamation of nations with divergent sociological and ideological cultures unique in the case of each individual member state, and with different economic frameworks, the game of politics is still evident. Nevertheless, these calisthenics have definite constraints if the concerned jurisdictions consider the mandate of Article 7 (1) EC which declares that each institution cannot act outside of the limits of the authorities or powers which the Treaty has conferred to each. Along this line, it has to be consistently applied in all facets of the community of institutions within the European Union that for the balance of powers to assure stability in understanding, cooperation and amity among the member states, whatever power, authority, duty and responsibility each one has pursuant to the bounds and limits defined by the Treaty must be religiously kept. The laws, rules and regulations formulated and incorporated in the Treaty must have been sufficiently deliberated upon by its framers such that the benefit of the doubt must be given to it that all provisions are fine and in order and were approved to be in accordance with justice, equity and reason.8 There is no space to disturb and distort. References Court of Justice of the European Union. Wikipedia. Accessed December 2, 2009. Available at: < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=European_Court_of_Justice&redirect=no. Driessen, Bart. Interinstitutional convenstions and institutional balance. European Law Review. p 6. [internet] Accessed December 8, 2009. Available at: < http://academia- research.com/files/message/1582069_Interinstitutional%20conventions%20and%20institutional%20balance%20Bart%20Driessen.pdf> EU Law Essays. Law Teacher. The Law Essay Professionals. [internet] Accessed December 2, 2009. Available at: http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/EuropeanUnionEssay.php. European Coal and Steel Community. Wikipedia. [internet] Accessed December 2, 2009. Available at: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_community>. History. European Union. Wikipedia. [internet] Accessed December 2, 2009. Available at: . Meroni & Co., Industrie Metallurgiche, societ in accomandita semplice v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community. - Judgment of the Court of 13 June 1958.Case 10-56. European Court of Justice. EURLex 61956J0010. [internet]. Accessed December 2, 2009. Available at: < http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.douri=CELEX:61956J0010:EN:HTML>. Nieto, Eva. The Strengthening of the Commission Competences by the Constitutional Treaty and the Principle of Balance of Power. March 2005. EUI WORKING PAPERS. [internet]. Accessed December 2, 2009. Available at: < http://www.eui.eu/RSCAS/WP-Texts/05_03.pdf>. Roquette Frres v Ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation, de la Pche et de la Ruralit. Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 8 March 2007 in Case C-441/05. European Court of Justice. [internet]. Accessed December 2, 2009. Available at: Read More