Essay Instructions: Problem of the European Parliament in front of the European Court of Justice
The work has to be about the relationship between the European Parliament (EP) and European Court of Justice(ECJ). Paper must consist of 2 parts, including paragraphs, first in general consist of analyze of cases, second mainly on two treaties, Maastricht treaty and Nice Treaty, both parts must contribute to same topic from different angles and must be certain connection between them.
Part 1
The big attention has to be paid to extending borders of Parliament’s jurisdiction. The paper has contain three main cases which is concerning the EP, on which you must elaborate:
a-Les Verts case(294/83) where the ECJ has rewritten the first para of Art 173 to include the EP both in the list of Community institutions whose acts can be challenged and in the list of ‘privileged applicants’. Than it was argued that the EP had been omitted from the list because it had no power to adopt measures ‘intended to have legal effect vis-à-vis third parties’ in the original version of the Treaty. Since it now it has those powers, as an interpretation of Art 173 of the Treaty which excluded measures adopted by the EP from those which could be contested would lead to a result contrary both to the spirit of the treaty as expressed in Art 164 and to its system. Also to write that Parliaments direct action are possible under Les Verts case, discuss contribution of this case. Situation before and after the Les Verts case. Relevance of the judgment in Community dimension. I want you to pay attention what Court said in para 21-24 of the case. Explain theoretical bases for courts judgment, and influence on similar cases. Define in your words what relevance this case has in general for community law.
b-Comitology case(302/87) what the ECJ ruled in this case concerning the EP, the importance of this case for the EP, to discuss the problems occurred between the EP and the ECJ, also to mention the action for annulment under Art 173. in general this is case study, make relevant theoretical analyze, mainly elaborate on Importance of the case
(more general information you can find in the book- The European Court of Justice: the politics of judicial integration, R. Dehousse, page 101-http://books.google.com/books?ei=ZW6NSvrtJ5OD-Qbmj7WADg&ct=result&hl=ru&id=V6JfS5KrejgC&dq=european+parliament+and+ecj+les+verts&ots=JhCwYhby3E&q=nice+treaty#v=onepage&q=nice%20treaty&f=false)
c-Chernobyl I case (70/88) here is important to write about the mind of the Court where he ruled that the absence in the Treaties of any provisions giving the parliament the right to bring an action for annulment may constitute a procedural gap, but it cannot prevail over the fundamental interest in the maintenance and observance of the institutional balance laid in the Treaties establishing European Communities-para 26 of the case. Also, to analyze the judgment where says that an action for annulment brought by the EP against an act of the Council or the Commission is admissible provided that the action seeks only to safeguard its prerogatives and that it is founded only on submissions alleging their infringement. Provided that condition is met, the Parliament’s action for annulment is subject to the rules laid down in the Treaties for actions for annulment brought by the other institutions. Para 27 of the case. Analyze must be made on both grounds, theoretical and practical, please back up your arguments with indications on paragraphs, relevant literature or academic works.
The big attention has to be paid to judicial activism, the importance of judicial in connection with the Chernobyl case judgment. Please define what contributes to judicial activism in general and in given case, can it be understood negative or positive process, overview judicial activism in similar cases, make parallels and distinctions if possible. Elaborate on judicial activism according to Chernobyl case
Part 2
I want you to write me about the Maastricht Treaty and reinforcement powers of the European Parliament. That the Treaty creates a new co decision procedure which allows the European Parliament to adopt acts in conjunction with the Council and that this procedure entails stronger contacts between the Parliament and the Council in order to reach agreement and to analyze Art 173. Also, that the Treaty involves Parliament in the procedure for confirming the Commission.
The end the work must contain the Treaty of Nice Art 230 and the authority of European Parliament under this article.
Please make relevant comparisons and differences between above said treaties under discussed framework. Use theoretical and case law background as much a possible. Include positive and negative sides of changes occurred, how it will influence community law In general and what can be said if we read the judgment betweens the lines,
General scheme and conclusion
The work has to be based on the relations and problems between the EP and the ECJ, both, in general and on practical basis (case law) As a conclusion please sum up both parts of the paper, make relevant concluding remark about relationship between two institutions, taking into account case law in conjunction with Treaty provisions discussed above.
Important information you can find in the books:
1- Text, cases and materials on European Union law, John Tillotson, Nigel G. Foster, p.509
2- The European Court of Justice, Gráinne De Búrca, Joseph Weiler
3- The European Court of Justice: the politics of judicial integration, Renaud Dehousse
4- European Union law in a global context: text, cases and materials,Trevor C. Hartley
5- The principle of legal certainty in EC law, Juha Raitio
6- The comitology game: European Policymaking with Parliamentary Involvement, Bernard Steunenberg,
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:Lpdo0zE7DA4J:www.uni-saarland.de/fak1/fr12/csle/publications/2000-05_Comitology.PDF+comitology+case(302/87)&hl=ru&gl=ru
7- See attached cases Les Verts and Chornobyl I
It is up to the writer how many citations and footnotes have to be in the paper, but desirable 3-5 on the each page.
There are faxes for this order.