The Limits of Legislative Harmonization Ten Years afterTobacco Advertising: How the Court's Case Law has become a “Drafting Guide”

Author:

Weatherill Stephen

Abstract

Ten years have elapsed since the firstTobacco Advertisingjudgment, in which the Court for the first time concluded that the EU legislature had stepped beyond the limits of its competence to harmonize national laws which is granted by the Treaty. However, those subsequently seeking annulment of measures of harmonization have almost all been disappointed. This paper surveys the accumulated case law and finds that the “limits” of EU legislative competence, though of the highest constitutional significance in principle, are in practice imprecisely defined by the Treaty itself with the consequence that the legislative institutions enjoy wide discretion. The pattern has become circular: the Court presents a formula which defines the proper scope of harmonization and which sets out the control exercised by the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, the EU legislature duly adopts the approved but reliably vague vocabulary and, provided the drafting is well-chosen, the Court has no plausible basis on which to set aside the legislative act. Case law dealing with the limits of EU competence has been converted into no more than a “drafting guide.” The paper shows how many of these deficiencies have been maintained uncritically after the reforms made by the Lisbon Treaty, even though a major part of the reform agenda initiated by the Laeken Declaration was inspired by “competence sensitivity.” Lisbon has instead put most of its reforming faith in a new recruit to competence monitoring - the national parliaments of the Member States. These new arrangements are poorly shaped at the level of detail, but the paper concludes with a largely positive assessment of the intention behind them. In particular they reveal a proper insistence on the need to supplement judicial control, which has become largely ineffective, with fresher political sensitivity to the perils of over-hasty centralization.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

Law

Reference128 articles.

1. Opinion 1/91, Draft Treaty on the establishment of a European Economic Area, 1991 E.C.R. I-6079.

2. R. v. Secretary of State, supra, note 16, at para. 67.

3. Case C-372/04 2006 E.C.R. I-4325.

4. Swedish Match, supra, note 20, at paras. 38, 39.

5. And it is considered in the opinion of Fennelly A.G. , Germany v. Parliament and Council, supra, note 1, at paras. 14-20, 74-77.

Cited by 51 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Legislated Treaty Rights and the Legitimacy of Judicial Review;Legislative Authority and Interpretation in the European Union;2024-07-16

2. Realising Legal and Social Change;Legislative Authority and Interpretation in the European Union;2024-07-16

3. The European Union’s Demoicratic Legislature;Legislative Authority and Interpretation in the European Union;2024-07-16

4. Introduction;Legislative Authority and Interpretation in the European Union;2024-07-16

5. Preface;Legislative Authority and Interpretation in the European Union;2024-07-16

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3