eu institutions part iii, europe and its citizens

50
Contemporary Europe The European Institutions Europe and its Citizens POLS 208 European Studies European University of Lefke

Upload: emmy-ys-emine-yuseinova

Post on 05-Dec-2014

144 views

Category:

Government & Nonprofit


0 download

DESCRIPTION

 

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

Contemporary Europe

The European InstitutionsEurope and its Citizens

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

Page 2: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

Page 3: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The Big 5

European Commission – develops proposals for new laws and policies

Council of Ministers – takes decisions along with the

European Parliament

Court of Justice – ensures laws and policies meet the terms and the spirit of of the treaties

European Council – brings the leaders of the MS together at periodic summits

Page 4: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The European Court of Justice

The most underrated and the least one attracting public and political attention

Clarifying the meaning of the treaties and of EU Law

Critical to the progress of the EU integration

Its role as significant as to the that of the EP and the Commission

Based in Luxembourg

The supreme legal authority

Final court of appeal on all EU laws

Page 5: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

Page 6: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The European Court of Justice

The main duties of the Court of Justice is to:

-Make sure that nat’l and European laws, and int’l agreements being considered by the EU, meet the terms and the spirit of the treaties

-Make sure that EU law is equally, fairly and consistently applied throughout the MS

Page 7: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The European Court of Justice

It does so by:

-Ruling on the “constitutionality” of EU law

-Giving opinions (preliminary rulings) to nat’l courts (in cases where there are questions about the meaning of EU law)

-Making judgments on disputes (direct actions) involving EU institutions, MS, individuals and corporations

Page 8: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The European Court of Justice

In doing so, the Court of Justice makes sure that the decisions and policies of the EU are consistent & fit with the agreements inherent in the treaties

EU Law takes precedence over the nat’l laws of the MS where the two conflict (only in areas of EU competence)

The court does not have powers over criminal or family law

Has so far made most of its decisions on the kind of economic issues the EU has been involved with

Less to do with policy areas such as education or health (less active)

Page 9: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The European Court of Justice

Most basic contribution to the process of integration in 1963 and 1964 when it declared that the Treaty of Rome was not just a treaty, but a constitutional instrument having direct effect on the MS, and had supremacy (took precedence) over nat’l law in policy areas of EU responsibility

Page 10: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The European Court of Justice

It has established important additional precedents through decisions such as the Cassis de Dijon case (1979), that simplified completion of the single market by establishing the principle of mutual recognition: a product made and sold legally in one MS cannot be bared from another.

Page 11: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The European Court of Justice

Other rulings have helped:

- Increase the power of the Parliament

- Strengthen individual rights

- Promote the free movements of workers

- Reduce gender discrimination

- The Commission break down the barriers to competition

Page 12: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The European Court of Justice

The court has 28 judges appointed for a six-year renewable term

The judges are theoretically appointed by common agreement among the gov’ts of the MS, so no nat’l quota

However, since each MS has the right to make one nomination, all 28 are effectively nat’l appointees

Judges should be: acceptable to other MS, independent, legally competent, and must avoid promoting the nat’l interests of their home states

Page 13: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The European Court of Justice

So far, some judges:

-Have come with experience as government ministers

-Have held elective office

-Have had careers as lawyers or academics

They are not allowed to hold administrative or political office while they are on the Court

They can resign, but they can be only removed by unanimous agreement of the other judges (not by MS or other EU Institutions) on the fact that they no longer do their job adequately

Page 14: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The European Court of Justice

Judges elect the President amongst themselves by majority vote for a three year renewable period

The President:

-presides over Court meetings

-is responsible for distributing cases among the judges

-decides the dates for hearing

-has considerable influence over the political direction of the Court

Page 15: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The European Court of Justice

The Court is divided into chambers of three, five, or 13 judges (to speed up work), which make the final decisions on cases

Judges are assisted by 8 advocates-general (AG): advisers who review each of the cases as they come in, and deliver preliminary opinion on what action to be taken and on which EU law applies

Judges are not required to agree with AG’s opinion (or refer to it), rather it gives them a point of reference from which to reach a decision

AG are appointed theoretically by common accord, however, they are normally appointed by each of the big 5 MS, and the other 3 by the smaller states. One AG is appointed First AG on one-year rotation.

Page 16: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The European Court of Justice

The Court now busier as the reach of the EU has widened & deepened:

-1960, hearing around 50 cases per year, makes 15-20 judgments

-Now, hearing several hundred a year, makes as many as 200 judgments

-It took the court up to 2 years to reach a decision on more complex cases

Page 17: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The European Court of Justice

Subsidiary Court of First Instance created in 1989 (now the General Court) to be the first point of decision on less complicated cases

Parties involved may appeal to the Court of Justice if cases are lost at this level

The General Court has 28 judges (one from each MS), it uses the same basic procedures

Page 18: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The European Court of Justice

In 2004, the EU Civil Service Tribunal was created to take over from the General Court any case involving disputes between EU Institutions and their staff.

It has seven judges appointed for six-year renewable terms

Page 19: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The European Court of Justice

The Court’s work come under two main headings:

-Preliminary Rulings

-Direct actions

Page 20: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The European Court of Justice

Preliminary Rulings

Make the most important part of the Court’s work, account for about 40-60 % of the the cases it hears

If a matter of EU law arises in a nat’l court case, the nat’l court can ask for a ruling from the European Court on the interpretation or validity of that law

Members of EU Institutions can also ask for preliminary rulings, but most are made on behalf of a nat’l court, and are binding on the court in the case concerned

Page 21: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The European Court of Justice

Direct Actions

Cases where an individual, company, MS, or EU institutions brings proceedings against and EU Institution or a member state

e.g. when a MS fails to meet its obligations under EU law a case can be brought by the Commission or by another MS

Private companies can also bring actions if they think a MS is discriminating against their products

Page 22: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The European Court of Justice

Direct Actions

Direct action can be brought against the Commission or the Council:

-to make sure that EU law conform to the treaties

-to attempt to cancel those that do not

Direct action can be brought against an EU institution that has failed to act in accordance with the terms of the treaties

Page 23: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The European Court of Justice

The Courts works mainly in French, although a case can be heard in any official EU language (as per defendant or plaintiff’s request)

Court proceedings begin with a written application describing the dispute and the grounds on which the application is based

The President assigns the case to a chamber, defendant is given a month to lodge a statement of defense, the plaintiff a month to reply, and defendant again a further month to reply to the plaintiff

Case is then argued by the parties at a public hearing before a chamber of judges. When hearing is over, judges retire for deliberation. Once decision is reached – return to the Court to deliver the judgment

Page 24: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The European Court of Justice

Court decisions: supposedly unanimous, but votes are rather taken by a simple majority

Decisions are secret

The Court has no power to enforce the judgments: this is done by the nat’l courts and the gov’ts of the MS closely watched by the Commission

Maastricht gave the Court new powers by allowing it impose fines, but how they would be collected was not clarified

Page 25: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

Specialized Institutions

As EU grew so did the number of specialized Institutions and agencies

Created mainly according to need without an overall plan or template, thus the difference amongst them (e.g. political reach, administrative powers, internal structure)

The most known: the European Central Bank (ECB) in 1998, to help manage the euro by ensuring price stability, setting interest rates, managing the foreign reserves of the Eurozone states

ECB became more active with the 2007 global crisis and pressure to give it more power over monetary policy grew

Page 26: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

Specialized Institutions

New regulatory bodies created due to the global economic crisis, such as the European Systemic Risk Board, the European System of Financial Supervisors, the European Banking Authority, and the European Securities and Markets Authority

These joined a pre-existing network of other specialized agencies (including permanent regulatory agencies) with technical and informational responsibilities

Page 27: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

Specialized Institutions

-Advisory bodies e.g. the Committee of the Regions

-Temporary executive agencies responsible for policy implementation

-Agencies dealing with aspects of the Common Security and Defense Policy

Mainly institutions created on an ad hoc basis: thus debate over the need for more structural approach over management and responsibilities

Page 28: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

Specialized Institutions

-European Investment Bank, 1958

-European Environmental Agency, 1990

-European Medicines Agency, 1995

-European Police Office, 1999

-European Food Safety Authority, 2002

-European Railway Agency, 2004

-European Institute for Gender Equality, 2010

Page 29: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

Page 30: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

Page 31: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

EU and its Citizens

Maasricht Treaty’s goal of European Integration: to create “an ever closing union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen”

Is is less of a popular movement for change than process begun and sustained by elites?

The Democratic Deficit: the argument that the average European has few opportunities directly to influence the work of the EU

Page 32: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

EU and its Citizens

Many key decisions are taken as result of negotiations among national political leaders (decisions rarely put through a national referendum: the democratic test)

Voters’ interests directly represented in the EP, however, turnout at EP elections suggest most Europeans are not engaged with its work

“What is the EU”, media often misrepresents the way EU works, most academic writing makes the EU project sound dull and legalistic, most European neither know nor understand the difference it makes to their lives

Page 33: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

EU and its Citizens

Popular enthusiasm: not an easy task to generate

The interests of the citizens are said to be represented through their nat’l gov’ts in the European Council and the Council of Ministers, the EP power growing

The Commission: no less transparent and responsive than nat’l bureaucracies, and very short-staffed (relies on outside input)

In many respects, the EU democratic deficit does not differ much from the one found in the MS

Page 34: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

Public opinion and Europe

Eurobarometer: from views on the general process on EU integration to more specific policies

Page 35: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

Public opinion and Europe

Page 36: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

Public opinion and Europe

Page 37: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

Public opinion and Europe

Page 38: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

Public opinion and Europe

Page 39: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

Public opinion and Europe

The period between 2001-09, only about 53-55 % thought membership was a “good thing”, ranging from 48% in 2003-04 to a high of 58% in 2007 (Eurobarometer poll 72, 2009:143)

Views also range on the extent to which MS have benefited from membership: most convinced the majority of Eastern EU states (except Bulgaria, Hungary and Latvia) and older member states – at least till the global crisis – such as Ireland, Greece and Spain!!! Eurosceptical Denmark (four out of five Danes seeing benefits), and France and Germany barely half the respondents only

Page 40: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

Public opinion and Europe

Several explanations as to the mixed opinions:

-Integration is still a relatively new issue for the average European, as the Treaty of Rome just signed back in 1957, but only since the early 1990s that the effects of integration have begun to have direct impact on the lives of EU citizens

-Actions of nat’l and EU leaders are often at odds with the balance of public opinion (e.g. enlargement supported only by 44% in 2000 while 35% opposed; 26% vs. 62% saw as priority). The Commission nevertheless negotiated with candidates and 12 joined in 2004-07. Same happened with the euro (*referendums only in Denmark and Sweden)

Page 41: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

Public opinion and Europe

- The effort to explain the implications, costs, and benefits of integration has been less than perfect. Integration: a complex process whose rules change regularly, implications have not been fully understood (even by policy makers). No constitution to which citizens can refer for clarification. Treaties confuse and illuminate. Analysts concentrate what’s wrong with the EU, coverage in eurosceptic media misleads by emphasizing the negative effects at the expense of the positive

Page 42: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

Public opinion and Europe

-Finally, ordinary Europeans admit to know little about the EU. Dubiousness of the Eurobarometer’s credibility. Many polls have found initial majority opposition to an initiative, only to find it later replaced by majority support

e.g. mid-1990s polls 60% of Germans opposed to the euro, by 2006 two- thirds of them supported it (Eurobarometer data)

Thus, on some issues, EU’s leaders seem to be ahead of public opinion

Page 43: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The Democratic deficit

Much debates on the democratic deficit:

“the gap between the powers transferred to the Community Level and the control of the elected Parliament over them” (Williams, 1991:162)

“the shift in decision-making powers from the national to the EU level, without accompanying strengthening of parliamentary control of executive bodies” (Archer, 2008:58)

Page 44: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The Democratic deficit

According to the two definitions, Deficit could be narrowed by:

-Giving greater power to the EU Parliament

-Greater control to nat’l legislatures over EU Institutions

Better definition:

the gap between the powers of EU institutions and the ability of EU citizens to influence their work and decisions

Page 45: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The Democratic deficit

The Deficit takes/has several forms:

- Leaders of the MS, meeting at the European Council, reach decisions on important policy matters without always referring to electorates (e.g. less than half of the original EU-15 MS asked their citizens whether they wanted to join the EU; Maastricht Treaty negotiated behind closed doors and put to test only in 3 MS-Denmark, France and Ireland)

Page 46: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The Democratic deficit

- The Commission is subject to little direct or even indirect public accountability. Appointments approved by Parliament, but made without reference to voters. Its president is also elected by the MS leaders rather than the EU citizens opinions. Little opportunity for Europeans to take part or contribute to the Commission’s deliberations and limited power of the EP to hold it accountable.

Page 47: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The Democratic deficit

- Meetings of the Council of Ministers are closed to the public. The Ministers take kinds of decisions that are normally held accountable by the media, elections, and the court of public opinion if taken by nat’l ministers or members of elected assemblies

Page 48: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The Democratic deficit

Page 49: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

EU Institutions

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The Democratic deficit

-The only democratically elected Institution (EP) cannot raise revenues or introduce new laws, and only has limited ability to hold the Commission accountable for decisions made

-The Court of Justice best champions the cause of the individual European: for anyone who feels hurt by EU law or non-appliance. However, citizens do not have say in appointments to the Court (on national level, judges are investigated and confirmed by the national Parliament)

-Europeans’ formal rights relative to the EU institutions is modest: they can only vote in European elections, petition Parliament or the European ombudsman, access EU documentation (within limits), and request diplomatic representation outside the EU by any MS (provided no local represenation)

Page 50: EU Institutions Part III, Europe and its citizens

THANK YOU

POLS 208 European StudiesEuropean University of Lefke

The Democratic deficit