Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:48:59.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
This chapter is part of a book that is no longer available to purchase from Cambridge Core

5 - Scope and choice of EU external competence

Bart Van Vooren  and
Ramses A. Wessel
Bart Van Vooren
Affiliation:
ALTIUS, Brussels
Ramses A. Wessel
Affiliation:
University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Central issues

  • Once we have established that the EU has a competence to act (existence of competence), and know the impact of this competence on the Member States’ capacity to act in the same field (nature of competence), we must also examine the scope (width, or ambit) of the competence which exists, and we may need to make a choice between different legal bases if EU international action may be based on more than one Treaty article.

  • Establishing the appropriate legal basis entails an assessment of the exact scope of EU powers, and classification of the measure as falling within that scope. Given the different procedures tied to competence-conferring provisions, and the different nature as shared or exclusive, the choice of legal basis is a highly politicized and sometimes controversial process.

  • In scope and choice of EU competence, we can distinguish between a vertical situation between the Member States and the Union, and a horizontal intra-EU situation. From a vertical perspective, the question is, can a given external measure be undertaken at all by the Union on the basis of the powers which have been established to exist? The horizontal situation concerns the question, if a measure does indeed fall within the powers of the Union, and if a number of candidate legal bases exist, which is the correct legal basis?

  • The legal methods to establish the scope of Treaty provisions and choose the correct legal basis provide a central role to the Court in arbitrating competing intra-EU power relations. To avoid subjective views deciding the choice of competence, the Court developed an ‘objective’ legal method to ensure legal certainty for the institutions and Member States: the appropriate legal basis, or centre-of-gravity test.

    • Type
    Chapter
    Information
    EU External Relations Law
    Text, Cases and Materials
     , pp. 138 - 188
    Publisher: Cambridge University Press
    Print publication year: 2014

    Access options

    Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

    References

    Arnull, A., ‘Legal Principles and Practical Politics’ (1987) 12 European Law Review 448–451.Google Scholar
    Barents, R., ‘The Internal Market Unlimited: Some Observations on the Legal Basis of Community Legislation’ (1993) 30 Common Market Law Review 85–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Chalmers, D., Davies, G. and Monti, G., European Union Law, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).Google Scholar
    Craig, P. and de Búrca, G., EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Cremona, M., ‘Balancing Union and Member State Interests: Opinion 1/2008, Choice of Legal Base and the Common Commercial Policy under the Treaty of Lisbon’ (2010) 35 European Law Review 678–694.Google Scholar
    Cullen, H. and Charlesworth, A., ‘Diplomacy by Other Means: The Use of Legal Basis Litigation as a Political Strategy by the European Parliament and Member States’ (1999) 36 Common Market Law Review 1243–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Dashwood, A., ‘The Limits of European Community Powers’ (1996) 21 European Law Review 113–128.Google Scholar
    De Búrca, G., ‘The EU in the Negotiation of the UN Disability Convention’ (2010) 35 European Law Review, 2, 174–196.Google Scholar
    Emiliou, N., ‘Opening Pandora’s Box: The Legal Basis of Community Measures before the Court of Justice’ (1994) 19 European Law Review 488–507.Google Scholar
    Gilmore, G. and Rijpma, J., ‘Case Law [Joined Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04]’ (2007) 44 Common Market Law Review 1081–1099.Google Scholar
    Hilf, M., ‘The ECJ’s Opinion 1/94 on the WTO – No Surprise, but Wise?’ (1995) 6 European Journal of International Law 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Klamert, M., ‘Conflicts of Legal Basis: No Legality and No Basis but a Bright Future under the Lisbon Treaty?’ (2010) 35 European Law Review 497–515.Google Scholar
    Koutrakos, P., ‘Casenote of Cases C-94/03 and C-178/03’ (2007) 44 Common Market Law Review 171–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Koutrakos, P., ‘Legal Basis and Delimitation of Competence in EU External Relations’, in Cremona, M. and de Witte, B. (eds.), EU Foreign Relations Law: Constitutional Fundamentals (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008), pp. 171–198.Google Scholar
    Maas, H. H., ‘The External Powers of the EEC with Regard to Commercial Policy: Comment on Opinion 1/75’ (1976) 13 Common Market Law Review 379–387.Google Scholar
    Pescatore, P., ‘External Relations in the Case-Law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities’ (1979) 16 Common Market Law Review 615–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Post, R., ‘Constructing the European Polity: ERTA and the Open Skies Judgments’, in Poiares Maduro, M. and Azoulai, L. (eds.), The Past and Future of EU Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010).Google Scholar
    Steenbergen, J., ‘Casenote of C-45/86 Commission v. Council’ (1987) 24 Common Market Law Review 731–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Steenbergen, J., ‘La Notion de Politique Commerciale Commune après l’avis 1/78 de la Cour de Justice’ (1980) Cahiers de Droit Europeén 54–74.Google Scholar
    Steenbergen, J., ‘The Common Commercial Policy’ (1980) 17 Common Market Law Review 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Stein, E., ‘External Relations of the European Community: Structure and Process’, in Clapham, A. (ed.), Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1990/1), pp. 115–188.Google Scholar
    Tridimas, T. and Eeckhout, P., ‘The External Competence of the Community and the Case-Law of the Court of Justice: Principle versus Pragmatism’ (1994) 14 Yearbook of European Law 143–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Van Ooik, R. H., De Keuze der Rechtsgrondslag voor Besluiten in de Europese Unie (Deventer: Kluwer, 1999).Google Scholar
    Van Vooren, B., EU External Relations Law and the European Neighbourhood Policy: A Paradigm for Coherence (Abingdon/New York: Routledge, 2012), Chapters 3 and 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Wyatt, D., ‘Community Competence to Regulate the Internal Market’, in Dougan, M. and Currie, S. (eds.), 50 Years of the European Treaties, Looking Back and Thinking Forward (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2009), Chapter 5.Google Scholar
    Chalmers, D., Davies, G. and Monti, G., European Union Law, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 211–219 (214)Google Scholar
    Craig, P. and de Búrca, G., EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 89–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Wyatt, D., ‘Community Competence to Regulate the Internal Market’, in Dougan, M. and Currie, S. (eds.), 50 Years of the European Treaties, Looking Back and Thinking Forward (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2009), Chapter 5Google Scholar
    Barents, R., ‘The Internal Market Unlimited: Some Observations on the Legal Basis of Community Legislation’ (1993) 30 Common Market Law Review 85–109 at 89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Cullen, H. and Charlesworth, A., ‘Diplomacy by Other Means: The Use of Legal Basis Litigation as a Political Strategy by the European Parliament and Member States’ (1999) 36 Common Market Law Review 1243–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Van Ooik, R. H., De Keuze der Rechtsgrondslag voor Besluiten in de Europese Unie (Deventer: Kluwer, 1999), p. 57Google Scholar
    Maas, H. H., ‘The External Powers of the EEC with Regard to Commercial Policy: Comment on Opinion 1/75’ (1976) 13 Common Market Law Review 380.Google Scholar
    Pescatore, P., ‘External Relations in the Case-Law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities’ (1979) 16 Common Market Law Review 615–645 at 621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Steenbergen, J., ‘The Common Commercial Policy’ (1980) 17 Common Market Law Review 229–249 at 230–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Arnull, A., ‘Legal Principles and Practical Politics’ (1987) 12 European Law Review 448–451Google Scholar
    Post, R., ‘Constructing the European Polity: ERTA and the Open Skies Judgments’, in Poiares Maduro, M. and Azoulai, L. (eds.), The Past and Future of EU Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010), p. 234 Google Scholar
    De Búrca, , ‘The EU in the Negotiation of the UN Disability Convention’ (2010) 35 European Law Review, 2, 174–196Google Scholar
    Cremona, M., ‘Balancing Union and Member State Interests: Opinion 1/2008, Choice of Legal Base and the Common Commercial Policy under the Treaty of Lisbon’ (2010) 35 European Law Review 687 Google Scholar
    Klamert, M., ‘Conflicts of Legal Basis: No Legality and No Basis but a Bright Future under the Lisbon Treaty?’ (2010) 35 European Law Review 501 Google Scholar
    Stein, E., ‘External Relations of the European Community: Structure and Process’, in Clapham, A. (ed.), Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990/1), p. 149.Google Scholar
    Steenbergen, , ‘The Common Commercial Policy’ (1980) 17 Common Market Law Review 231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Steenbergen, , ‘Casenote of C-45/86 Commission v. Council’ (1987) 24 Common Market Law Review 731–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Koutrakos, P., ‘Legal Basis and Delimitation of Competence in EU External Relations’, in Cremona, and de Witte, B. (eds.), EU Foreign Relations Law: Constitutional Fundamentals (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008), pp. 171–198Google Scholar

    Save book to Kindle

    To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

    Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

    Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

    Available formats
    ×

    Save book to Dropbox

    To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

    Available formats
    ×

    Save book to Google Drive

    To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

    Available formats
    ×