The Legal Status and Influence of Decisions of International Organizations and other Bodies in the European Union. College of Europe Research Paper in Law 01/2014

Introduction. The European Union’s external action is not only defined by its influence on international developments, but also by its ability and the need to respond to those developments. While traditionally many have stressed the EU’s ‘autonomy’, over the years its ‘dependence’ on global developments has become more clear.2 International law has continued to play a key role in, not only in the EU’s external relations, but also in the Union’s own legal order.3 The purpose of this paper is not to assess the role or performance of the EU in international institutions.4 Rather it purports to reverse the picture and focus on a somewhat under-researched topic: the legal status of decisions of international organizations in the EU’s legal order.5 While parts of the status of these decisions relate to the status of international agreements and international customary law, it can be argued that decisions of international organizations and other international bodies form a distinct category. In fact, it has been observed that “this phenomenon has added a new layer of complexity to the already complex law of external relations of the European Union”.6 Emerging questions relate to the possible difference between decisions of international organizations of which the EU is a member (such as the FAO) and decisions of organizations where it is not (irrespective of existing competences in that area – such as in the ILO). Questions also relate to the hierarchical status of these decisions in the EU’s legal order and to the possibility of them being invoked in direct or indirect actions before the Court of Justice. This contribution takes a broad perspective on decisions of international organizations by including decisions taken in other international institutions which do not necessarily comply with the standard definition of international organizations,7 be it bodies set-up by multilateral conventions or informal (transnational / regulatory) bodies. Some of these bodies are relatively close to the EU (such as the Councils established by Association Agreements – see further Section 5 below); others operate at a certain distance. Limiting the analysis to formal international organizations will not do justice to the manifold relationships between the European Union and various international bodies and to the effects of the norms produced by these bodies. The term ‘international decisions’ is therefore used to refer to any normative output of international institutional arrangements.

Le Parlement européen à la recherche de l’efficacité législative: Une analyse des évolutions de son organisation = The European Parliament seeking legislative efficiency: An analysis of the changes in its organization. Bruges Political Research Paper No. 39, January 2015

Quel rôle l’organisation du travail parlementaire a-t-elle joué dans la montée en puissance du Parlement européen (PE)? Cet article vise à examiner cette question en s’appuyant sur la governing theory développée dans le cadre des études sur le Congrès nord-américain. Sur cette base, nous faisons l’hypothèse que les réformes de la structure institutionnelle du PE résultent des efforts des députés visant à renforcer la place de l’institution dans le système politique de l'Union européenne, à travers un accroissement de son «efficacité législative». Afin de tester cette hypothèse, cet article analyse l’impact de la rationalisation du fonctionnement du PE sur trois éléments clés: les organes de direction et les groupes politiques, la délibération en séance plénière et le comportement des députés. On montre ainsi que l'argument de «l'efficacité» générale du travail parlementaire est devenu un objectif en soi qui s’est imposé sur celui de liberté des parlementaires.

Eurodéputé: «Seconde chance» ou «Tremplin» – Comparaisons des trajectoires politiques de candidats PSE et PPE aux élections européennes de 2014 en France et en Suède. = MEP: "Second Chance" or "Jump" - comparisons of PSE candidates and political trajectories EPP in European elections 2014 in France and Sweden. Bruges Political Research Paper No. 40, February 2015

Le mandat d’eurodéputé est conçu différemment dans chaque état membre. Cet article teste la validité des cultures politiques inclusive et exclusive, créées pour l’analyse des sélections des candidats français et suédois et leur conception du mandat européen. Leur sélection demeure un monopole partisan national où l’adhésion à un parti et la professionnalisation politique priment. La distinction apparait dans le degré d’ouverture de la sélection et la conception de la fonction d’eurodéputé et du Parlement européen. Les conclusions valident l’approche créée, montrant un déplacement du curseur le long des continuums formés par les cultures inclusive et exclusive. La France, «exclusive», reste centrée sur Paris et des élections ayant des conséquences sur le pouvoir exécutif. La Suède est plus inclusive tant dans les profils des candidats que dans les processus qui les intègrent aux listes et dans la façon de concevoir le rôle des MEP et du Parlement européen. Cet article se fonde sur un mémoire de Master: E. Cazenave, Eurodéputé: «Seconde chance» ou «Tremplin»? Comparaison des trajectoires politiques de candidats PPE et PSE aux élections européennes de 2014 en France et en Suède, Bruges, Collège d’Europe, 2014

The Court of Justice of the European Union. College of Europe Research Paper in Law 02/2014

The Court of Justice of the European Union is one of the institutions of the Union. Praised by some as the relentless and steady motor of European integration and attacked by others as an example of a clearly biased institution, more ink has perhaps been spilled over the years on discussing the (de)merits of the Court of Justice than any other Union institution. In face of such considerable literature coming from legal, political science, sociological, and more recently also historical quarters, this chapter cannot but scratch the surface of the vast topic by providing a concise introduction into selected institutional themes in a legal1 and, where possible, diachronic perspective: the structure of the Union courts located in Luxembourg; basic information about the type of judicial business the Court of Justice carries out; the composition of the Court of Justice, including the recent changes made to the way in which judges and advocates-general are selected; the often discussed style and structure of the judgments; and, finally, the even more frequently discussed and recurring question of the legitimacy of the Court of Justice.

Judicial Selection, Lay Participation, and Judicial Culture in the Czech Republic: A Study in a Central European (Non)Transformation. College of Europe Research Paper in Law 03/2014

Introduction. The idea that “merit” should be the guiding principle of judicial selections is a universal principle, unlikely to be contested in whatever legal system. What differs considerably across legal cultures, however, is the way in which “merit” is defined. For deeper cultural and historical reasons, the current definition of “merit” in the process of judicial selections in the Czech Republic, at least in the way it is implemented in the institutional settings, is an odd mongrel. The old technocratic Austrian judicial heritage has in some aspects merged with, in others was altered or destroyed, by the Communist past. After 1989, some aspects of the judicial organisation were amended, with the most problematic elements removed. Furthermore, several old as well as new provisions relating to the judiciary were struck down by the Constitutional Court. However, apart from these rather haphazard interventions, there has been neither a sustained discussion as to how a new judicial architecture and system of judicial appointments ought to look like nor much of broader, conceptual reform in this regard. Thus, some twenty five years after the Velvet Revolution of 1989, the guiding principles for judicial selection and appointments are still a debate to be had.

Le Parlement européen et les actes délégués: De la conquête d’un pouvoir à son exercice = The European Parliament and the delegated acts: From the conquest of power to its exercise. Brugges Political Research Paper No. 34, February 2014

Résumé. Le traité de Lisbonne a procédé à une importante réforme de la comitologie, en établissant deux catégories d’instruments: les actes d’exécution et les actes délégués. Pour ces derniers, le Parlement européen a obtenu des pouvoirs importants et est pour la première fois sur un strict pied d’égalité avec le Conseil dans le système exécutif. En vertu d’une approche institutionnaliste rationnelle, cet article analyse comment le Parlement, à l’origine exclu du système, est parvenu à acquérir les pouvoirs qui sont formellement les siens aujourd’hui. Ensuite, l’action du Parlement face à ses nouveaux pouvoirs dans le cadre des actes délégués est abordée. Il s’agit d’étudier comment le Parlement défend ses prérogatives dans les relations interinstitutionnelles et agit après l’acquisition de nouvelles prérogatives. Cette analyse permet plus globalement d’aborder des aspects essentiels du fonctionnement du Parlement européen, de l’Union européenne ainsi que ses dynamiques (inter)institutionnelles.