No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Rise and Expressions of Consistency in EU Law: Legal and Strategic Implications for European Integration
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2017
Abstract
The principle of consistency has a prominent place in EU law. In the Treaty of Lisbon, it constitutes an umbrella under which a number of legal principles of EU law follow as corollaries. Consistency manifests itself within both horizontal and vertical levels of governance. This chapter will unpack this principle and will focus on the broader implications of consistency for the division of powers in EU law. In doing so, the authors aim to discuss the rise of consistency in EU law and decrypt its various constitutional expressions in order to determine its scope of application. Two notions of consistency are presented: a formal one that appears in the Treaty of Lisbon and a strategic one, prominent in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). It is argued that consistency is relevant to both traditional (integrationist) and alternative (differentiated) routes to European integration. The chapter concludes by discussing whether the undefined nature of ‘consistency’ puts it at risk of becoming an empty vessel.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2013
References
1 Teleological or purposive interpretation means in this context interpretation in accordance with the rationale of the provision or the policy aim underlying the rule. See Hesselink, M, ‘A Toolbox for European Judges’ (2011) 17 European Law Journal 441 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 For an overview of the different language interpretations of consistency, see C Franklin, ‘The Burgeoning Principle of Consistency in EU Law’ (2011) Yearbook of European Law 11. For academic references to coherence, see Cremona, M, ‘Coherence in European Union Foreign Relations Law’ in Koutrakos, P (ed), European Foreign Policy: Legal and Political Perspectives (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2011) 59 Google Scholar; Prechal, S and van Roermund, B, The Coherence of EU Law: The Search for Unity in Divergent Concepts (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Leczykiewicz, D, ‘Why Do the European Court of Justice Judges Need Legal Concepts?’ (2008) 14 European Law Journal 773 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 De Baere, G, Constitutional Principles of EU External Relations (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008) 251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Holdgaard, R, External Relations Law of the European Community: Legal Reasoning and Legal Discourses (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2008) 415 Google Scholar.
4 See, eg, Derlén, M, Multilingual Interpretation of EU law (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2009) 352 Google Scholar.
5 Dworkin, R, Taking Rights Seriously (Harvard University Press, 1978)Google ScholarPubMed.
6 Guest, S, Ronald Dworkin (Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1991) 39–40 Google Scholar.
7 Discussed in Maduro, M, ‘Three Claims of Constitutional Pluralism’ in Avbelj, M and Komarek, J (eds), Constitutional Pluralism in the European Union and Beyond (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2012)Google Scholar. See also S Besson, ‘From European Integration to European Integrity: Should European Law Speak with Just One Voice?’ (2004) European Law Journal 257.
8 For a discussion of Dworkin in the light of legal pluralism, see Eleftheriadis, P, ‘Pluralism and Integrity’ (2010) 23(3) Ratio Juris 365, 377–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 MacCormick, N, Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1978, reprinted paperback edn 1995) xivGoogle Scholar.
10 See, eg, Cremona, M, ‘Coherence through Law: What Difference Will the Treaty of Lisbon Make?’ (2008) 3(1) Hamburg Review of Social Sciences 17 Google Scholar.
11 See, eg, European Commission, ‘European Governance (White Paper)’ COM(2001) 428 final.
12 Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P Commission, Council and UK v Yassin Abdullah Kadi, Advocate General Opinion Bot, 19 March 2013, unreported. AG Bot opined that the principle of judicial review laid down by the CJEU in Kadi I requires further clarification.
13 Case C-438/05 Viking [2007] ECR I-10779.
14 For a recent analysis, see Somek, A, Engineering Equality (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 See, eg, Herlin-Karnell, E, The Constitutional Dimension of European Criminal Law, (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2012) ch 4 Google Scholar.
16 Conway, G, ‘Conflicts of Competence Norms in EU Law and the Legal Reasoning of the ECJ’ (2010) 11(9) German Law Journal 966 Google Scholar.
17 Directive 2011/83/EU of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [2011] OJ L304/64. For a critique, see Arnull, A, ‘The Principle of Effective Judicial Protection in EU Law: An Unruly Horse?’ (2011) 36(1) European Law Review 51, 65Google Scholar.
18 See, eg, Weatherill, S, ‘The Consumer Rights Directive: How and Why a Quest for “Coherence” Has (Largely) Failed’ (2012) 49 Common Market Law Review 1279 Google Scholar.
19 The Stockholm Programme—An Open and Secure Europe Serving and Protecting the Citizen [2009] OJ C115/1.
20 See, eg, European Commission, ‘Proposal for a Directive on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purpose of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data’ COM(2012) 10 final.
21 European Commission, ‘Smart Regulation in the European Union (Communication)’ COM(2010) 0543 final.
22 Levenbook, B, ‘The Role of Coherence in Legal Reasoning’ (1984) 3 Law and Philosophy 355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 See especially Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2000] OJ C364/01, art 52(3): ‘In so far as this Charter contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same as those laid down by the said Convention. This provision shall not prevent Union law providing more extensive protection.’
24 On the EU’s accession to the ECHR, see, eg, O’Meara, N, ‘“A More Secure Europe of Rights?” The European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union and EU Accession to the ECHR’ (2011) 12 German Law Journal 1813 Google Scholar; Dzehtsiarou, K, Konstadinides, T, Lock, T and O’Meara, N, Human Rights Law in Europe: The influence, overlaps and contradictions of the EU and the ECHR (London, Routledge, forthcoming)Google Scholar.
25 Eeckhout, P, External Relations of the EU (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011), 187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Eeckhout also stresses that ‘the constitutional emphasis on consistency is something of a subterfuge, an attempt to cover up inter-institutional strife, to throw a constitutional blanket on the struggles between the Council and the Commission, not to mention the Parliament’.
26 See, eg, Press Release, ‘Cooperation in Disaster Management: The European Union and the United States Take a Major Step Forward’, IP/11/1365.
27 Viking (n 13); Case C-341/05 Laval [2007] ECR I-11767.
28 European Commission, ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation on the exercise of the right to take collective action within the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services’ COM (2012) 130 final. The proposal was halted by national parliaments, which utilised the so-called ‘yellow card’ procedure. Article 12 TEU and Protocol 2 of the Lisbon Treaty provide that a third of national chambers can raise such an objection on the basis of the violation of the principle of subsidiarity. Therefore, the Proposal must now be reviewed by the Commission.
29 See, eg, Weiler, JHH, ‘The Transformation of Europe’ (1991) 100(8) Yale Law Journal 2403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
30 See, eg, Lang, JT, ‘The Duties of Cooperation of National Authorities and Courts under Article 10 EC’ (2001) 26 European Law Review 84 Google Scholar.
31 See, eg, Neframi, E, ‘The Duty of Loyalty: Rethinking its Scope through its Application in the Field of EU External Relations’ (2010) 47 CML Rev 323 Google Scholar.
32 See, eg, Lang, JT, ‘The Developments of the Court of Justice on the Duties of Cooperation of National Authorities and Community Institutions under Article 10 EC’ (2008) 31 Fordham International Law Journal 1483 Google Scholar.
33 See, eg, Craig, P, EU Administrative Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012) ch 22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. While most of this section is devoted to the principle of loyalty, the authors acknowledge that there are other areas of CJEU case law like national remedies, state liability or direct effect of directives that further offer a fertile ground for the exploration of the kind of teleological consistency discussed here.
34 Blair, J, ‘State Aid for Films and Other Audiovisual Works’ (2011) 22(8) Entertainment Law Review 229, 231Google Scholar.
35 ‘ECJ Advises on Whether Tax System Entails Aid’ (2011) 288 EU Focus 24.
36 Council Regulation (EC) 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty [2003] OJ L1/1, 1–25.
37 Townley, C, ‘Which Goals Count in Article 101 TFEU? Public Policy and its Discontents: The OFT’s Roundtable Discussion on Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’ (2011) 32(9) European Competition Law Review 441, 446Google Scholar.
38 Sevon, L, ‘Application of EC Competition Rules. Preliminary Observations on Council Regulation 1/2003’ in Edward, DAO et al (eds), A True European: Essays for Judge David Edward (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2003) 146 Google Scholar.
39 Weatherill, S, Cases and Materials on EU Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007) 565 Google Scholar.
40 Ibid.
41 See also Case C-46/08 Carmen Media Group Ltd [2010] ECR I-0000.
42 Case 22/70 Commission v Council [1971] ECR 263.
43 Lang (n 30). See also Neframi (n 31); Schütze, R, EU Constitutional Law (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012) ch 10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
44 Case C-246/07 Commission v Sweden (PFOS) [2010] OJ C161/3. The CJEU held that, by unilaterally proposing that a chemical substance (perfluoroctane sulfonate: PFOS) be listed in Annex A to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2001), Sweden failed to fulfil its obligations under art 4(3) TEU. See also Case C-459/03 Commission v Ireland (Mox Plant) [2006] ECR I-4635.
45 De Baere, G, ‘O, Where is Faith? O, Where is Loyalty? Some Thoughts on the Duty of Loyal Co-operation and the Union’s External Environmental Competences in the Light of the PFOS Case’ (2011) 36(3) European Law Review 405, 417Google Scholar.
46 See, eg, Hillion, C, ‘ Tous pour un, Un pour tous! Coherence in the External Relations of the European Union’ in Cremona, M (ed), Developments in EU External Relations Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008) 10–36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
47 See, eg, de Búrca, G, ‘The European Court of Justice and the International Legal Order after Kadi ’ (2009) 51 Harvard Journal of International Law 1 Google Scholar.
48 See, eg, Mathisen, G, ‘Consistency and Coherence as Conditions for Justification of Member State Measures Restricting Free Movement’ (2010) 47 CML Rev 1021 Google Scholar.
49 See Weiler, JHH, The Constitution of Europe: ‘Do the New Clothes Have an Emperor?’ (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999) 322 Google Scholar.
50 G Gaja, ‘How Flexible is Flexibility under the Amsterdam Treaty?’ (1998) CML Rev 1.
51 Weatherill, S, ‘If I’d Wanted You to Understand I Would Have Explained it Better: What is the Purpose of the Provisions on Closer Co-operation Introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam?’ in O’Keeffe, D and Twomey, P (eds), Legal Issues of the Amsterdam Treaty (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 1999) 21–40 Google Scholar.
52 See, eg, Vos, E, ‘Differentiation, Harmonization and Governance’ in De Witte, B et al (eds), The Many Faces of Differentiation (Antwerp, Intersentia, 2001) 145 Google Scholar.
53 See, eg, Stubb, A, ‘A Categorization of Differentiated Integration’ (1996) 34 Journal of Common Market Studies 283 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Curtin, D, ‘The Constitutional Structure of the Union: A Europe of Bits and Pieces’ (1993) 30 Common Market Law Review 17 Google Scholar; De Witte, B, ‘Old-Fashioned Flexibility: International Agreements between Member States of the European Union’ in de Búrca, G and Scott, J (eds), Constitutional Change in the EU, From Uniformity to Flexibility? (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2000) 31 Google Scholar.
54 Van Gerven, W, The European Union: A Polity of States and Peoples (Stanford, Stanford University Press, 2005) 29 Google Scholar.
55 See, eg, Dyson, T and Konstadinides, T, European Defence Cooperation in EU Law and International Relations Theory (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 70–75 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
56 A Faber, ‘Theoretical Approaches to EU Deepening and Widening: A Multi-disciplinary Overview and Some Tentative (Hypo)theses’ (EU-CONSENT Project Publications, 2006). Available at: www.eu-consent.net/library/brx061012/WP%20II%20III%20Paperredefiningconcepts.pdf. See also Shaw, J, ‘Flexibility in a Reorganized and Simplified Treaty’ (2003) 40 CML Rev 279 Google Scholar.
57 J Shaw, ‘Relating Constitutionalism and Flexibility in the European Union’ in de Búrca and Scott (n 53) 353.
58 Other forms of differentiated integration include the CSDP-oriented structured cooperation, found in arts 42(6) and 46 TEU (and Protocol 10), which gives the opportunity to a group of Member States entrusted under art 44 TEU to unilaterally implement the so-called Petersberg tasks concerning humanitarian and rescue assignments, peacekeeping and combat tasks in crisis management.
59 See generally Rosas, A and Armati, L, EU Constitutional Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2010) ch 7 Google Scholar; Piris, JC, The Future of Europe, Towards a Two-Speed Europe (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012) ch 1 Google Scholar.
60 See also Weatherill (n 51) 21–40.
61 Konstadinides, T, Division of Powers in the European Union (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2009) 256–57Google Scholar.
62 Piris, JC, The Lisbon Treaty (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
63 In all areas except criminal law, which is discussed below.
64 Rosas and Armati (n 59) 108–10.
65 Joined Cases C-274/11 and C-295/11 Spain and Italy v Council (ECJ, 16 April 2013).
66 Council Decision 2011/167/EU authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection [2011] OJ L76/53.
67 Enhanced cooperation is traditionally considered to lie in the same pathway as EU subsidiarity as it accepts that there is room for action outside the EU model. See also Weatherill (n 51) 21.
68 Spain and Italy v Council (n 65) [66].
69 See, eg, Case C-210/03 Swedish Match [2004] ECR I-11893. The CJEU stressed that while mere disparities between national rules cannot justify recourse to art 114 TFEU, it is sufficient where there are differences between the laws, regulations or administrative provisions of the Member States which could obstruct fundamental freedoms and thus have a direct effect on the functioning and establishment of the internal market.
70 Press Release ‘A First in EU History: Enhanced Cooperation to Help International Couples is in Force’, IP/10/1035. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1035. See also Council Decision of 2010/405/EU of 12 July 2010 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation [2010] OJ L189/12.
71 Member States who wish to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves in one of the areas covered by the treaties, but for fields of EU exclusive competence and the CFSP shall address a request to the Commission, specifying the scope and objectives of the enhanced cooperation in question. Authorisation to proceed with such enhanced cooperation shall be granted by the Council (acting by qualified majority), on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
72 Council Decision (n 70). See also Peers, S, ‘Divorce, European Style: The First Authorisation of Enhanced Cooperation’ (2010) 6(3) European Constitutional Law Review 339 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It should perhaps be mentioned that a second authorisation of enhanced cooperation was adopted in March 2011 ([2011] OJ L76/53) and concerns a non-Justice and Home Affairs area (Unitary Patent Protection). On this, see Peers, S, ‘Mission Accomplished? EU Justice and Home Affairs Law After the Treaty of Lisbon’ (2011) 48(3) CML Rev 661 Google Scholar.
73 Council Decision 2011/167/EU of 10 March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection [2011] OJ L76/53. There is currently a case pending for the annulment of this decision: Case C-295/11 Italian Republic v Council of the European Union [2011] OJ C232/21. Italy argues, inter alia, that the enhanced cooperation procedure was authorised by the Council outside the limits provided for in the first subparagraph of art 20(1) TEU, according to which such a procedure is to be allowed only within the framework of the EU’s non-exclusive competences. Italy argues that the EU has an exclusive competence to create ‘European rules’ which have art 118 TFEU as their legal basis.
74 Weatherill (n 51).
75 Convention between Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Austria, signed in Prüm, Germany on 27 May 2005.
76 The Schengen Agreement of 1985. See generally Peers, S, EU Justice and Home Affairs (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006) ch 1 Google Scholar.
77 See generally European Union Committee, Prüm: An Effective Weapon Against Terrorism and Crime? (HL 2006-07, 90-I). Available at: www.statewatch.org/news/2007/may/eu-hol-prum-report.pdf.
78 See, eg, Peers (n 76) ch 9.
79 See, eg, Herlin-Karnell, E, ‘Enhanced Cooperation and Conflicting Values: Are New Forms of Governance the Same as Good Governance?’ in Trybus, M and Rubini, L (eds), After Lisbon: The Impact of the New Treaty on European Union (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2012) ch 8 Google Scholar.
80 Title V TFEU. See especially Arts 82–86 TFEU.
81 Curtin (n 52).
82 See A Hinarejos, J Spencer and S Peers, ‘Opting Out of Criminal Law What is Actually Involved?’ (2012) Centre for European Law Cambridge Working Paper 1/2012. Available at: www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/Media/working_papers/Optout%20text%20final.pdf.
83 See generally Craig, P, The Lisbon Treaty (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010); Peers (n 76)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
84 See Herlin-Karnell, E, ‘Denmark and the European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: A Scandinavian Arrangement’ (2011) 5(1) Amsterdam Law Forum 95 Google Scholar. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2246709.
85 Adler-Nissen, R, ‘Opting Out of an Ever Closer Union: The Integration Doxa and the Management of Sovereignty’ (2011) 34(5) West European Politics 1092 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
86 Spain and Italy v Council (n 65).
87 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States [2002] OJ L190/1.
88 Ibid. For a detailed account of the transitional rules, see Peers (n 76) 82–83.
89 Travis, A, ‘EU Policing and Justice Opt-Out Would Endanger Internal Security, Lords Warn’ The Guardian (London, 23 April 2013)Google Scholar.
90 See Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC [2006] OJ L105/54. See also Konstadinides, T, ‘Destroying Democracy on the Ground of Defending it? The Data Retention Directive, the Surveillance State and Our Constitutional Ecosystem’ (2011) 36(5) European Law Review 722–36Google Scholar.
91 Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (Third Money Laundering Directive) [2005] OJ L309/15.
92 Case C-77/05 UK v Council ECR I-11459; Case C-137/05 UK v Council [2007] ECR I-11593.
93 Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union [2004] OJ L349/1. See also E Fahey, ‘Jagged-Edged Jigsaw: The Limits of Multi-speed Integration and Policy Choices of Ireland and the UK’ in Trybus and Rubini (n 79).
94 Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States [2004] OJ L385/1.
95 Above n 92.
96 See also M O’Neil, ‘EU Cross-border Policing Provisions, the View from One of the Schengen Opt Out States’ (2009) European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice. Available at: http://uaces.org/documents/papers/0901/o_neill.pdf.
97 Wessel, R, ‘The Inside Looking Out: Consistency and Delimitation in EU External Relations’ (2000) 37 CML Rev 1135 Google Scholar; Van Elsuwege, P, ‘EU External Action After the Collapse of the Pillar Structure: In Search of a New Balance Between Delimitation and Consistency’ (2010) 47 CML Rev 987 Google Scholar.
98 Amtenbrink, F and Kochenov, D, ‘Towards a More Flexible Approach to Enhanced Cooperation’ in Ott, A and Vos, E (eds), 50 Years of European Integration: Foundations and Perspectives (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2009)Google Scholar.
99 Case C-482/08 UK and Ireland v Council (ECJ, 26 October 2010). See also Faber (n 56); Shaw, J, ‘Flexibility in a “Reorganised” and Simplified Treaty’ (2003) 40(2) CML Rev 279 Google Scholar.
100 See also Harlow, C, ‘A Common European Law of Remedies?’ in Kilpatrick, C et al (eds), The Future of Remedies in Europe (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2000) 69 Google Scholar.
- 5
- Cited by