¹ See Commission Regulation 1095/2010, European Securities and Markets Authority, 2010 O.J. (L 331/84) 1 [hereinafter Regulation 1095/2010].Google Scholar

² See also Regulation 806/2014, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 Establishing Uniform Rules and a Uniform Procedure for the Resolution of Credit Institutions and Certain Investment Firms in the Framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and Amending Regulation 1093/2010 2014 O.J. (L 225) 1, which creates the Single Resolution Board (SRB). The SRB is the new EU agency dealing with resolution plans and exercising the resolution of significant credit institutions in financial distress, whenever one of them fails or is likely to fail. The SRB will also be in charge of the Single Resolution Fund, a pool of financial resources available for resolution purposes.Google Scholar

³ United Kingdom v. Parliament and Council, CJEU Case C-270/12 (Jan. 22, 2014), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

⁴ See Regulation 236/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 on Short Selling and Certain Aspects of Credit Default Swaps, 2012 O.J. (L 86) 1 [hereinafter Regulation 236/2012 or SSR].Google Scholar

⁵ See The High-level Group on Financial Supervision in the EU (de Larosière Group), Report 48 (2009).Google Scholar

⁶ Regulation 1095/2010, recital 9.Google Scholar

⁷ On the institutional and constitutional issues arising from the establishment of ESMA see, among others, Edoardo Chiti, An Important Part of the EU's Institutional Machinery: Features, Problems and Perspectives of European Agencies, 46 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1395, 1427 (2009); Tridimas, Takis, Financial Supervision and Agency Power: Reflections on ESMA, in From Single Market to Economic Union 55–89 (Niamh Nic Shuibhne & Laurence W. Gormley eds., 2012); and recently, Noia, Carmine Di & Gargantini, Matteo, Unleashing the European Securities and Markets Authority: Governance and Accountability after the ECJ Decision on the Short Selling Regulation, 15 Eur. Bus. Org. L. Rev. 1 (2014).Google Scholar

⁸ Regulation 1095/2010, art. 9, para. 5.Google Scholar

⁹ See Regulation 236/2012, recital 2.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Id. at art. 2(b).Google Scholar

¹¹ See Juurikkala, Oskari, Credit Default Swaps and the EU Short Selling Regulation: A Critical Analysis, 9 Eur. Company & Fin. L. Rev. 307, 322 (2012).Google Scholar

¹² Under article 263, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the TFEU,Google Scholar

** The Court of Justice of the European Union shall review the legality of legislative acts, of acts of the Council, of the Commission and of the European Central Bank, other than recommendations and opinions, and of acts of the European Parliament and of the European Council intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties. It shall also review the legality of acts of bodies, offices or agencies of the Union intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties. It shall for this purpose have jurisdiction in actions brought by a Member State, the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application, or misuse of powers.Google Scholar

** Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, art. 263, May 9, 2008 O.J. (C 115). This provision allowed the UK to bring an action for annulment of Article 28 of the SSR.Google Scholar

¹³ See Meroni v. High Authority, CJEU Case C-9/56, 1958 E.C.R. 133.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Giuseppe Romano v. Institut national d'assurance maladie-invalidité, CJEU Case C-98/80, 1981 E.C.R. 1241.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen, United Kingdom v. Council and Parliament, CJEU Case C-270/12 (Sept. 12, 2013), http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2013-09/cp130101en.pdf.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Id. at para. 24.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See id. at para. 45.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Id. at para. 46.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See id. Google Scholar

²⁰ See id. at para. 53.Google Scholar

²¹ See id. at para. 60.Google Scholar

²² See id. at para. 70.Google Scholar

²³ See id. at para. 85.Google Scholar

²⁴ Id. at para. 88.Google Scholar

²⁵ Id. at para. 97.Google Scholar

²⁶ Id. at para. 98.Google Scholar

²⁷ See United Kingdom, CJEU Case C-270/12 at paras. 41–42.Google Scholar

²⁸ See id. at para. 43.Google Scholar

²⁹ Id. at para. 45.Google Scholar

³⁰ Id. at para. 53.Google Scholar

³¹ Id. at para. 66.Google Scholar

³² Id. at para. 79.Google Scholar

³³ Id. at para. 83.Google Scholar

³⁴ Id. at para. 105.Google Scholar

³⁵ Id. Google Scholar

³⁶ Id. at para. 114.Google Scholar

³⁷ See, e.g., Damien Geradin & Nicolas Petit, The Development of Agencies at EU and Notional Levels: Conceptual Analysis and Proposals for Reform 37 (The Jean Monet Program, Working Paper No. 01/04, 2004); Xénophon A. Yataganas, Delegation of Regulatory Authority in the European Union—The relevance of the American Model of independent Agencies 23 (The Jean Monet Program, Working Paper No. 03/01, 2001).Google Scholar

³⁸ Opinion of Advocate General Jää'skinen, supra note 15, at para. 19.Google Scholar

³⁹ See Meroni, CJEU Case C-9/56.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Id. Google Scholar

⁴¹ See The Queen v. Sec'y of State for Health & Nat'l Assembly for Wales, Joined CJEU Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04, 2005 E.C.R. I-6451, para. 90. See also Carmine Salvatore Tralli v. Eur. Cent. Bank, CJEU Case C-301/02 P, 2005 E.C.R. I-4071, paras. 41–44; DIR Int'l Film Srl v. Comm'n, Case C-164/98 P, 2000 E.C.R. I-00447, para. 6.Google Scholar

⁴² See Griller, Stefan & Orator, Andreas, Everything under Control? The “Way Forward” for European Agencies in the Footsteps of the Meroni Doctrine, 35 Eur. L. Rev. 3, 18 (2010).Google Scholar

⁴³ See Vos, Ellen, Agencies and the European Union, in Agencies in European and Comparative Perspective 131 (Luc Verhey & Tom Zwart eds., 2003).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Craig, Paul, EU Administrative Law 155 (2011).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See Majone, Giandomenico, The Rise of the Regulatory State in Europe, 17 W. Eur. Pol. 77, 95 (1994). ⁴⁶ Edoardo Chiti, supra note 7, at 1423.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Id. at 1424.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Griller, Stefan & Orator, Andreas, supra note 42, at 34–35.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See Chamon, Merijn, EU Agencies Between Meroni and Romano or the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea, Common Mkt L. Rev. 1055, 1059 (2011) (citing Schräder v. CPVO, CJEU Case T-187/06, 2008 E.C.R. II-3151, as an example where the General Court took into account the EU system and discretionary powers to the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ ESMA, CJEU Case C-270/12 at para. 54.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Giuseppe Romano v. Institut National d'Assurance Maladie-Invalidité, CJEU Case 98/80, 1981 E.C.R. 01241.Google Scholar

⁵² Id. at para. 20.Google Scholar

⁵³ Opinion of Advocate General Jää'skinen, supra note 15, at para. 84.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ ESMA, CJEU Case C-270/12 at para. 66.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Id. at para. 67.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Id. at paras. 60–61.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See Bast, Jürgen, New Categories of Acts After the Lisbon Reform: Dynamics of Parliamentarization in EU Law, 49 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 885, 887–888 (2012) (discussing the notion of legislative act in EU law).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Article 290 TFEU at para. 1.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ ESMA, CJEU Case C-270/12 at para. 79.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See Noia, Di & Gargantini, supra note 7, at 32.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Chalmers, Damian, Gareth Davies & Giorgio Monti, European Union Law. Text and Materials, 177 (3rd ed. 2014).Google Scholar

⁶² ESMA, CJEU Case C-270/12 at para. 82.Google Scholar

⁶³ See Snell, Jukka, The Internal Market and the Philosophies of Market integration, in European Union Law 300, 315 (Catherine Barnard & Steve Peers eds., 2014).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Germany v. European Parliament and Council (Tobacco I), CJEU Case C-376/98, 2000 E.C.R. I-08419, para. 84.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ For case law on harmonization and Article 114 TFEU, see Weatherill, Stephen, The Limits of Legislative Harmonization Ten Years After Tobacco Advertising: How the Court's Case Law Has Become a “Drafting Guide,” 12 German L.J. 827.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ R v. Secretary of State for Health ex Parte British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd And Imperial Tobacco Ltd, CJEU Case 491/01 2002, E.C.R. I-11453.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ The Queen, on the Application of: Swedish Match AB and Swedish Match UK Ltd v. Secretary of State for Health, CJEU Case C-210/03, 2004 E.C.R. I-11893.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ See Alliance for Natural Health v. Secretary of State for Health, Joined Cases C-154/04 & C-155/04, 2005 E.C.R. I-6451; see also, Vodafone, 02 et al. v. Secretary of State, CJEU Case C-58/08, 2010 E.C.R. I-04999.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Fahey, Elaine, Does the Emperor Have Financial Crisis Clothes? Reflections on the Legal Basis of the European Banking Authority, (2011), 74 Mod. L. Rev. 581, 591 (2010).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ United Kingdom v. European Parliament and Council (Smoke Flavourings), CJEU Case C-66/04, 2005 E.C.R. I-10553.Google Scholar

⁷¹ United Kingdom v. Council and European Parliament (ENISA case), CJEU Case C-217/04, 2006 E.C.R I-03771.Google Scholar

⁷² Id. at paras. 45, 47.Google Scholar

⁷³ Id. at paras. 62–63.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Herwig Hofmann and Alessandro Marini, The Pluralisation of EU Executive—Constitutional Aspects of “Agencification,” 4 Eur. L. Rev. 419, 438 (2012).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ See Ferran, Eilis, Understanding the New Institutional Architecture of EU Financial Market Supervision, in Financial Regulation and Supervision. A post-crisis analysis, 111, 157 (Guido Ferrarini, Klaus J. Hopt & Eddy. Wymeersch eds., 2012).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Maletic, Isidora, The Law and Policy of Harmonization in Europe's Internal Market 38 (2013).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ See, e.g., Afton Chemical Limited v. Secretary of State for Transport, CJEU Case C-343/09, 2010 O.J. (C 234).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Opinion of Advocate General Jää'skinen, supra note 15Error! Bookmark not defined., at para. 52.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Id. at para. 54.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ ESMA, CJEU Case C-270/12 at para. 114.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Id. at para. 108.Google Scholar

⁸² Thomas Pringle v. Government of Ireland, Ireland and The Attorney General, CJEU Case C-370/12, 2012. This case decided the compatibility of the European Stability Mechanism with EU law. See also, Gianni Lo Schiavo, The Judicial “Bail Out” of the European Stability Mechanism: Comment on the Pringle Judgment, 2 Italian J. Pub. L. 107 (2013).Google Scholar

⁸³ On the Capitals Market Union, see European Commission, GREEN PAPER Building a Capital Markets Union COM/2015/063 final.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ On the Banking Union project, see http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finances/banking-union/index_en.htm.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. European Parliament, Council of the European Union, CJEU Case C-507/13, 2013 O.J. (C 359).Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Id. Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen, supra note 15, at para. 63.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Id. at para. 64.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ See European Commission, REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the operation of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) and the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS), COM(2014) 509 final, 13 where it is envisaged the possibility to confer further tasks to the ESAs.Google Scholar