The ECJ is running wild, promoting European integration against the interests of member state governments

Agree
21% (8 votes)
Disagree
79% (31 votes)
Total votes: 39

Comments

Since the voting is majoritary there will be more integration in the decisions of ECJ than the integration written in the treaties

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Expert vote

The European Court of Justice is not running wild, promoting European integration against the interests of member state because member state have agreed to the treaty and they agree on promoting European integration.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Expert vote

I would not say that the ECJ is promoting integration "over the heads" of EU member states. I would rather say that the ECJ is moving ahead with promoting integration at a faster pace than states are capable of following, granting the EU powers the organization did not solicit directly in the first place. In this sense, the Court becomes an engine for integration, an instrument that does not necessarily take into account the institutional inertia of member states. 

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Expert vote

The European Union is a highly uncommon international regulatory institution. For instance, while most international regulatory institutions only allow governments to bring cases against other governments for non-compliance with the rules of the regime, legal procedure in the EU is quite extensive. In particular, challenges can arise through one of two routes, direct actions and preliminary references. The Court has on many situations been attacked for its activism, activism meaning: its highly and growing pro-integrationist position, and for its many rulings that go beyond the words, the scope and underlying intentions of the relevant provisions. The basic assumption of the criticism is that it has often edited the rules by the excuse of interpreting them, and has given a way totally out of balance to their necessary effectiveness, to the detriment of all other interests.

Around 1980 the European Court of Justice was for the first time accused of being an excessively activist judiciary, this was pointed out by Hjalte Rasmussen in his book “Law and Policy of the European Court of Justice”. Rasmussen relates that the Court is working in two ways interaction rather than one way affection. In other words the national governments and courts do not totally agree all the decisions arise from the Court of Justice and that the Court takes actions to this situation. Rasmussen noticed that the political rebirth of the European Union beginning with the Single European Act in 1986, followed by increased qualified majority voting and Treaty reform at Maastricht and Amsterdam have given to the European Court of Justice a way to hideout their limits and sometimes to rise them.

According to Burly and Mattli (1993), over the years, the European Court of Justice has become the architect of the European Integration, of ever more numerous institutional improvements, updating and interpreting the Treaty architecture, and amending both, the inter-institutional and the Member States division of powers in equal measure.

Furthermore, the European Court of Justice is able to enforce European Union law over unruly governments. While governments only hardly bring cases against other governments, as stated previously, we now notice lots of cases a year being brought by the Commission and private litigants, many of which are brought against governments for non-compliance with EU law. Furthermore, while opportunities for the Court to rule against governments are now extensive, some have disputed that governments themselves are far from powerless. In particular, governments retain both legal and extra-legal means through which they can try to influence how the ECJ actually decides on the cases it hears.

The European Court of Justice is commonly described as a powerful international force for legal integration. Indeed, past studies indicate that the ECJ has developed a supranational legal order that gives advantages to the national law in a brunch of economic policy areas. But this assumption of a very powerful Court controlling European integration beyond the requirements of the member-states is out of arguments.

According to all above, the citizens expect the Court, whose existence depends on an international treaty and whose authority depends on national enforcement, to have strong incentives to decide cases with an eye to concerns of national governments. We argue that past studies, which were based on a small number of case studies, cannot demonstrate whether the Court is or is not sensitive to member-state interests. Based on all the history of the ECJ decisions, especially the last years, I strongly tend to believe that the Court does analyses its decisions to accommodate member-state concerns.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Expert vote

Winston Churchill said ”We must build a kind of United States of Europe”. I do not thnik that the ECJ is promoting integration over the heads of EU member state. ECJ is still promoting the European Integration . We are in a changing global environment and only a stronger and bigger Europe can cope with the challenges of the future. European integration has brought substantial advantages for its citizens, but these advantages are not always well understood and even less acknowledged.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Expert vote

Curtea Europeană de Justiție doar se asigură că statele respectă decizia luată în momentul aderării de a adopta legislația Uniunii și de a adapta legislația și procedurile naționale, astfel încât ele să fie în concordanță cu cele ale Uniunii.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote