To this end, the Commission is preparing a report entitled „Impact Assessment”, which sets out the advantages and disadvantages of policy options. The impact assessment shall include contributions from non-governmental organisations, national authorities and industry, as well as expert groups providing advice on technical issues. In addition to human rights, the Court has recognised at least five other „general principles” of EU law. Firstly, legal certainty requires that judgments be forward-looking, open and clear. Second, decision-making in the context of the examination of a discretionary power of a powerful government or body must be „proportionate” to a legitimate objective. For example, if a government wants to change a labor law in a neutral way, but this could have a disproportionate negative impact on women and not men, the government must demonstrate a legitimate objective and show that its actions are (1) appropriate or appropriate to achieve it, (2) are no more than necessary, and (3) are appropriate to compensate for the competing rights of the different parties. [176] Third, equality is seen as a fundamental principle: it applies in particular to workers` rights, political rights, and access to public or private services. [177] Fourth, the right to a fair trial has become a general principle, although it is true that this is abundantly reflected in most human rights instruments. Fifth, there is a general principle of solicitor-client privilege. The categories of general principles are not closed and can evolve according to the social expectations of people living in Europe. The above analysis shows that the EU still has significant limits to its influence in the legislative process.
As has been demonstrated, the main reasons for this are a persistent lack of powers for the EU, as well as institutional rules and practices that undermine its legislative effectiveness. Scientists like Héritier and Reh suggest that reforms should be carried out to strengthen their powers and avoid their ineffectiveness. [40] A Parliament that has no influence as a co-legislator implies that European citizens are not fully represented in the EU legislative process, bearing in mind that the EU is the only EU institution whose members are directly elected. The need for reform is therefore not only aimed at strengthening the EU, but above all at remedying the EU`s democratic deficit. A PGE capable of influencing decision-making in the EU would reduce the democratic deficit and thus (i) the distance between voters and the European institutions, and (ii) the EU`s skepticism about the perception of the EU as a technocratic organisation. [41] For these reasons, calls for an extension of the EUP`s legislative powers have multiplied over the past five years. [42] Member States such as the United Kingdom have several opportunities to participate in this policy-making process through their representation in the European Parliament (elected representatives of the European Parliament) and the Council (representatives of national governments). By informing each other and working together early in the process, regulators and competent authorities can find solutions to similar problems while adhering to their respective policy objectives and standards. This reduces the cost of doing business and creates greater and fairer cross-border competition. Policy development is the process of developing ideas or plans that are then implemented through legislation, creating a regulatory system.
Did you know that everyone can help shape EU policy? Watch the video and learn how to make your voice heard. On the other hand, the courts are theoretically obliged to ask questions. In the United Kingdom, for example, Lord Denning Mr considered it appropriate to refer the matter where the outcome of a case depended on a correct answer,[140] and the Code of Civil Procedure allows the High Court to give preliminary rulings at any stage of the proceedings. [141] In CILFIT v. Ministry of Health, the Court held that a national court is not required to take part in the case if the law is a clear act (a clear rule) or „so obvious that it leaves no room for reasonable doubt as to how the issue raised should be resolved”. [142] In Kenny Roland Lyckeskog, the Court held that the Swedish Court of Appeal, the hovrätt, was required to make a reference because the Swedish Supreme Court (Högsta domstol) had to allow the appeals to continue. [143] The practical difficulty is that judges have different views on whether the law is clear or not. In an important case, Three Rivers DC v. Governor of the Bank of England,[144] the House of Lords was satisfied that it was clear under the First Banking Directive that depositors had no direct right to sue the Bank of England for allegedly failing to comply with adequate prudential requirements. Their seigneuries pointed out that, although there might be some uncertainty, the cost of postponing the creation of a reference outweighed the benefits of absolute certainty.
By contrast, in ParkingEye Ltd v. Beavis, a majority of the Supreme Court seemed to be able to declare that the consumer contracts directive`s unfair terms law was a clear act and to refuse to make a request for a preliminary ruling, despite a well-founded high-ranking disagreement. [145] However, in addition to the reluctance to make referrals, high-ranking judges in the member states have expressed general skepticism about the reasoning used by the Court.
Najnowsze komentarze