Single European Act

Single European Act

The objective was establishing an internal market, the point is as from 86 the treaties says internal market, in the 60s and 70s the development of the common market did not proceed as it was provided in the treaties for several reasons…most of those decisions concerning common market required unanimity, not for all but for many important required unanimity…one major change in Single European Act was to apply more widely in the internal market policy area, qualified majority. The act did not introduce qualified majority, but now it should apply for almost 80 to 90 percent of decisions concerning internal market.

It set up a timetable for the completion of the internal market, since beginning of the 70s, the heads of state of the European community met and discussed political and economic issues. The problem was there was no formal or legal basis for this in the Treaty EC, they did it as sovereign states under public and international law, Brussels Summit, political European cooperation, very weak no formal binding decisions, just adopted decisions…

The Single European Act provided a legal basis for that kind of European political cooperation and is the predecessor of the common foreign security policy in the master treaty, 2nd aspect, these provisions about the EPC did not become part of the EC treaty but remained separate. So you have one treaty Single European Act containing amendments to the EC treaties and provisions regarding policies that belong to the community as a whole but are not part of the supranational treaties. The way they led down the rules for EPC is the way to do it by intergovernmental cooperation and this is also true today.

Even today the common foreign security policy is not a supranational policy, it is embedded in the supranational framework but the decision making procedures are still of an intergovernmental nature, the Single European act also has a basis of the summits.

Double-Hat

The High Representative is maybe called an office, not an institution. The particular feature of the High

Representative is to wear this famous double hat. So the High Representative is at the same time: a

Representative of the Member States in foreign policy and, on the other hand, he is member and

Vice-president of the Commission. As at the beginning there was a lack of consistency and coherence in

Particular in the branch of foreign policy and the Community external relation, so the logic behind this

was to concentrate these two branches and to have one person in these two jobs. This would increase

the coherence and would lead consequently to more efficiency.

For the appointment of the High Representative there is a procedure that must reflect the double

position of this person. Therefore, the High Representative must be appointed, on the one hand, by the

European Council, and in the other, it must be integrated into the appointment procedure for the

Commission.

B. The Union has as one of its objectives to, “offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice,” (Art. 3(2) TEU). The rule of law is especially mentioned as one of its values (Art. 2 TEU).

In order to achieve this, a mechanism has to be in place to ensure that the union’s laws are observed and to ensure legal protection, as well as to arbitrate in case of disputes. In the EU this task is fulfilled by the Court of Justice of the EU as well as the courts of the member states, who “shall provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the field covered by Union law,” (Art 19(1) TEU). The domestic courts of the member states play a crucial role in making sure that the law of the Union is applied effectively, The Court of Justice of the EU is tasked with ensuring that in the interpretation and application of the Treaties the law is observed. (Art 19(1) TEU). One procedure of special importance regarding the application of Union law to the citizens is the preliminary ruling procedure (Art. 267 TFEU), by which national courts may bring a question of interpretation of primary or secondary Union law or of the validity of secondary Union law before the ECJ. The ECJ well then give a ruling on this which is binding (however the final decision in the domestic case remains with the court who asked the question-the ruing f the ECJ concerns only the interpretation/validity of Union law that applies).

The preliminary ruling procedure has been described as the “jewel of the crown” of the ECJ, enabling it to make a number of landmark judgements that not only clarified but in a sense extended the application of EU law,

In its jurisprudence, the ECJ has traditionally followed the doctrine of “effet utile,” aiming to have Union law apply as widely as possible when it comes to the rights of the Unions citizens. Even though its rulings made in the context of a specific case, they are considered to have precedence status (“erga omnes”)

A few of the landmark cases establishing the effects of the Union law are:

Van Gend Loos (1963)

Facts: Dutch transport company claimed that increase duty/customs payment was a violation of the Treaty(which provided that customs may not be raised). The question was, can an individual …. Rights from the Treaty or does it only apply to member states?

Ruling: The ECJ ruled that individuals (natural and legal person) do have rights under the Treaties directly,

This key decision marked the first step of the interpretation of Union law having DIRECT EFFECT.

Costa vs. ENEL (1964)

Facts: Italy nationalized electricity production and distribution. Mr, Costa claimed a loss of dividend due to this (in his opinion) “illegal” (Treaty violating) act.

Ruling: The ECJ confirmed the Van Gend Loos position that a citizen can make dividend claims. This case also clearly established the primacy of Union law over domestic law.

Frankovich

Facts: Italy had failed to implement the EC Directive requiring that funds be established to ensure payment of a few months salaries to the employees of a company that goes bankrupt. Mr. Frankovich claimed that Italy is liable for the loss he suffered (since the fund did not exist and thus he did not get the payments)

Ruling: The ECJ ruled that Italy is liable for the damages that arise from its failure to implement the directive.

This decision established DIRECT APPLICABILITY OF A DIRECTIVE under certain conditions (deadline for transposition elapsed , MS have failed to implement the Directive, citizen acted according to directive, directive gives a right to the citizen, casual link between damage and failure to implement can be established). This is very important ruling since normally directives would have to first be transposed into national law to have effect.