The European Union's political role has been a big issue among the main theoriticians of the European Union. The place of the European Parliament and the Commission in the process toward political unity is obvious. The Commission, as the institution which has the power for an initiative, can play a large role in every step towards political unity, while, The European Parliament, even if it is seen as powerless, is the institution where real political debates take place. That is why, it is more important to concentrate on the original place of the Court in the process of political unity. We have to understand why some people think that it is more relevant for advance of the EU's political unity than the other supernational institutions. The powers of the Courts are unique. It is clear that it is more powerful than other international courts, such as the European Court of Human Rights or the International Court of Justice, and even more powerful than most of the national courts. It has had a very important position in the European integration due to the fact that the Union is built under the rule of law. Nevertheless, the EU political unity cannot be realized only by an extensive application of treaties.
[...] Nevertheless, we are talking about an “indirect influence” (Dehousse, 1998: 82) which obviously has limits. The ECJ don't have a general competence to control every legislation done by the European institutions. To be allowed to express its opinion, another institution (the Commission most of the time) or a national judge has to summit it a matter. Moreover the Court always must to refer to the Treaties or any other source of the law to justify its verdict. To build a political unity, extend at a maximum the existing legislations is not enough. [...]
[...] Lectures about the European Court of Justice, the European Parliament and the Commission. Brown, N & Kennedy, T (1994). The Court of Justice of the European Communities, Sweet & Maxwell Dehousse, R (1998). The European Court of Justice, Macmillan Press Ltd Desmond, D (1999). Ever closer union, Macmillan Press Ltd Petersoon, J & Shackleton (2002). The institutions of the European Union, Oxford Wallace, H & W (2000). Policy-Making in the European Union, Oxford Weiler (1991), in Cini, M (2003). [...]
[...] They sit in the benches following their political ideas. Thus, the political groups are kind of European political parties which act in the Union as a group. For example, the European Peoples Party puts pressure on the Council to choose a president of the Commission from its political family. As for the Commission, its members are completely independent from their home state and they are here to represent the interest of the Union as a whole. And they do so. [...]
[...] The European Union Court of Justice is more relevant for the advance of the EU political unity than the Commission and the Parliament'. Discuss The European Court of Justice The Commission and the European Parliament are, what one usually calls, the supranational institutions of the European Union while the councils are the intergovernmental ones. The Court of justice was created by the Treaty of Paris which instituted the European Steel and Coal Community. After the Treaty of Rome, the member states decided that a single court would deal with legal disputes in the three communities. [...]
[...] We have to understand why some people think that it is more relevant for advance of the EU political unity than the others suprational institutions. The powers of the Courts are unique. It is clearly more powerful than other international courts, as the European Court of Human Rights or the International Court of Justice, or even than most of national courts. It has had a very important position in the European integration due to the fact that the Union is built under the rule of law. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
