European Parliament and ECJ: Jurisdiction and Annulment Powers

Overview of the European Parliament and the ECJ

The European Parliament (EP) and the Council of the European Union are the legislative branches of the European Union. The EP is the directly elected parliamentary institution of the EU and, as such, is the largest transnational directly elected institution in the world. It is one of the most powerful representative legislative bodies in the world, despite the fact that its powers are limited because each member state is sovereign. The Treaty of Maastricht divided the European Union into three distinct pillars: a Community (EC) pillar, a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) pillar, and a Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (PJCC) pillar.

The EP's involvement is practically limited to the EC pillar, though it does retain some limited power and influence in the CFSP and PJCC pillars. Because the EP's influence is strongest in the EC pillar, it has a significant degree of control over the EU's economic affairs. The European Parliament legislates in a wide range of areas, including customs, economic markets, agricultural policy, social policy, fisheries policy, economic competition, education, culture, citizenship, immigration, political asylum, consumer protection, healthcare, research, and environmental law. Despite its virtual confinement to one pillar, the EP wields significant power — for example, it controls the EU's budget and can veto appointments to the European Commission.

The Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) is the highest court in the European Union. It does not exercise jurisdiction over individual member nations' domestic laws and legal disputes, but rather over matters of European Union law. Its role is to interpret EU laws and to ensure their uniform application across member nations. The ECJ predates the modern formation of the EU; it was initially established as part of the European Coal and Steel Community, with the goal of resolving related disputes and questions. Its jurisdiction expanded in 1957 with the establishment of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. When the EU was created in 1993, the ECJ's jurisdiction remained substantially similar to what it had held prior to that creation, since the ECJ is largely involved in the Community pillar of the EU.

The ECJ also has lower courts. The Court of First Instance hears suits brought by non-EU employees, while the Civil Service Tribunal hears suits brought by EU employees. The ECJ has broad jurisdiction over Community disputes — but not national ones — and those disputes may be brought by and against member nations.

Because the ECJ's primary function is to interpret EU laws and ensure their consistent application throughout the EU, the ECJ and the European Parliament are interdependent. However, that does not mean the EP and the ECJ always work toward the same goals. On the contrary, the EP has shown an interest in expanding its own power, and that interest sometimes conflicts with the ECJ's role. The ECJ has the duty to interpret the EU's treaties and the laws and provisions promulgated by EU institutions. Member nations can be at fault for failing to adhere to treaty provisions, but the EP can also overstep its boundaries by attempting to exert greater influence and power than the treaties allow.

Extending the Borders of Parliament's Jurisdiction

While the EP has shown a desire to extend its jurisdiction, the ECJ has a duty to ensure that the EP does not go beyond the legal limits of its power. Three cases directly address the EP's jurisdiction and demonstrate the ECJ's role in extending or limiting it. In Les Verts, the ECJ determined that it had jurisdiction to review decisions made by the EP, even where such jurisdiction was not specifically conferred by law. While that decision did not overtly limit the EP's power, it did give the ECJ the power of judicial review, which has the potential to significantly constrain the EP's ability to adopt measures. In Chernobyl I, the EP brought an action to annul a regulation adopted by the Council of Ministers, which objected on the grounds of inadmissibility because the EP did not have authority to bring such an action under Article 146. However, the ECJ determined that the EP could bring an action for annulment against an act of the Council or the Commission, provided that such action was aimed solely at safeguarding the EP's prerogatives. Despite the ECJ's apparent willingness to extend the EP's jurisdiction, the court has also imposed limits. In Comitology, for example, the ECJ refused to grant the EP the power to bring an action for annulment where other available remedies gave the EP a substantial opportunity to challenge a Council action and where the action was not taken to safeguard the EP's prerogatives.