Legal System in European Union

However, Europe`s common legal heritage was obscured by the separate development of continental and English legal traditions (from the 11th century onwards), the rise of sovereign nation-states claiming exclusive jurisdiction over their territory (mainly in the 17th century), and legal nationalism (in the 19th century). At the end of the 20th century, however, the economic integration promoted by the European Community led to a renewed interest in European law. This has occurred in parallel with the weakening of some of the characteristic features of civil law and common law traditions in modern bureaucratic states. For example, the pervasive growth of modern economic regulation legislation and the administrative and judicial bodies that oversee it has reduced both the central use of comprehensive codes in civil law systems and the organic development of jurisprudence in common law systems. The institutions adopt only the acts listed in Article 288 TFEU. The only exceptions are the common foreign, security and defence policy, which continues to be governed by the intergovernmental method. In this area, common strategies, joint actions and common positions have been replaced by `general guidelines` and `decisions laying down the measures and positions to be implemented by the Union and the arrangements for implementing those decisions (Article 25 TEU). EU law and the national law of EU Member States are closely linked. Historically, they form two different legal systems, but today they can be considered part of the same legal system. This chapter explains the relationship between EU law and national law, first by addressing the status of EU law in national law, and then by addressing the relevance of national law to EU law. The status and impact of EU law on national legal systems has already received a great deal of attention from lawyers, which is why the chapter focuses in particular on the second aspect, which has received much less attention so far. The role of national law at EU level is examined here by examining the different functions of Member States` national legislation in the context of EU law, examining the relevance of national substantive law and procedural and institutional law at EU level. This chapter concludes that the relationship between EU law and domestic law is fundamentally different from the traditional dichotomy between international and domestic law.

Member States` national legislation has had a direct impact on the content of EU law and continues to do so. Moreover, the way in which Union law exploits national law, in particular national institutional law, for its own purposes and uses national administrative bodies for the same purposes suggests that Union law and national law are best understood as a single complex system of multi-level governance. Under primary law, the EU has limited enforcement powers, as EU law is generally applied by Member States. In addition, Article 291(1) TFEU provides that `Member States shall adopt all measures of national law necessary for the implementation of legally binding Union acts`. Where uniform conditions for the implementation of legally binding Union acts are required, the Commission shall exercise its implementing powers (Article 291(2) TFEU). International law is generally not part of national law unless this effect is recognized in the national legal order. Article 21 confers general rights to free movement within the EU and to free residence within the limits set by law. This applies to citizens and their immediate family members. [239] This triggers four broad groups of rights: (1) entry, exit and return without undue restrictions, (2) residence without imposing an unfair burden on social assistance, (3) participation in local and European elections, and (4) the right to equal treatment with nationals of the host country, but to social assistance only after 3 months of residence.

Kelsen H (1982) The concept of the legal system. Am J Jurisprud 27:64-84 In addition to these general references to the obligations of national authorities, Union law may contain more specific requirements concerning the status and functioning of national bodies. A clear and well-known example is the role of national courts in the EU legal order and the requirements stemming from the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (rights to an effective remedy and to a fair trial) and the abovementioned Article 267 TFEU, as well as from the provisions of the Statute of the Court of Justice and its Rules of Procedure. procedure governing preliminary ruling procedures. Footnote 53 Sometimes EU law goes even further by ordering Member States to designate certain national courts to carry out certain EU tasks under EU law. An example is the requirement of Article 123 para. 1 of the EU Trade Mark Regulation, footnote 54, entitled `EU trade mark courts`, provides that Member States `shall designate within their territory as limited a number as possible of national courts of first and second instance to carry out the tasks conferred on them by this Regulation`. Those tasks shall include infringement actions and counterclaims for revocation or invalidity of the EU trade mark. Footnote 55 The final stage of the complete free movement of capital required a single currency and monetary policy that eliminated transaction costs and exchange rate fluctuations. Following a report by the Delors Commission in 1988[288], economic and monetary union was declared an objective, firstly by the completion of the internal market, secondly by the creation of a European System of Central Banks for the coordination of the common monetary policy and, thirdly, by fixing exchange rates and introducing a single currency. the euro.

Today, 19 Member States have adopted the euro, while 9 Member States have chosen not to do so or whose accession has been delayed, especially since the crisis in the euro area. In accordance with Articles 119 and 127 TFEU, the objective of the European Central Bank and other central banks should be price stability. This has been criticised because it clearly exceeds the objective of full employment in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union. [289] The recommendations allow the EU institutions to express their views and propose a course of action without imposing a legal obligation on those to whom they are addressed. They have no binding force. 10. Weiler 1991. In 1974, the ECJ further extended the obligations of the Member States by giving EU directives direct effect and making them more legally binding. In 1991, it introduced a fine for those States that had not transposed the Directives in time. Van Duyn v Home Office, Case 41/74 [1974] ECR 1337. Francovich v.

Italy, C-6, 9/90, judgment of the ECJ of 19 November 1991, ECR 1991.