Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Global Perspectives on Subsidiarity pp 157–183Cite as

Subsidiarity as Judicial and Legislative Review Principles in the European Union

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 37))

Abstract

The founding Treaties of the European Union make clear that subsidiarity is a judicially enforceable legal principle. However, the case law of the Court of Justice reveals that the enforcement of subsidiarity as a judicial principle has been ineffective. The Court has applied a very weak standard of review for both substantive and procedural compliance with the subsidiarity principle. By far the most significant application of the subsidiarity principle is its consideration as part of the EU legislative process. A Member State legislature may issue a reasoned opinion regarding subsidiarity aspects of a proposal. These reasoned opinions may trigger the yellow card procedure, forcing the Commission to review its proposal, or the orange card procedure, where the Parliament or Council can block the proposal. These procedures have some potential as legislative safeguards of subsidiarity: in 2013 the Commission withdrew a legislative proposal after the yellow card procedure was activated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Art 130 R(4), Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, as amended by Art 25, Single European Act, Luxembourg, 17 February 1986, 1754 UNTS 111; OJ L 169, 29.6.1987, p. 1.

  2. 2.

    Art 3b, Treaty establishing the European Community, as amended by the Treaty of European Union, Maastricht, 7 February 1992, 1757 UNTS 3; OJ C 191, 29.7.1992, p. 1. See also Title I, Art B second para, Treaty on European Union, as originally adopted.

  3. 3.

    Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, as inserted by the Treaty of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 2 October 1997, UNTS No I: 47936; OJ C 340, 10.11.1997, p. 1 at 105.

  4. 4.

    Treaty of Lisbon, Lisbon, 13 December 2007, UNTS No I: 47938; OJ C 306, 17.12.2007, p. 1.

  5. 5.

    Preamble para 13, Treaty on European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 13.

  6. 6.

    Art 5(1), Treaty on European Union.

  7. 7.

    Art 5(3), Treaty on European Union.

  8. 8.

    Art 5, Treaty on European Union.

  9. 9.

    Ritzer et al. (2006, p. 737).

  10. 10.

    Horsley (2012, pp. 268–269).

  11. 11.

    Quoted in Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union. 2012. Eighteenth Bi-annual Report: Developments in European Union Procedures and Practices Relevant to Parliamentary Scrutiny. Brussels: COSAC Secretariat, p. 5. Available at http://www.cosac.eu

  12. 12.

    Moens (2004, p. 426).

  13. 13.

    Vischim Srl v Commission (T-420/05) [2009] ECR II-3841 at [223]. This decision was not appealed.

  14. 14.

    Horsley, above n 10, p. 275.

  15. 15.

    Conway (2010, p. 988).

  16. 16.

    Craig (2012, p. 74). See now Art 3(1), Treaty on European Union.

  17. 17.

    Art 3(1), Treaty on European Union.

  18. 18.

    Art 4(2), Treaty on European Union.

  19. 19.

    Art 5, Protocol (No 2) on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 206.

  20. 20.

    para 3, Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, as adopted by the Treaty of Amsterdam, OJ C 340, 10.11.1997, pp. 105–106.

  21. 21.

    Commission of the European Communities. 2003. ‘Better Lawmaking 2003’: Report from the Commission pursuant to Art 9 of the Protocol … (11th Report). COM(2003)770 final, p. 20.

  22. 22.

    Art 51(1), Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 391.

  23. 23.

    Art 6(1), Treaty on European Union; Art 51(1), Charter of Fundamental Rights.

  24. 24.

    Art 6(1), Treaty on European Union.

  25. 25.

    Protocols No 15–18, 20–22, 31–32, 34–35. See also the Protocol on the Concerns of the Irish People on the Treaty of Lisbon, Brussels, 16 May 2012, OJ L 60, 2.3.2013, p. 131.

  26. 26.

    Art 20, Treaty on European Union; Art 326, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 47.

  27. 27.

    Art 20(4), Treaty on European Union.

  28. 28.

    Council Regulation 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, OJ L 343, 29.12.2010, p. 10.

  29. 29.

    Regulation 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection, OJ L 361, 31.12.2012, p. 1.

  30. 30.

    Council Decision 2013/52 of 22 January 2013 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction tax, OJ L 22, 25.1.2013, p. 11.

  31. 31.

    Art 8, Protocol No 2.

  32. 32.

    See Art 263, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  33. 33.

    Besselink and van Mourik (2012, p. 47).

  34. 34.

    Cygan (2013, p. 169).

  35. 35.

    Art 23(1a), Constitution of Germany (1949), inserted by amendment of 8 October 2008, Bundesgesetzblatt I 1926.

  36. 36.

    Treaty of Lisbon Case [2010] 3 CMLR 276 at p. 381 (No 13); 141 ILR 554 at p. 696; BVerfGE 123, 267 at p. 431 (2009).

  37. 37.

    Art 88-6, Constitution of France (1958), inserted by amendment of 4 February 2008, Journal Officiel de la République Française, 5 February 2008, p. 2202.

  38. 38.

    http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/qui; http://www.senat.fr/lng/en/senators.html

  39. 39.

    Art 23h, Constitution of Austria (1920), inserted by amendment of 27 July 2010, Bundesgesetzblatt I No 57/2010.

  40. 40.

    s 7(4), European Union Act 2009 (Ireland).

  41. 41.

    Art 8, Protocol No 2. The following provisions provide for mandatory consultation with the Committee: Arts 91, 100, 148–149, 153, 164–168, 172, 175, 177–178, 192 and 194, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. See Legal Service, Committee of the Regions. nd. Practical Guide on the Infringement of the Subsidiarity Principle, p. 6.

  42. 42.

    Legal Service, above n 41, pp. 5, 6, 8. The time limitation is set out in Art 263, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  43. 43.

    Rule 53(2), Committee of the Regions Rules of Procedure, OJ L 6, 9.1.2010, p. 14.

  44. 44.

    Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘The posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services’, OJ C 17, 19.1.2013, p. 67 at 69.

  45. 45.

    Ritzer, above n 9, p. 760.

  46. 46.

    House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee. 2008. Subsidiarity, National Parliaments and the Lisbon Treaty. HC 563, Session 2007–08, p Ev 3 (evidence of Prof Alan Dashwood).

  47. 47.

    Committee of the Regions, Subsidiarity Annual Report. 2011 R/CdR 1188/2012, p. 31.

  48. 48.

    Delehanty (2010, p. 137).

  49. 49.

    Craig, above n 16, p. 80.

  50. 50.

    United Kingdom v Council (Re Working Time Directive) (C-84/94) [1996] ECR I-5755; [1996] 3 CMLR 671. See Moens (1997).

  51. 51.

    Working Time Directive, above n 50, [4].

  52. 52.

    Art 118a(1)–(2), Treaty Establishing the European Community, as revised by the Treaty of Maastricht, consolidated at OJ C 224, 31.8.1992, p. 6 at 45.

  53. 53.

    Working Time Directive, above n 50, [46].

  54. 54.

    Working Time Directive, above n 50, [47].

  55. 55.

    Sander (2006, p. 538).

  56. 56.

    Working Time Directive, above n 50, [50].

  57. 57.

    Working Time Directive, above n 50, [54].

  58. 58.

    Working Time Directive, above n 50, [55].

  59. 59.

    Working Time Directive, above n 50, [56].

  60. 60.

    Germany v Parliament (Re Deposit Guarantee Directive) (C-233/94) [1997] ECR I-2405; [1997] 3 CMLR 1379.

  61. 61.

    Deposit Guarantee Directive, above n 60, [24].

  62. 62.

    Art 190, Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, as revised by the Maastricht Treaty, OC C 224, 31.8.1992, p. 6 at 67. See now Art 296, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  63. 63.

    Deposit Guarantee Directive, above n 60, [26].

  64. 64.

    Deposit Guarantee Directive, above n 60, [27].

  65. 65.

    Deposit Guarantee Directive, above n 60, [28].

  66. 66.

    Delehanty, above n 48, pp. 135–136; see also Evans (2012, p. 279).

  67. 67.

    Netherlands v European Parliament (C-377/98) [2001] ECR I-7079 at [33]; [2001] 3 CMLR 49 (p. 1173).

  68. 68.

    R v Secretary of State for Health; Ex parte British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd (C-491/01) [2002] ECR I-11453; [2003] 1 CMLR 14 (p. 395).

  69. 69.

    British American Tobacco, above n 68, [180].

  70. 70.

    British American Tobacco, above n 68, [181].

  71. 71.

    British American Tobacco, above n 68, [182].

  72. 72.

    British American Tobacco, above n 68, [183].

  73. 73.

    British American Tobacco, above n 68, [184]. The Court referred back to its previous discussion of this point at [122]–[141].

  74. 74.

    Commission v Germany (C-103/01) [2003] ECR I-5369.

  75. 75.

    Commission v Germany, above n 74, [47].

  76. 76.

    R (On the Application of Alliance for Natural Health) v Secretary of State for Health (C-154/04) [2005] ECR I-6451; [2005] 2 CMLR 61 (p. 1490).

  77. 77.

    Alliance for Natural Health, above n 76, [107].

  78. 78.

    Alliance for Natural Health, above n 76, [105].

  79. 79.

    Alliance for Natural Health, above n 76, [106].

  80. 80.

    R v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform; Ex parte Vodafone Ltd (C-58/08) [2010] ECR I-4999; [2010] 3 CMLR 44 (p. 1189).

  81. 81.

    Vodafone, above n 80, [50].

  82. 82.

    Vodafone, above n 80, [76].

  83. 83.

    Vodafone, above n 80, [77].

  84. 84.

    Vodafone, above n 80, [78].

  85. 85.

    Vodafone, above n 80, [79].

  86. 86.

    Luxembourg v European Parliament (C-176/09) [2011] ECR I-3727.

  87. 87.

    Luxembourg, above n 86, [73].

  88. 88.

    Luxembourg, above n 86, [81].

  89. 89.

    Luxembourg, above n 86, [82].

  90. 90.

    Luxembourg, above n 86, [80].

  91. 91.

    Kellinghusen v Amt für Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Kiel (C-36/97) [1998] ECR I-6337 at [35].

  92. 92.

    Vereniging van Samenwerkende Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid v Commission (T-29/92) [1995] ECR II-289 at [330]–[331], appeal dismissed (C-137/95 P) [1996] ECR I-1611.

  93. 93.

    Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v Bosman (C-415/93) [1995] ECR I-4921 at [81]; [1996] 1 CMLR 645.

  94. 94.

    Legal Service, above n 41, pp. 38, 41–43, 44, 51.

  95. 95.

    Tridimas (2006, p. 185).

  96. 96.

    Baker v Carr 369 US 186 at p. 217 (1962); Nixon v United States 506 US 224 at p. 228 (1993); Zivotofsky v Clinton 132S Ct 1421 at p. 1427 (2012).

  97. 97.

    R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254 at pp. 267–268 (HC); (1957) 95 CLR 529 at p. 540 (PC).

  98. 98.

    Wechsler (1954, p. 559).

  99. 99.

    Garcia v San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority 469 US 528 at p. 552 (1985).

  100. 100.

    New York v United States 505 US 144 at p. 160 (1992).

  101. 101.

    Seminole Tribe of Florida v Florida 517 US 44 at p. 184 (1996) (Souter J, dissenting); Printz v United States 521 US 898 at p. 957 (1997) (Stevens J, dissenting); Kimel v Florida Board of Regents 528 US 62 at p. 93 (2000) (Stevens J, dissenting in part and concurring in part).

  102. 102.

    New York, above n 100, pp. 161, 175; Printz, above n 101, p. 933; Reno v Condon 528 US 141 at pp. 149–150 (2000).

  103. 103.

    Davies (2006, pp. 67–68).

  104. 104.

    Davies, above n 103, p. 78.

  105. 105.

    Schütze (2009, p. 533).

  106. 106.

    Schütze, above n 105, p. 534.

  107. 107.

    Horsley, above n 10, pp. 272, 274; see also Evans, above n 66, p. 271.

  108. 108.

    Arts 14, 95, Treaty establishing the European Community, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam. See now Arts 26, 114, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  109. 109.

    Germany v Parliament (Re the Validity of Directive 98/43 on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship) (C-376/98) [2000] ECR I-8419 at [83]; [2000] 3 CMLR 1175. See Horsley, above n 10, pp. 270–271.

  110. 110.

    United States v Lopez 514 US 549 at p. 567 (1995).

  111. 111.

    Eg British American Tobacco, above n 68, [175]–[176]. See also Craig, above n 16, p. 81.

  112. 112.

    Baker v R (2004) 223 CLR 513 at [54]; [2004] HCA 45.

  113. 113.

    Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51.

  114. 114.

    International Finance Trust Co Ltd v New South Wales Crime Commission (2009) 240 CLR 319; [2009] HCA 49; South Australia v Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1; [2010] HCA 39; Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181; [2011] HCA 24.

  115. 115.

    The Commission is required to issue an annual report on the application of subsidiarity. See Art 9, Protocol No 2.

  116. 116.

    Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, Rome, 29 October 2004, OJ C 310, 16.12.2004, p. 1; EC 2004 No 8 (Cm 6429).

  117. 117.

    European Convention. 2002. Conclusions of Working Group I on the Principle of Subsidiarity. CONV 286/02, p. 2.

  118. 118.

    Barker (1991, pp. 353–354). Or “foxes guarding henhouses”: Sander, above n 55, p. 546.

  119. 119.

    Constantin (2008, p. 160). See Art 294(2), Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  120. 120.

    Commission of the European Communities. 2009. Report from the Commission on Subsidiarity and Proportionality (16th Report on Better Lawmaking covering the year 2008). COM(2009) 504 final, p. 2.

  121. 121.

    Art 2, Protocol No 2.

  122. 122.

    Craig, above n 16, p. 75.

  123. 123.

    Art 288, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; Boehringer Ingelheim KG v Swingward Ltd (C-348/04) [2007] ECR I-3391 at [58]; [2007] 2 CMLR 52 (p. 1445).

  124. 124.

    European Commission. 2010. Report from the Commission on Subsidiarity and Proportionality (17th Report on Better Lawmaking covering the year 2009). COM(2010) 547 final, p. 4.

  125. 125.

    Commission of the European Communities. 2007. Commission Staff Working Paper. SEC(2007) 737, p. 36.

  126. 126.

    Art 5, Protocol (No 30) on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, as adopted by the Treaty of Amsterdam, OJ C 321, 29.12.2006, p. 308.

  127. 127.

    European Commission. 2010. Report from the Commission on Subsidiarity and Proportionality (17th Report on Better Lawmaking covering the year 2009). COM(2010) 547 final, p. 3; European Commission. 2011. Report from the Commission on Subsidiarity and Proportionality (18th Report on Better Lawmaking covering the year 2010). COM(2011) 344 final, p. 2.

  128. 128.

    Reasoned Opinion of the House of Commons concerning a Draft Regulation on the exercise of the right to take collective action within the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services at [14]–[17]. The House resolved to submit this opinion to the EU institutions. See House of Commons Hansard, 22 May 2012, column 1014.

  129. 129.

    Impact assessments are available on the Commission website at http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/index_en.htm

  130. 130.

    European Commission. 2009. Impact Assessment Guidelines. SEC(2009) 92, p. 22.

  131. 131.

    Reasoned Opinion of the House of Commons: Draft Regulation on a Common European Sales Law for the European Union at [18]. The House resolved to submit this opinion to the EU institutions. See House of Commons Hansard, 7 December 2011, column 325.

  132. 132.

    House of Lords European Union Committee. 2011. Subsidiarity Assessment: Distribution of Food Products to Deprived Persons. HL Paper 217, Session 2010–12, [10]. The House resolved to submit this opinion to the EU institutions. See House of Lords Hansard, 28 November 2011, column 94. The Committee had advanced the same view in its report on an earlier version of the proposal. See House of Lords European Union Committee. 2010. Subsidiarity Assessment: Distribution of Food Products to Deprived Persons. HL Paper 44, Session 2010–11, [9]. The House also resolved to submit that opinion to the EU institutions. See House of Lords Hansard, 3 November 2010, column 1693.

  133. 133.

    European Commission. 2009. Impact Assessment Guidelines. SEC(2009) 92, p. 22.

  134. 134.

    Art 4, Protocol No 2.

  135. 135.

    Art 5, Protocol No 2.

  136. 136.

    Reasoned Opinion of the House of Commons: Draft Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures at [16]. The House resolved to submit this opinion to the EU institutions. See House of Commons Hansard, 7 January 2013, column 76.

  137. 137.

    Reasoned Opinion of the House of Commons: Draft Directive on a common consolidated corporate tax base at [19]. A similar statement adds the words “and their elected representatives”. See Reasoned Opinion of the House of Commons: Draft Regulation on a Common European Sales Law for the European Union at [13]. The House resolved to submit these opinions to the EU institutions. See House of Commons Hansard, 11 May 2011, column 1304; 7 December 2011, column 325.

  138. 138.

    Point II(3), Inter-Institutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on procedures for implementing the principle of subsidiarity, OJ C 329, 6.12.1993, p. 135.

  139. 139.

    Rule 38a(2) and Annex VII Point XVI(2), Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, OJ L 116, 5.5.2011, p. 1 at 23, 90; European Commission. 2011. Report from the Commission on Subsidiarity and Proportionality (18th Report on Better Lawmaking covering the year 2010). COM(2011) 344 final, p. 4. The website of the Committee on Legal Affairs is at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/JURI/home.html

  140. 140.

    Commission v Council (C-25/94) [1996] ECR I-1469 at [26].

  141. 141.

    Art 16(7), Treaty on European Union; Art 240(1), Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  142. 142.

    Ritzer, above n 9, p. 758.

  143. 143.

    Art 6, Protocol No 2; Art 4, Protocol (No 1) on the Role of National Parliaments in the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 203. In view of national parliamentary recesses, the month of August is not included in calculating the 8 week deadline. See Letter from the President of the Commission to Member State Parliaments, 1 December 2009, p. 4. Legislation introduced in June or July may thus be subject to up to 12 weeks scrutiny by Member State legislatures. See Danish Folketing European Affairs Committee. 2010. Report on Consideration of EU Matters by the Folketing in Relation to Subsidiarity Checks, Annex I.

  144. 144.

    Korhonen (2011, p. 7).

  145. 145.

    European Parliament Committee on Constitutional Affairs. 2011. Opinion on better legislation, subsidiarity and proportionality and smart regulation. 2011/2029(INI), p. 3.

  146. 146.

    European Parliament resolution of 14 September 2011 on better legislation, subsidiarity and proportionality and smart regulation, OJ C 51E, 22.2.2013, p. 87.

  147. 147.

    Art 3, Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, as inserted by the Treaty of Amsterdam.

  148. 148.

    Art 6, Protocol No 2.

  149. 149.

    s 7(3), European Union Act 2009 (Ireland).

  150. 150.

    European Commission. 2012. Report from the Commission on Subsidiarity and Proportionality (19th Report on Better Lawmaking covering the year 2011). COM(2012) 373 final, p. 4.

  151. 151.

    European Commission. 2011. Report from the Commission on Subsidiarity and Proportionality (18th Report on Better Lawmaking covering the year 2010). COM(2011) 344 final, p. 10.

  152. 152.

    House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, above n 46, [29].

  153. 153.

    http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/relations/relations_other/npo/index_en.htm. Reasoned opinions are also available at http://www.ipex.eu/IPEXL-WEB/search.do

  154. 154.

    Art 7(1), Protocol No 2.

  155. 155.

    Ritzer, above n 9, p. 753.

  156. 156.

    Cooper (2006, p. 283).

  157. 157.

    Cooper, above n 156, p. 293.

  158. 158.

    Cooper, above n 156, p. 294.

  159. 159.

    Louis (2008, p. 438); Fabbrini and Granat (2013, pp. 118 n 13).

  160. 160.

    Louis, above n 159, p. 438.

  161. 161.

    Schütze, above n 105, p. 530; Fabbrini, above n 159, pp. 119–120, 122.

  162. 162.

    See generally Kiiver (2012).

  163. 163.

    Art 7(1), Protocol No 2.

  164. 164.

    Declaration (No 51) by the Kingdom of Belgium on National Parliaments, OJ C 306, 17.12.2007, p. 267. See Arts 2–3, Constitution of Belgium (1994).

  165. 165.

    Art 7(2), Protocol No 2.

  166. 166.

    Croatia became a Member State on 1 July 2013, bringing total EU membership to 28 nations. See Treaty of Accession of Croatia, Brussels, 9 December 2011, OJ L 112, 24.4.2012, p. 10.

  167. 167.

    See Art 67, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  168. 168.

    Art 7(2), Protocol No 2.

  169. 169.

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 2004. White Paper on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. Cm 6309, p. 19.

  170. 170.

    See Art 294, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  171. 171.

    Art 7(3), Protocol No 2.

  172. 172.

    Art 7(3)(a)-(b), Protocol No 2.

  173. 173.

    House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, above n 46, p Ev 6 (evidence of Prof Alan Dashwood).

  174. 174.

    Fabbrini, above n 159, p. 121.

  175. 175.

    Cooper, above n 156, p. 293.

  176. 176.

    Craig, above n 16, p. 79; Besselink, above n 33, p. 46. See generally Jančić (2012, p. 83).

  177. 177.

    House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, above n 46, [21].

  178. 178.

    Proposal for a Council Regulation on the exercise of the right to take collective action within the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, COM (2012) 130 (Celex Number 52012PC0130). See European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs. 2012. Report on the 18th Report on Better Legislation. A7-0251/2012, p. 5.

  179. 179.

    Fabbrini, above n 159, pp. 116, 135. The yellow card threshold that applied at the time was 18 votes out of 54, based on the then 27 Member Union.

  180. 180.

    Letter from the Vice-President of the Commission to the Speaker of the United Kingdom House of Commons, 12 September 2012, available at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/relations/relations_other/npo/index_en.htm

  181. 181.

    Fabbrini, above n 159, pp. 116, 136–137, 139.

  182. 182.

    Art 5(3), Treaty on European Union.

  183. 183.

    Art 2, Protocol No 2.

  184. 184.

    Art 5, Protocol No 2.

  185. 185.

    Cygan, above n 34, p. 167.

  186. 186.

    Art 6, Protocol No 2.

  187. 187.

    House of Lords European Union Committee. 2012. Report on 2010–12. HL Paper 13, Session 2012–13, [115].

  188. 188.

    Reasoned Opinion of the House of Commons concerning a Draft Directive on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and a Draft Directive on public procurement at [18], contained in European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs Notice to Members (29/2012). The House of Commons resolved to submit this opinion to the EU institutions. See House of Commons Hansard, 6 March 2012, column 767.

  189. 189.

    Reasoned Opinion, above n 188, [26]–[27].

  190. 190.

    Cygan, above n 34, p. 169.

  191. 191.

    Commission of the European Communities. 2006. ‘Better Lawmaking 2005’ Report from the Commission pursuant to Article 9 of the Protocol … (13th Report). COM(2006) 289 final, p. 8.

  192. 192.

    See https://portal.cor.europa.eu/subsidiarity/Pages/default.aspx

  193. 193.

    Rule 51(2), Committee of the Regions Rules of Procedure, OJ L 6, 9.1.2010, p. 14.

  194. 194.

    Schütze, above n 105, p. 534.

  195. 195.

    Schütze, above n 105, p. 533.

  196. 196.

    Schütze, above n 105, p. 534.

  197. 197.

    Craig, above n 16, p. 78; Vandenbruwaene (2012, p. 340).

  198. 198.

    Eg Moens and Trone (2010, pp. 45–49).

  199. 199.

    Art 5, Protocol (No 30) on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, as adopted by the Treaty of Amsterdam.

  200. 200.

    As required by Art 5, Protocol No 2.

  201. 201.

    Eg Stauder v City of Ulm (29/69) [1969] ECR 419 at p. 425; [1970] CMLR 112 at p. 119; Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr-und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel (11/70) [1970] ECR 1125 at [4]; [1972] CMLR 255.

  202. 202.

    Schütze, above n 105, p. 534; see also Evans, above n 66, p. 272.

  203. 203.

    Gregory v Ashcroft 501 US 452 at p. 461 (1991).

  204. 204.

    Moens and Trone, above n 198, pp. 55, 59, 386–390.

  205. 205.

    Art 296, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. See formerly Art 253, Treaty Establishing the Economic Community, as revised by the Treaty of Amsterdam; Art 190, Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, as revised by the Maastricht Treaty.

  206. 206.

    Art 5, Protocol No 2.

  207. 207.

    Bermann (2008, p. 458).

  208. 208.

    Delehanty, above n 48, p. 139; House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, above n 46, [36]; Fabbrini, above n 159, pp. 119–120. The introduction of a ‘red card’ procedure was proposed but not adopted during the negotiations preceding the ill-fated European Constitution. See European Convention. 2003. The Early Warning Mechanism – Putting it into Practice. CONV 540/03, p. 3; Van Nuffel (2011, pp. 71–72).

  209. 209.

    Cooper, above n 156, pp. 289, 293.

  210. 210.

    House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, above n 46, [23].

  211. 211.

    Moens and Trone, above n 198, pp. 6–10.

  212. 212.

    Cygan, above n 34, pp. 167–169.

References

  • Barker, Robert S. 1991. Taking constitutionalism seriously: Costa Rica’s Sala Cuarta. Florida Journal of International Law 6: 349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bermann, George A. 2008. National parliaments and subsidiarity: An outsider’s view. European Constitutional Law Review 4: 453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besselink, Leonard F.M., and Brecht van Mourik. 2012. The Parliamentary Legitimacy of the European Union: The role of the States General within the European Union. Utrecht Law Review 8(1): 28. Available at http://www.utrechtlawreview.org

  • Constantin, Simona. 2008. Rethinking subsidiarity and the balance of powers in the EU in the light of the Lisbon Treaty and beyond. Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy 4: 151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway, Gerard. 2010. Conflicts of competence norms in EU law and the legal reasoning of the ECJ. German Law Journal 11(9): 966. Available at http://www.germanlawjournal.com

  • Cooper, Ian. 2006. The watchdogs of subsidiarity: National Parliaments and the logic of arguing in the EU. Journal of Common Market Studies 44: 281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, Paul. 2012. Subsidiarity: A political and legal analysis. Journal of Common Market Studies 50: 72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cygan, Adam. 2013. Regional governance, subsidiarity and accountability within the EU’s multi-level polity. European Public Law 19: 161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, Gareth. 2006. Subsidiarity: The wrong idea, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Common Market Law Review 43: 63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delehanty, Michael Marc. 2010. Subsidiarity and Seanad Éireann. Trinity College Law Review 13: 133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Michelle. 2012. The use of the principle of subsidiarity in the reformation of Australia’s Federal System of Government. PhD thesis, Curtin University School of Business Law and Taxation, Perth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabbrini, Federico, and Katarzyna Granat. 2013. Yellow card, but no foul: The role of the national parliaments under the subsidiarity protocol and the Commission proposal for an EU regulation on the right to strike. Common Market Law Review 50: 115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horsley, Thomas. 2012. Subsidiarity and the European Court of Justice: Missing pieces in the subsidiarity jigsaw? Journal of Common Market Studies 50: 267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jančić, Davor. 2012. The Barroso Initiative: Window dressing or democracy boost? Utrecht Law Review 8: 78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiiver, Philip. 2012. The early warning system for the principle of subsidiarity: Constitutional theory and empirical reality. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korhonen, Kaisa. 2011. Guardians of subsidiarity: National parliaments strive to control EU decision-making, Briefing paper 84. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of International Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louis, Jean-Victor. 2008. National parliaments and the principle of subsidiarity – Legal options and practical limits. European Constitutional Law Review 4: 429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moens, Gabriël A. 1997. The subsidiarity principle and EC Directive 93/104. Australian and World Affairs 34: 51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moens, Gabriël A. 2004. The subsidiarity principle in European Union law and the Irish abortion issue. In Legal culture and politics in the twenty first century, ed. Guenther Doeker-Mach, Klaus A. Ziegert, and Klaus A. Ziegert, 424. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moens, Gabriël, and John Trone. 2010. Commercial law of the European Union. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ritzer, Christopher, Marc Rutloff, and Karin Linhart. 2006. How to sharpen a dull sword – The principle of subsidiarity and its control. German Law Journal 7(9): 733. Available at http://www.germanlawjournal.com

  • Sander, Florian. 2006. Subsidiarity infringements before the European Court of Justice: Futile interference with politics or a substantial step towards EU federalism? Columbia Journal of European Law 12: 517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze, Robert. 2009. Subsidiarity after Lisbon: Reinforcing the safeguards of federalism? Cambridge Law Journal 68: 525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tridimas, Takis. 2006. The general principles of EU law, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Nuffel, Piet. 2011. The protection of member states’ regions through the subsidiarity principle. In The role of the regions in EU governance, ed. Carlo Panara and Alexander De Becker, 55. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandenbruwaene, Werner. 2012. Multi-tiered political questions: The ECJ’s mandate in enforcing subsidiarity. Legisprudence 6: 321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, Herbert. 1954. The political safeguards of federalism: The role of the states in the composition and selection of the national government. Columbia Law Review 54: 543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Curtin Law School, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, 6102, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

    Gabriël A. Moens

  2. Adjunct Professor, School of Law, Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Murdoch, 6150, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

    John Trone

Authors
  1. Gabriël A. Moens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Trone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriël A. Moens .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Curtin University Law School, Bentley, Perth, West Australia, Australia

    Michelle Evans

  2. Murdoch University School of Law, Perth, West Australia, Australia

    Augusto Zimmermann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Moens, G.A., Trone, J. (2014). Subsidiarity as Judicial and Legislative Review Principles in the European Union. In: Evans, M., Zimmermann, A. (eds) Global Perspectives on Subsidiarity. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 37. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8810-6_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation