Inter-institutional Disputes and Treaty-making

• Autores: Panos Koutrakos
• Localización: European law review, ISSN 0307-5400, Nº 5, 2014, págs. 599-600
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • One of the more tangible changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty has been the considerable strengthening of the position of the European Parliament in the Union's institutional structure.

    This has been acutely felt in the area of external relations where the Parliament has not shied away from flexing its newly found muscle. The episodes of the rejection of the original SWIFT Agreement and the renegotiation of the PNR Agreement between the EU and the United States, as well as the rejection of ACTA, have left no doubt as to the significance of the Parliament's status in the area.

    The recent judgment of the Court of Justice in European Parliament v Council provides another reminder to that effect. This case was about the agreement between the EU and Mauritius on the transfer of individuals suspected of piracy at sea by EU personnel to the Mauritius authorities and the conditions that the latter ought to meet. The Agreement was concluded in the context of the anti-piracy operation Atalanta, which the Union has been carrying out off the coast of Somalia as part of its Common Security and Defence Policy.

    There were two main points raised by the Parliament in its action. The first was about theconclusion of the Agreement. As it was viewed by the Council to relate exclusively to the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), it was concluded, accordingly, under art.218(6) TFEU which did not provide for any input from the Parliament. However, the Parliament argued that, as the Agreement was about the transfer of suspected pirates with a view to their prosecution, it also related to judicial cooperation in criminal matters, police cooperation and development cooperation. Given that the ordinary legislative procedure applied to decision making in these areas, the Parliament claimed that the Agreement should have been adopted under art.218(6)(a)(v) TFEU which provided for its consent.