Secondary sources

Article 288 TFEU describes the instruments that constitute the secondary sources: regulations, directives, decisions and recommendations and opinion. In some languages, secondary legislation is commonly referred to as ‘derived law’, for example: droit dérivé in French abgeleitetes Recht in German or derecho derivado in Spanish. Regulations, directives and decisions are legally binding instruments, while recommendations and opinions have no binding force. (Kaczorowska 2013:123). Regulations, directives or decisions can be legislative or non-legislative acts (Article 289(1)(2)(3) and Article 297(2) TFEU) (see

Regulations are sometimes compared with legislation made by Member States because they

35 are directly applicable. But they are not called leyes, lois or Gesetze, which are terms that are reserved for national norms. The phrase ‘directly applicable’ means that regulations are part of the national legal systems, without the need for transformation or adoption by separate legal measures (Craig & de Burca 2011:105). However, if the national legislation is not in line with the objective of a regulation Member States need to modify their law in order to comply with the regulation. This does not alter the fact that the regulation itself has legal effect in the Member States independently of any national law.⁵⁹

1.5.4.2. Directive Member States, and they are binding as to the aim to be achieved. There are areas where it is difficult to devise regulations with the requisite specificity, which are suited to immediate effect in the Member States, especially because the Member States have differing legal systems, and there are variations in the political, administrative and social arrangements within the Member States (Craig & de Búrca 2011:106). In this respect, directives are useful under certain conditions, or to introduce complex legislative change. This is because discretion is left to the Member States as to how to implement the directive. As mentioned

59 Case 34/73 Variola v Amministrazione delle Finanze, EU:C:1973:101: ‘10. The direct application of a regulation means that its entry into force and its application in favour of or against those subject to it are independent of any measure of reception into national law. By virtue of the obligations arising from the treaty and assumed on ratification, member states are under a duty not to obstruct the direct applicability inherent in Regulations and other rules of Community Law.’

36 before, directives can have direct effect, enabling individuals to rely on them at least in vertical relations (actions against the state), and Member States can be liable in damages for non-implementation of a directive.⁶⁰

When Member States transpose a directive, the transposition into national law ‘does not necessarily require the relevant provisions to be enacted in precisely the same words in a specific express legal provision; a general legal context may be sufficient if it actually ensures the full application of the directive in a sufficiently clear and precise manner’.⁶¹ Some authors argue, however, that copying the exact text can be a way to avoid disputes.⁶²

Member States must provide the European Commission with a list of measures that have been taken in order to implement the directives. This facilitates the task of the Commission regarding the determination of conformity of national law with EU law in the area covered by the directive. When a Member State does not notify the Commission or provides an incomplete notification, it is in breach of Article 4(3) TEU even if it has taken all measures.

The Commission is empowered to bring action before the CJEU by virtue of Article 258

In most cases, decisions have specific addressees, as exemplified by the many decisions made in the context of competition and state aid. Nevertheless, some decisions are of a more generic

60 Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, Andrea Francovich and Others v Italian Republic, EU:C:1991:428.

61 See, for instance, Case 247/85 Commission v Kingdom of Belgium, EU:C:1987:339 or Case 252/85 Commission v France, EU:C:1988:202.

62 See Hartley (1996:284) on the discussion about the ‘copy-out’ technique when transposing directives.

37 nature, setting out the legal rules to govern an inter-institutional issue such as comitology, or providing the legal foundation for Community programmes (Craig & de Burca 2011:107).

It is worth remarking that in German there is some confusion as regards the term Beschluss.

First of all, before the Treaty of Lisbon, when referring to the three main types of legal acts, the term Entscheidung was used instead of Beschluss (emphasis added):

Article 249 EC Treaty Article 288 TFEU

Zur Erfuellung ihrer Aufgaben und nach Maßgabe dieses Vertrags erlassen das Europäische Parlament und der Rat gemeinsam, der Rat und die Kommission Verordnungen, Richtlinien und

Entscheidungen, sprechen

Empfehlungen aus oder geben Stellungnahmen ab. des zu erreichenden Ziels verbindlich, überlässt jedoch den innerstaatlichen Stellen die Wahl der Form und der Mittel.

Die Entscheidung ist in allen ihren Teilen für diejenigen verbindlich, die sie bezeichnet.

Die Empfehlungen und Stellungnahmen sind nicht verbindlich. des zu erreichenden Ziels verbindlich, überlässt jedoch den innerstaatlichen Stellen die Wahl der Form und der Mittel.

Beschlüsse sind in allen ihren Teilen verbindlich. Sind sie an bestimmte Adressaten gerichtet, so sind sie nur für diese verbindlich.

Die Empfehlungen und Stellungnahmen sind nicht verbindlich.

38 The change may be due to a correction, because the terminology used within the EC Treaty was not consistent. The case C-370/07 Commission v Council⁶³ reveals the discrepancy between Articles 249, 253 and 300 of the EC Treaty.

As we have seen above, Article 249 EC Treaty (now 288 TFEU), which provided the types of legal acts, used the term Entscheidung. Article 253 EC Treaty (now 296 TFEU) also used the term Entscheidungen:

Die Verordnungen, Richtlinien und Entscheidungen, die vom Europäischen Parlament und vom Rat gemeinsam oder vom Rat oder von der Kommission angenommen werden, sind mit Gründen zu versehen und nehmen auf die Vorschläge oder Stellungnahmen Bezug, die nach diesem Vertrag eingeholt werden müssen.

In these two articles (Art. 249 and 253 EC Treaty), the terms used in the other languages were also consistent:

EN: decision FR: décision ES: decisión

However, Article 300 EC Treaty (now 218 TFEU) used the term Beschluss:

(2) Vorbehaltlich der Zuständigkeiten, welche die Kommission auf diesem Gebiet besitzt, werden die Unterzeichnung, mit der ein Beschluss über die vorläufige Anwendung vor dem Inkrafttreten einhergehen kann, sowie der Abschluss der Abkommen vom Rat mit qualifizierter Mehrheit auf Vorschlag der Kommission beschlossen. Der Rat beschließt einstimmig, wenn das Abkommen einen Bereich betrifft, in dem für die Annahme interner Vorschriften Einstimmigkeit vorgesehen ist, sowie im Fall der in Artikel 310 genannten Abkommen.

The German version used Beschluss instead of Entscheidung and the terms used in the other languages were consistent with the ones used in Art. 249 and 253 EC Treaty:

EN: decision FR: décision ES: decisión

The case Commission v Council revolved around this confusion. The fact that the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU uses the term Beschluss in a consistent way may indicate that the

63 Case C-370/07 Commission v Council, EU:C:2009:590.

39 confusion has been clarified. Burr (Burr 2009:756) also points out that the German, Danish and Dutch language versions used two different terms: Entscheidung – Beschluss (DE);

beschikking —besluit (NL) and beslutning – afgørelse (DA). The author also confirms that after Lisbon, the use of these terms is consistent:

In der geplanten Änderung des EU- und EG-Vertrages durch den Vertrag von Lissabon wird eine Vereinheitlichung der Terminologie, zumindest im Dänischen, Deutschen und Niederländischen, hinsichtlich Entscheidung und Beschluss vorgenommen.

To conclude, Beschluss is used to refer to one of the types of legal acts (Art. 288 TFEU) and Entscheidung has been left to refer to one of the types of documents of the CJEU.

1.5.4.4. Recommendation and opinion

The last instruments mentioned in Article 288 TFEU are recommendations and opinions:

ES EN DE FR

It must be pointed out that in English the term ‘opinions’ is used in Art. 288 TFEU, which coincides with the term used when an Advocate General expresses what he thinks in a determinate case (‘Opinion of the Advocate General’). However, in the other languages use two different terms are used. To refer to a type of legal act (Art 288): Stellungnahmen (DE), dicatámenes (ES) and avis (FR). And to refer to the ‘Opinion of the Advocate General’:

Schlussantrag des Generalanwalts (DE), Conclusiones del Abogado General (ES) and Conclusions de l’avocat general (FR).

Moreover, as regards the instruments mentioned in Art. 288 TFEU, there is no formal hierarchy between them. Although Regulations are directly applicable, this does not mean that they are superior to, say, directives. However, regulations, directives and decisions can take the form of legislative or non-legislative acts. Their place within the hierarchy of norms depends on that, but this does not alter their nature. For details on the difference between legislative acts and non-legislative acts, see 2.2.1. Legislative acts and 2.2.2. Non-legislative acts.

40 1.5.5. Case law of the CJEU

Case law merits special attention because it is not regarded as a formal source of EU law.

Under EU law there is no doctrine of precedent: previous case law is neither binding on the General Court, nor on national courts, nor on itself (Kaczorowska 2013:140). However, for many reasons, the most important being legal certainty, the CJEU is reluctant to depart from the principles laid down in earlier cases (Kaczorowska 2013:109). Thus, previous case law is important as it provides guidelines for subsequent cases that raise the same issues. Moreover, the CJEU has established constitutional principles and important concepts of EU law in its judgments, which have subsequently become sources of EU law, thus case law is indeed a significant source of EU law (Ibid). Many authors have confirmed this premise, even arguing that case law is often the most important source of EU law (Derlén 2014:298, citing Schermers & Waelbroeck 2001).