Attribution of Competences
Pre-Lisbon Treaty Evolution
- Let us not forget that Treaty revisions are a reactive process, not proactive, being
reactions to external events. The EC Treaty itself was a reaction.
- The European Coal and Steel Community Treaty was a reaction to the attempt to
rearm Germany after World War 2, in order to provide peace and stability by merging the
production of the goods needed to wage war. In the beginning, the idea was not to create
a special kind of international organisation. They did not think about how this would
interfere with relations with 3rd countries. In the field of external relations there were
very few provisions – on the necessity you need to have a CCT; pre-existing obligations
under the GATT (they have to write the EC treaty to fit in the derogations of art. XXIV
GATT ’47); the Commission as the representation vis-à-vis the outside world; legal
personality for the conclusion of trade agreements; allowing the Court to settle disputes
(advisory opinion); provision on prior agreements concluded with MS: Article 351
TFEU; association agreements: originally meant to prepare for accession; the only
substantive area – common commercial policy.
- Successive treaties have added competence. The SEA was kind of inward looking,
being concerned with the internal market, being a reaction to economic crisis of the 70s
and eurosclerosis).
- After the fall of the wall and the breakup of Yugoslavia, came Maastricht Treaty.
- You just needed to confer the competence. They agreed with acting in common
but they did not want to confer the competence. They would create the Union.
- Consequences:
- Subject to specific rules and procedures and essentially
intergovernmental. It all depends on how you define your competences. The advantage
of IG was if a state may not be bound by decisions to which it disagrees.
- You need unanimity, and every MS has a right of veto. However, that was a
total fiasco. Hardly any decisions were adopted and if they were it took so long to reach a
compromise and it was so watered down.
- Amsterdam reformed that procedure. The reform is still to be found in article 31
TEU.
- Introduction of constructive abstention: that is why since Amsterdam when it
says that the EU [...], it is strictly not true.
- QMV , if authorised first by unanimity .
- Enabling clause in 31/3. It in fact shows that there was no unanimity at the time
of Lisbon.
- No role for the EP. Democratic control is kept at the level of the MS. It has the
power to ask questions.