CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

Dimitris Liakopoulos CYIL 12 (2021) reconstruction, however, is sometimes awkward, because unequivocal indications can not always be deduced from the jurisprudence, also because of the specificities of the cases submitted to the CJEU. Given this premise, although it is a hypothesis that is probably unrealistic in view of the difficulties that stand in the face of a comprehensive revision of the treaties, even though hoped for in order to dissolve some of the problems left unresolved by the Treaty of Lisbon, a crystallization of the Treaty would seem appropriate. within the treaties of some of the limits described, in order to better specify their scope. It would thus be possible not only to codify what has been clarified by the case law, but also to introduce further clarifications, for example on relations between external agreements and enhanced cooperation or on the application of the CFREU to action by the institutions in this context. Furthermore, it would be important to provide for a judicial control mechanism on the compatibility of such agreements with Union law more effective than those currently existing. Indeed, if there is no doubt that the effectiveness of the agreements between Member States is conditional on compliance with Union law and that the CJEU is in principle competent to verify its compatibility with the European Treaties, this control is, however, only possible retrospectively and in a manner that depends on contingent factors: only the action for annulment will be possible against measures taken by the institutions or bodies of the Union, while in the absence of formal measures attributable to them the only access route to the CJEU will usually be postponement for a preliminary ruling requiring the existence of a judicial remedy set up by national law against, presumably, acts adopted in implementation of the international agreement. Finally, there is still the possibility for EC to initiate an infringement action against the Member States concerned if it considers that the conclusion of the agreement constitutes a breach of EU law, but it is actually difficult to imagine that the use of international agreements as a form of differentiated integration can take place without the consent of the EC. Given the shortcomings of the remedial structure described, a promising prospect could consist in the provision of a mechanism inspired by the procedure under art. 218, par. 11, TFEU 174 , which allows the CJEU to request a prior opinion on the compatibility with the treaties establishing international draft agreements to be concluded by the Union. sufficiently achieved by the Member States individually, without going into a more detailed analysis of that proposition. It additionally confirmed that the regulation in question placed enough criteria and limitations for judicial review and political control of the exercise of the EU authority in question, meaning that the powers vested in the agency were compatible with the Treaties. See for details: TRIDIMAS, T. Financial supervision and agency power: Reflections on ESMA, in SHUIBHNE, N.N., GORMLEY, L.W. (eds.), From single market to economic union: Essays in Memory of John A. Usher , Oxford University Papers, Oxford, 2012. ZALEWSKA, M., GSTREN, O. I. National Parliaments and their role in European integration: The EU‘s democratic deficit in times of economic hardship and political insecurity, Bruges Political Research Papers, No. 28, 2013, pp. 24ss. VAN ZEBEN, J. Research agenda for a polycentric European Union, in The Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Working Paper Series No. W13-13, 2013, pp. 7ss. ARRIBAS, G.V., BOURDIN, D. What does the Lisbon Treaty change regarding subsidiarity within the EU Institutional framework?, in European Institute of Public Administration Bulletin , Vol. 2, 2012, pp. 13ss. MALETIĆ, I. Delegating harmonization of the internal market. The ruling case C-270/12 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. European Parliament and Council of European Union (short selling ban) judgment of 22 January 2014, in Yearbook of European Law, 33 (1), 2014, pp. 502ss. VAN CLEYNENBREUGEL, P. Market supervision in the European Union: Integrated administration in constitutional context , ed. Brill/Nijhoff, Leiden, Boston, 2014, pp. 123ss. 174 WESSEL, R.A. Cross-pillar mixity: Combining competences in the concluion of European Union international


Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs