Last February, the Court of Justice (CoJ) received a notable appeal against an order of the General Court (GC) in Case T-479/14 Kendrion. There are various notable and interesting aspects to the appeal case but the most eye-catching one concerns the appellant: the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)! In other words, what we have here is a case in which this EU institution brings an appeal against an order of one of the courts (GC) falling under its umbrella before another one (CoJ). Why would the CJEU do that? What is at stake?

The European Commission, on behalf of the European Union (EU), monitors and checks on the transposition of EU legislation by Member States. Member States often have to report on the steps they have taken to comply with specific EU legislation and the Commission even occasionally initiates infringement procedures against wayward Member States before the Court of Justice. It is much rarer for the European Union to expose itself to such scrutiny and for it to commit to reporting and to allow its actions to be checked, praised and criticised by an external body. However, that is what the European Union did when it ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in December 2010.

Two weeks ago, in Case C-409/13 Council v. Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union established that the European Commission is entitled to withdraw a proposal for a legislative act where it fears that the European Parliament and the Council will amend it in a manner which would undermine the objectives the Commission had in mind. For most EU law students and practitioners this conclusion will not come as a surprise and come close to stating nothing but the obvious. None the less, the Court’s statement on the Commission’s right to withdraw legislative proposals is significant, even of constitutional significance.

We speak of a political dialogue if a National Parliament wants to exchange thoughts with the Commission, or has got objections regarding another substance. From the perspective of the legitimacy of the EU it’s a wonderful thing that National Parliaments exchange thoughts with the Commission and have a critical reflection on the proposals to EU legislation. 

Constitutional Law seems to be relatively stable. However, in practice changes are taking place suddenly as well as gradually. As an example Heringa mentions the law consultative referendum, which entered into force last year. This part has been added to the chapter about legislation. The book is only available in Dutch.

What happens if the Netherlands rejects the EU-Ukraine association agreement? If they reach the participation quorum of 30%, it is up to the government to present a legislative proposal to the States-General by which the special legislation will be withdrawn. This article is only available in Dutch.

Several days ago, the French government forced the acceptance of a disputed law about - among other things - labour issues. Its treatment in parliament was incredibly labourious and almost 5000 amendments had been proposed... This blog is only available in Dutch. 

After the Ukraine referendum in the Netherlands and the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom, have proved that it is difficult to organise a referendum on multi-faceted questions and interpret the results. In both cases, voters came to the polls for a wide variety of reasons... This blog is only available in Dutch. 

It didn't run down quietly! On the contrary. After all the buzz about the consultative referendum it was exciting if it was possible to reach the legal threshold at 30% of the votes. They just succeeded with 32%. This article is only available in Dutch.

The CETA trade agreement between the EU and Canada is, according to the initial judgment by the Commission, a treaty that fits within the exclusive jurisdiction of the EU (trade!) and can be made by the EU after approval from the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers... This blog is only available in Dutch.