Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Organs of the EU - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Brings stillness (former circulating presidency policy was confusing → the Lisbon Treaty changed this)
      - Cannot be official in member state at the same time
      - More often than not it is a former representative
      - Decided by the representatives
  - - - When the triangle of power is not enough then things get decided in the European council
      - Euro crisis and covid → The European Council gave detailed instructions → does not fit with the idea of it giving just general guidelines
- - - - The amount of MEPs is relative to the size of a member state (smaller countries benefit from this; e.g. Finland has more MEPs than Germany in relation to the size difference)
    - - Problem: low voting rates
      - Direct elections, last election 2019, voting rate 51%
      - Supranational organ: represents voters
      - Finland has generally low voter turnout
- - - - The government proposes
      - You must be independent and have qualifications, you must be eligible to become a judge (+ jury recommendations)
      - More diverse group of people than judges in the member states (different juridical backgrounds)
      - Appointments last 6 years
      - Art 255 TFEU: The Commission verifies whether a person is eligible to be a judge
    - - 27 judges → it’s too much to sit together in judgment → discussions become almost impossible
        
        Art 251 TFEU: When it comes to important cases, it will be judged by the “grand chamber of 15 judges”
        
        Smaller chambers of five are always operating
        
        All these chambers are needed, because there is high income of cases from the member states and without these chambers they would not be dealt with in fast manner
        
        Plenary sessions (täysistunto) are seldom
  - - - Concentrates in written law and its words are interpreted
      - Problems:
        
        EU treaties are often shorter than national legal text, so it's harder to gather enough information
        
        EU law is short and openly written
        
        All texts are drafted in all the EU languages and all of them are equally eligible (They have slightly different meanings → the court can’t just decide which one they want to use)
    - - Concentrates on the lawmakers aim and history → what did the lawmaker try to do with this?
      - Looks at “travaux”, committee meanings and proposals etc. → understanding of the original objective
      - Problem: Some materials and preparatory work are kept secret → there might not be anything for the court to look at
    - - The most important interpretation method → hugely important role
      - The court looks at the intentions and objectives of lawmaker
      - Concentrates on the aim of integration (ever-closer union) and the law is interpreted in this light
      - Singular regulation as a part of the entirety
      - Time of interpretation is taken into consideration
      - Criticism: is the court of justice isn’t a neutral referee anymore, if it has this interpretive method that favors ever-closer union → the court has become one of the players, not a referee anymore
- - - - Independent from member states
      - 5 years working periods
      - Everyone has their own area
- - - - Accepts or discards the Commission’s initiatives +
        Art 241 TFEU: Can request the Commission to make a initiative
    - - Qualified majority voting QMV most of the times
      - Some things require unanimity (taxes) --> every country has a veto)
    - - If not found, then qualified majority voting (QMV = määräenemmistö) is used
      - For something to happen it must be supported by 55% of the countries that cover 65% of the population
      - Support always requires at least 15 countries and blocking requires 4