Conclusions
| Author | Francesco Viganò |
| Published date | 01 December 2015 |
| Date | 01 December 2015 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/203228441500600419 |
| Subject Matter | Conclusions |
558 Intersentia
CONCLUSIONS
F V*
It is not an easy task for me to draw conclusions from our sti mulating debate, which
has raised a number of di erent questions, impos sible to properly address in my brief
intervention. I will con ne myself, instead, to some general remarks about the main
challenges the EU, the Member States a nd the European Court of Justice are going to
face a er the key date of 1December t, 2014, incorporating some suggestions coming
from our disting uished speakers’ interventions on this oor.
1. THE LEGAL SITUATION
First of all, as far t he legal situation is concerned, t hings seem to be quite clea r.
According to Article10 of Protocol 36, as Prof. Bla nchet, Mr. Zeder, Prof. Grasso and
Prof. Bachmaier have explained in detail, a er 1December the Commission w ill be
allowed to launch infringement procedures against Member States which have not
transposed, or have not correctly transposed, former ird Pillar instruments –
among which the framework deci sions adopted under the Amsterdam Treaty.
Furthermore, a ny limitations on preliminary r ulings under Article267 TFEU w ill
be eliminated. e ECJ w ill have full jurisdic tion on the interpretation and validity of
these instru ments, even in respect of States which had not originally accepted its
jurisdiction in t his regard, or have accepted it only with limitations.
All this means, as Vice President Timmermans has pointed out, that police and
criminal just ice have ultimately become an ordinary part of the EU law, and have
thereby almost completely lost any specia l status (apart from the peculiar mecha nism
of the “emergency brake” provided for by §3 of both Articles82 a nd 83).
Of course, not every legal problem has been solved, as Prof. Satzger has
demonstrated in his inter vention. Framework decisions will be subject to fu ll scrutiny
by the Court, but wi ll retain their legal status in ot her respects – in par ticular, as to
their inabilit y to produce direct e ect within Member States. is still marks an
important di erence from directives, and could give rise to the complex questions
discussed by Prof. Satzger whenever a f ramework decision has been only partially
amended by a directive in t he post Lisbon era. And still more di cult questions in
* Professor, Università degl i Studi di Milano.
To continue reading
Request your trial