debate about the role of the ecj
Political leaders in Austria and Denmark have recently criticised the ECJ, suggesting that it has overstepped its bounds (via euobserver):
Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Wednesday according to Der Standard “We all easily have the feeling that there [at the ECJ], decisions are being taken of which the basis of the judgements do not fully correspond with what we have agreed as the political basis of the development of the EU.”
Without mentioning concrete examples, Mr Rasmussen indicated “I keep a critical eye on the court.”
The statements from Copenhagen echo remarks made by Mr Schussel last week, who said that “the ECJ…has in the last couple of years systematically expanded European competencies, even in areas, where there is decidedly no [European] community law.”
The Austrian leader called for the debate on the future of the EU to focus not only on the fate of the EU constitution but also on the role of the EU’s top court.
This week, as we listen to and read about the Alito confirmation hearings, questions about the role of Justices of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution are in the air. Similar issues clearly arise in the context of the EU’s treaty-based system. The ECJ has often acted in an “activist” way but political negotiations about amendments to the treaties haven’t tended to focus too much on the role of the ECJ in the past.