Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Legal Provisions play Essay

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Legal Provisions play and important Role in Building Decision Making - Essay Example Further, the court shall have jurisdiction in any actions presented by member states, the commission, the council, or the European Government regarding incompetence, infringement on elemental procedural requirement, on vital provisions of the treaties and any issue pertaining to the rule of powers with respect to the application or possible misuse of powers. Further, the court would have jurisdiction and be guided by similar conditions when addressing relative concerns raised by the court of Auditors, Committee of regions or the European Central Bank. The court of auditors was granted this privilege by the Treat of Amsterdam. The European parliament on the other hand was added to the list of the privileged members by the Nice Treaty. This has raised various controversies with arguments revolving around the possibility of the European Union social partners claiming this desirable status. Non privileged applicants ranging from employers and employees to trade unions are also at liberty to launch complaints regarding European Union Institutions directly with the court. Seemingly, the court has interpreted these provisions very strictly as exemplified in Plaumann & Co. V Commission. In this, the court allowed individuals to make direct complaints accordingly. Seemingly, the courts have denied the collective organizations seeking to represent their members as individuals a chance to enjoy this provision. For instance, it refrained from hearing the cases Comite Central d’Entreprise de la Societe Generale des Grandes Sources v. Commission and Vittel v. Commission. In this respect, it is not easy for individuals to complain against the European Union institutions regardless of their activities having direct effect on matters pertaining to industrial relations and employment. The privileged applicants that largely constitute member states have unconditional access with respect to making complaints to the court. These include the council, the commission, and the E uropean Parliament or member states. This is well illustrated in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Council of the European Union in which the United Kingdom raised a complain to the court about the council’s decision regarding the working time directive. Article 264 of this treaty further provides that in instances where a measure reviewed under article 263 is found to be unlawful or illegal, it is void. The European Union in this respect does not have any power to substitute their individual reasoning for the reasoning of the author of the respective contested measure. The courts further have the liberty to make a decision with regard to whether an error demands for annulment of the respective contested measure. A classic exemplification of this pertains to the Hercules Chemicals NV v Commission case. In this, the court ruled that the contentious issue relating to access to the file of competition cases should be considered as the right of the defense. In this, any infringement on this right could culminate in annulment especially if it had the potential to breach the defense’s rights. This could not be merely countered by underscoring that access to the respective file was allowed at later stages of the legal proceedings, like after an annulment action had already been sought. Further, this article provides that the court, whenever it considers necessary, needs to definitively state the effects of the act have been declared void. Seemingly, the provisions of