This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

How do our judges conceive of democracy? The democratic nature of the community decision-making process under scrutiny of the European Court of Justice

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Stefania Ninatti
Abstract

This paper examines the ECJ case law on the democratic nature of the community decision-making process and is an attempt to draw a file rouge from this line of judgements, even if the fact that the Court fluctuates "between highs and lows", following the path not only of specific individual cases, but also of the institutional historic moment, makes this task a difficult one. The paper shows us that the democratic principle used by the ECJ judges seems, at least initially, to need to rediscover itself in the constitutional traditions common to the member States. A sign of that osmosis occurring between the Community level and the national one: the Court finds supports in the classical theory of representative democracy as the living experience of the legal orders of the Member States. This study also argues however that, at the moment, the Court doesn't linger too much - except in rhetoric - on the problematic of popular representation but, rather, focuses its attention on the principle of institutional balance limiting, in the end, the democratic process to within the boundaries of the institutional relationships. The starting point for the democratization of the Community decision-making process seen in the jurisprudence of the ECJ has been until now, the strengthening of the role of the European Parliament. It is clear however that the ECJ does not view this as sufficiently encompassing and continues to seek alternatives to fill the perceived democratic deficit. It is these alternatives which the author will explore and consider more fully.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/03/031001.html
File Format: text/html
File Function: Contents/abstract
Download Restriction: no
File URL: http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/03/031001.pdf
File Format: text/html
File Function: Part of text
Download Restriction: no
File URL: http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/03/031001.rtf
File Format: text/html
File Function: Part of text
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Jean Monnet Chair in its series Jean Monnet Working Papers with number 10.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 03 Oct 2003
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:erp:jeanmo:p0148

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Charlie Pike).

Related research
Keywords: corporate governance; democracy; democratization; democratization; federalism; governance; intergovernmentalism; multilevel governance; multilevel governance; participation; supranationalism; European law; judicial review; Amsterdam Treaty; founding Treaties; Maastricht Treaty; Nice Treaty; budgetary procedure; co-decision procedure; institutions; joint decision making; legislative procedure; majority voting; qualified majority; unanimity; Court of First Instance; European Commission; European Council; European Court of Justice; European Parliament; law; political science;

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? RePEc also has a blog.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-28.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.