By Vasiliki Verykaki, PhD Researcher at the City Law School
The European Union’s legal and constitutional landscape is undergoing a remarkable transformation, as highlighted by Judge Damjan Kukovec in a thought-provoking lecture on 28 November at City Law School. At the heart of these changes lies the EU’s assertion of autonomy in determining its legal standards and the evolving role of its judicial and regulatory institutions. Judge Kukovec’s insights provided a thorough analysis into the evolving influence of EU agencies and the complex relationship between EU and international law, shedding light on key developments reshaping the EU’s legal framework.
He first asserted that EU law, as a sui generis system, relies on mutual trust among authorities for functionality. Jurisdiction over customs law, VAT, and passenger rights shifted from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to the General Court (GC) to alleviate ECJ’s caseload and leverage GC’s capacity. Also, traditionally, EU agencies have included independent Boards of Appeal (BoAs) that serve as a preliminary stage before cases are escalated to the GC. This arrangement signifies a shift in the jurisdiction, as the option of an appeal against decisions of several specified BoAs at certain agencies is effectively being reduced. In the future, the GC will regularly be the ‘last resort’ in these matters. This structural evolution highlights the growing importance of EU agencies in resolving significant legal and regulatory matters, shaping a new constitutional order.
Moreover, in the landmark Kadi judgments (C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P), the ECJ emphasised the EU’s autonomy from international law, adding that protecting fundamental rights is central to the EU legal order. Accordingly, all Union measures must align with these fundamental rights. On a similar note, the Judge summarised the Case C-457/18, Slovenia v. Croatia, where the Court ruled that Slovenia’s claim, based on Croatia’s failure to recognise an arbitral award, involved an international law dispute rather than EU law. Despite some links to Croatia, the Court did not consider the issues having a Union dimension to exercise jurisdiction.