EU institutions more and more often act bypassing the law in accordance with the principle: politics first, and there will always be a legal basis, says PiS MEP Jacek Saryusz-Wolski in an interview with PAP.
Since the times of Jean-Claude Juncker (former President of the European Commission – ed.), who announced that from that moment on the European Commission is political, to simplify it can be said that first political decisions are made in the Union, and then a legal basis is sought, a paragraph. And if it is not there, various types of bypasses are made, which in legal language are called +ultra vires+ (outside the scope of competence). So either the legal basis is stretched or the Treaty is violated. It has happened many times
– says Saryusz-Wolski.
This was the case when constructing the conditionality mechanism, i.e. “money for the rule of law”, blocking KPO, relocating migrants, and adopting the Fit for 55 package
he adds.
“Maximalist political vision”
If the maximalist vision of the political system contained in the proposals of the report of the Verhofstadt group from the European Parliament were to come into force, this modus operandi would be sanctioned by law. This political coercion would become the fully sanctioned norm
the politician warns.
It recalls that according to the treaties still in force, the Union was to perform “only those functions and for the achievement of only those objectives for which the states agreed to transfer competence to it to the extent and only to the extent necessary.”
This is the classic definition of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, as described in the Treaties in Art. 5 TEU. In principle, the sovereign is the Member States, which delegate part of their powers to common management. Meanwhile, we are now witnessing the reversal of this logic: it would not be the Member States that would cede sovereignty to the Union, but the Union would have its own sovereignty and would allow or not allow states to do something. That is why I call this potential creation an oligarchic superstate. Citizens and Member States would not weigh the same in it. There would be no democratic principle of equality, they would be equal and more equal. A bunch of big ones would be the group holding power, and the others would have to submit. It would be a Franco-German condominium complete with acolytes
says the MEP.
When asked whether the Court of Justice of the EU will consider such solutions unlawful, he replies:
The CJEU is not an arbitrator in this matter, but a party. The Tribunal has been issuing biased, one-sided and ideological judgments for a long time. The CJEU is not neutrality and standing on the basis of the iron rule of acting based on and within the framework of the law, but judicial activism. There is a whole series of judgments in this matter, probably 9 constitutional courts of the Member States, which disciplined the CJEU, reminding it that EU law cannot exceed the scope set by the treaties.
Source: wpolityce.pl
