WRITTEN QUESTION E-1428/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The nature of the Commission's role as guardian of the Treaties.
Date: 2000-05-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European treaties, discretionary power, infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law, power of assessment

13.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/39

head of the European Commission(cid:146)s legal service, Jean-Louis Dewost, and reported in the European Voice,
and, in particular, his comment that if a misinterpretation of EU law was isolated to a specific case, we
would say we have other priorities?

(2001/C 81 E/046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1428/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: The nature of the Commission(cid:146)s role as guardian of the Treaties

Can the Commission indicate whether its role as (cid:145)guardian of the Treaties(cid:146) is a legal or political one, and
whether in either case it believes that it is in the interests of the Commission and of the European Union
for all violations of the Treaty to be addressed as long as that role is maintained?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1422/00 and E-1428/00
given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The Honourable Member rightly refers to Article 211 (ex Article 155) of the EC Treaty and to the role of
the Commission as (cid:145)guardian of the treaties(cid:146) which indeed constitutes one of its core tasks.

According to well-established case law of the Court of justice, (cid:145)the Commission is not bound to commence
the proceedings provided for in that provision but in this regard has a discretion(cid:146) (1);
(cid:145)the Commission
alone is competent to decide whether it is appropriate to bring proceedings against a Member State for
failure to fulfil its obligations and to determine the conduct or omission attributable to the Member State
on the basis of which those proceedings should be brought(cid:146) (2). Indeed, without having such a margin of
discretion the Commission could not fulfil efficiently its role as (cid:145)guardian of the Treaties(cid:146). It should also be
noted that a comparable margin of discretion is generally granted to national authorities having the task of
prosecuting violations of the law in the public interest.

When exercising its discretion the Commission has to take into consideration a wide range of aspects,
including the gravity of the infringement, its significance or its aptitude as a model case, as well as the
Commission(cid:146)s resources. After careful consideration of all circumstances, the Commission may in a given
case decide to give less priority to commencing infringement proceedings in a matter involving exclusively
a problematic application,
in an isolated case, of national rules that are as such compatible with
Community law. It also needs to be taken into account that in such individual cases national courts
might provide more advantageous remedies than infringement proceedings, given that such a proceedings
could last longer and do not allow illegal measures to be quashed, or judicial injunctions to be issued
against the administration or compensation for damages to be granted. This does not prejudice by any
means the paramount importance, stressed repeatedly by the Commission, of individual complaints for
detecting violations of Community law. The Commission(cid:146)s concern is merely to ensure that the most
important infringement cases continue to be treated quickly and efficiently in the future.

It is to these considerations that the remarks of the Director-general of the Commission Legal service,
mentioned by the Honourable Member, are related.

(1) Case 247/87 Star Fruit Company v. Commission [1989] ECR 291, point 11.
(2) Case C-431/92 Commission v. Germany [1995] ECR I-2189, point 22.