Talk:Directive (European Union)

message: The problem of the definition of orders from Brussels still has to be clarified: although what is stated now  is theoretically correct (both the parliament and the council have to approve), the directives are produced on the initiative of the Commission (which has the sole right to initiative), and voting of them by the council is often a routine matter or is 'forced' by the commission (such as with the infamous software patent directive which was submitted to approval by agricultural ministers!)
LHOON 12:47 06 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:That is your PoV: Wiki must reflect the legal facts.  
:But if you read the European Commission article, you will see that the Commission drafts the proposal largely on the request on member states.  In this, it operates not dramaticallly differently from any of the national Civil Services. Again, since they only draft the text, Ministers and the Parliament negotiate firmly in both the common and in their national interests and the later drafts on controversial matters are substantially changed.  So the fixation with the production of the first draft is a eurosceptic totem that doesn't really stand up to critical examination.  --Red King 17:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Orders from Brussels

message: As you'll probably know, all the directives have codes in the same format: e.g. 98/71/EC. My question is, does the EC in the codes refer to European Communities? The only I can think of is European Commission, but as it used to be xx/xx/EEC, I would assume it now stands for European Communities. Yeah? - Рэдхот 11:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right it does refer to the European Communities which still exist under the umbrella of the European Union. Caveat lector 12:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of Codes 

message: I plan to delete the following paragraph:
:"However, the European Commission sometimes inexplicably takes no action, as in the case of the Spanish transposition (Real Decreto-Ley 11/1995) of the Urban Waste Water Directive 91/271/EEC. In the Spanish transposition the definition of a collecting system was changed, adding an addition twelve words and as a consequence the municipal sewer and drainage networks were excluded from the Spanish transposition. Consequently, there is only a need to provide a collecting system going from the municipal network to the treatment plant and if there is no municipal network there is no need to provide any collecting system at all. In addition, Spain did not bring into force the regulations and administrative provisions required by Article 19 of the Directive, which were both compulsory and necessary to define responsibilities, procedures and the method of finance. Hundreds of thousands of EU citizens, mainly residents of urbanizations (housing estates) developed in the 1960s and 1970s, have been prejudiced by this incorrect transposition. The Commission, without explaining why, has refused to recognise that the transposition is incorrect, only stating to the Committee on Petitions on April 30th 2009 that 'the Commission considers that the formal transposition is correct.' As a result, there are countless urbanisations in Spain within agglomerations of over 2000 people still without sewers in 2009. Members of the Committee on Petitions urged the Commission to consider in more detail this question."
This is a general article on directives and is not meant to deal with specific claims that certain directives have failed to be transpositioned correctly. Moreover the claimed incorrect transposition appears to be the opinion of the petitioners. As stated in the paragraph the Commission views it as correct. It's a non-story. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This was re-added and should probably be removed again. It is duplicated at Water supply and sanitation in the European Union where it is also , as yet, unsourced. For citing sources, see WP:RS and .  It should not be included in a general article on directives. There might be a weak argument for inclusion if there are reliable secondary sources referring to this as a major precedent. --Boson (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions 

message: The article as it stands gives no clue as to how a Directive comes to exist.  If one were so minded, one could very easily read it to mean that "some faceless eurocrat' dreams it up with the specific purpose of 'destroying traditional British values' (see D Mail, D Express, Sun, D Torygraph etc any day of the week). I expect every other member state has similar scare-mongerers.  
A section need to be written to explain the reality. [If I felt that I knew the answer with sufficient precision [with cites], I do it - but I don't.  Volunteer please? --Red King (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully quoting the treaty text is sufficient to show how it arises. --Red King (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orders from Brussels #2 

message: We seem to have a little debate about this.  First, I don't agree with Jimmi that only Parliament can create legislative acts (qv).  Whilst this is certainly true in member states, it is not true in the EU context where the Parliament is only one leg (pillar?) of the process: it is not sovereign.  
Nevertheless, it seems to me that 'legal instrument' reads far better than 'legislative act' and seems more appropriate in the EU context.  Legal instrument is reasonably self explanatory, whereas legistlative act is very legalese and distracts the reader far too early in the article.  Furthermore, legislative act redirects immediately to Act of Parliament, which is clearly the wrong place to go. --Red King (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Authors of books on EU law calls them acts; the European Parliament calls them acts; the Treaties call them acts; the ECJ calls them acts; so it is perfectly acceptable to call them acts. But unless someone can state what is wrong with "legal instruments", I think that is also acceptable. --Boson (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Legislative is both more specific and descriptive. A legal act is legislative because it is of general application, not because it is the act of a legislature. I can provide thousands of sources, if necessary, which confirm that directives and regulations are legislative acts. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, you will have to replace the redirect to Act of Parliament that is currently at legislative act with some new text.--Red King (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legistlative act / legal instrument 

message: "A directive is a legislative act of the European Union (...)". This sentence is not correct. A directive can be a legislative act, but all of them are not. Directives are not automatically legislative acts. Only directives adopted through a legislative procedure are legislative acts. See TFEU art. 289(3). --Glentamara (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Directives not subset of legislative acts 

message: The meaning of the last sentence in Directive (European Union)#Implementation, "On 1 May 2008, 1,298 such cases open before the Court" is unclear.  Should it read "... cases were open ..."? Ian S (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear sentence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Directive (European Union). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050308103418/http://www.eubusiness.com:80/guides/legislation to http://www.eubusiness.com/guides/legislation
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Directive (European Union). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612213147/http://w4mp.org/html/library/standardnotes/snia-03689.pdf to http://www.w4mp.org/html/library/standardnotes/snia-03689.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified