The relation between the state and local authorities in the application of eu law

• Author: Matusescu Constanta
• Position: Ph.D. Lecturer, Valahia University of Târgoviste, The Faculty of Law and Social And Political Sciences
• Pages: 251-256

THE RELATION BETWEEN THE STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN THE APPLICATION OF

EU LAW

1

Mtuescu Constana*

Abstract

This paper aims to approach a ser ies of aspects related to the rela tions established between the sta te

and sub national authorities in the applica tion of EU law, in the context of the current deba tes taking place in

Romania rega rding decentralisatio n and the administrative-terr itorial reor ganisation.

Keywords: EU law, institutional a utonomy, decentralisa tion, local authorities, r esponsibility.

Introduction

The a pplication of EU la w in the na tional la w systems of Member States ha s received an increased

attention in the last decades. The institutional autonomy that Member States have and their legal responsibility

in case of infringement of EU la w, rega rdless which state institution was at the origin of the infring ement, rises,

however, a series of issues as regards promoting the principles of decentra lisation a nd local autonomy on a

nationa l level.

Public administration – a national prerogative

The obligation of ap plying the EU law belongs mainl y to Member States. The state needs to ensure the

effective and uniform application of EU law on its territory.

According to art. 4.3 from the Treaty on EU, ‘Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the

Union and the Member States shall, in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow

from the Treaties. The Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure

fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties o r resulting from the acts o f the institutions of the

Union. The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure

which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union's objectives.’

The community’s lo yalty clause means states need to acquire the necessary means to fulfil the

obligations that incur them according to EU law.

However, according to the Court of J ustice, in using their competencies, states benefit from institutional

and procedural autonomy, which means they remain the ones deciding the co nditions in which primary and

derived law is applied in their legal systems.

Absent from the constitutive community treaties, but considered a fundamental principle of EU law

order system2, the principle o f institutional autonomy of Member States - that gives states the freedom to choose

the authorities in charge with applying EU la w, is the result of EU jurisprudence that identified this principle in

the In ternational Fruit Company3 case and the n later r eiterated it numerous times, co nfirming its importance.

Thus, the Court considers t hat “when the dispositions of the treaty or of the regulations acknowledge rights to

Member States or impose them obligations of applying EU law, the iss ue of knowing the manner in which these

rights and the compliance to these obligations is trusted by Member States to certain authorities depends only on

the constitutional system of each Member State”.4

Therefore, it does not depend on EU law if the application of le gal instruments adopted by EU

institutions is in the hands of the legislative or executive aut horities of Member States, if it is trusted to central or

local authorities or even to agents or bodies more or less autonomous from the state or from local authorities.

Member States can even trust a natural or legal entity of private law with the application of EU la w, provided

that it has the means to ensure that this natural or legal entity complies with its mission respecting EU law5. It is

indeed considered that “it is up to Member States’ authorities, be it central authoriti es, authorities of a federated

state or other territorial authorities, to ensure compliance with EU rules within their competencies”.6 The Court

concluded that this principle is applicable even in matters in which the EU is exclusively competent. 7

It’s not o nly the choice of competent internal administrative authorities, but also that of the competent

national jurisdictions that is subjected to the principle of institutional auto nomy8, the Court stating that “it is up

1 This work was supported by CNCSIS-UEFISCSU, project number PN II-RU, code 129, contract 28/2010

*Ph.D. Lecturer, Valahia University of Târgovişte, The Faculty of Law and Social And Political Sciences, constanta_matusescu@yahoo

2 Laurent Malo, , Bruxelles, Bruylant, 2010, p. 369.

3 CJEU, 15th December 1971, International Fr uit Company, Cases 51-54/71, Rec. p.1116.

4 Idem.

5 Jacques Ziller, , in 

nationaux, coordinated by Jacqueline Dutheil de la Rochere, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 2009, p. 126.

6 CJEU, June 12, 1990, RFG / Commission, Case C-8/88, Rec. p I-2321 and following, point 13.

7 CJEU, Sukkerfabriken, Case C-151/70, Rec. p. 1.

8 CJEU, 19th December 1968,  Case C-13 /1968, Rec. p. 661.