EU structure

This subtopic contains a range of resources on the structure and functions of EU institutions, as well as the EU legal system and core principles.

EU institutions

The EU institutional framework consists of seven main institutions that each represent different interests and have been allocated executive, legislative, judicial and other powers. The main EU institutions are:

  1. the European Council

  2. the European Parliament

  3. the European Commission

  4. the Council of the European Union

  5. the Court of Justice of the European Union

  6. the European Central Bank

  7. the European Court of Auditors

The European Council sets the EU's overall political direction, but has no powers to pass laws. It comprises national heads of state or government and meets for a few days at a time every four to six months to decide on broad political priorities and major initiatives. The European Council makes decisions by consensus, except if the EU Treaties provide otherwise. For further reading, see Practice Note: Guide to the European Council.

There are three main institutions involved in EU legislation:

  1. the European Parliament, at which elected MEPs represent European citizens

  2. the

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Public Law News

Actions for unlawful police detention and QOCS protection in mixed claims (ALK and another v The Chief Constable of Surrey Police)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In an appeal heard by Mr Justice Bourne, the High Court held that the arrests of a married couple, both of whom were serving Metropolitan Police officers, by Surrey Police were unlawful. The court found that the arresting officers had not given appropriate consideration to voluntary attendance for interview as a less intrusive alternative under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and Code G. The court stressed that the ‘necessity’ limb in PACE 1984, s 24 is an important constitutional safeguard, following a line of authority that stresses strict adherence to PACE 1984—an officer who gives no real consideration to alternatives runs the ‘plain risk’ of being found to have had no reasonable grounds to believe arrest was necessary. The court therefore allowed the liability appeal. This decision is an important reaffirmation of the strict operational limits on arrest powers. On costs, the court provided useful guidance as to the starting point in mixed personal injury claims, confirming that properly supported PI claims should attract QOCS protection. Bourne J concluded that the claimants’ pleaded and evidenced psychiatric injury claims meant the proceedings could properly be regarded as a personal injury action ‘in the round’ for QOCS purposes, and that the trial judge’s enforcement order permitting 70% of the defendant’s costs should not have been made, under the mixed-claim discretion in CPR 44.16. Written by Connor Wright, barrister, St Philips Chambers.

View Public Law by content type :

Popular documents