Allied through Litigation? the Cjeu and the External Powers of the European Parliament

The Court of Justice of the European Union is said to be a political actor giving interpretations that foster  European integration. Not only does the Court behave as a judicial activist, but also it finds ‘allies’ in among other institutions to support its pro-integration objectives. The Court / Parliament relationship is often seen as such an alliance between institutions having the same preferences in favour of increased power for supranational institutions. Historically, the Court of Justice has compensated for the lack of powers of the European Parliament by using the principle of institutional balance in order to strengthen the position of the EP in the EU system. For example, the EP has been accepted as a litigant in annulment procedures against the wording of the Treaties, before this interpretation was codified in the Treaties. The Parliament has worked hard to be accepted as a litigant, and has widely used the power to bring cases before the Court.
Empirical evidence, however, questions this broad assumption. The alliance between the Court and the Parliament seems to be changing over time. This paper aims to systematically analyse Court rulings with regard to the Parliament in order to determine which factors explain that the alliance may – or may not ­– function. We will answer this question by looking at one specific policy area – the powers of the Parliament in the field of external action – and by placing the study of CJEU case law in the wider context of the European governance system.