Die Handlungsform der interinstitutionellen Vereinbarung. Eine Untersuchung des Interorganverhältnisses der europäischen Verfassung – By Florian von Alemann

• Published date: 01 March 2007
• Author: Peter Slominski
• Date: 01 March 2007
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00367_1.x

BOOK REVIEWS

Die Handlungsform der interinstitutionellen Vereinbarung. Eine Untersuchung des

Interorganverhältnisses der europäischen Verfassung. By Florian von Alemann.

Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer, 2006. xvi +518pp. Hb. €94,95.

The EU’s distinct institutional arrangement with its triangular structure of legislative-

executive institutions makes cooperation between these institutions indispensable.

While the Treaties remain largely silent about this, Interinstitutional Agreements (IIAs)

seem to be the perfect means of facilitating the daily decision-making process. Given

that IIAs are long established in political and legal practice, it is amazing that they have

not drawn much academic interest and still remain somewhat under-researched. The

few works that deal with IIAs tend to analyse them on a case-by-case basis, largely

concentrating on their legal and political effects.

It is the main objective of the book under review—which was accepted as a doctoral

thesis at the University of Frankfurt—to provide a comprehensive and consistent

analysis of IIAs. In so doing, von Alemann starts with a succinct overview of the

existing literature including a critical discussion of the different conceptual assump-

tions as well as the confusing classifications of the various amounts of IIAs and their

categorisations within the EU’s legal order. This research lacuna can partly be

explained by the fact that IIAs come in manifold denominations, the lack of an official

compilation, the absence of a general legal basis, and the unwillingness of the European

Court of Justice and the Court of the First Instance to overcome their case-by-case

approach.

The author addresses these problems by defining as IIAs only those interinstitutional

acts that are consensually adopted by the European Parliament, the Council, and the

Commission, that are published in the Official Journal, and are addressed only to the

parties involved, thus excluding any direct legal effect on third parties. He considers

the formal denomination as an IIA to be an important indicator but not an essential

requirement. This narrow definitional approach differs from the much broader

definitions provided by Hummer (see W. Hummer, (2007) European Law Journal 13:1).

As a result, Hummer’s compilation comprises not less than 123 concluded agreements,

whereas von Alemann identifies only 29 IIAs. It is hard to say which approach is more

suited to gain a better understanding of the topic. Hummer’s approach allows us to

analyse a wide range of existing agreements regardless of their denomination, form,

and content. Conversely, by accepting only formal criteria, von Alemann reduces the

number of potential IIAs significantly, which makes it easier for him to develop a sound

conceptual argument. But given that many IIAs, especially in the early days of Euro-

pean integration, were all too often only bilateral acts and not published in the Official

Journal, von Alemann’s definition deliberately—yet regrettably—excludes these kinds

of acts from his profound analysis.

As the title of the book suggests, the author is particularly determined to show that

IIAs are an independent legal instrument (Handlungsform) of EU law, thus displaying

a certain degree of formal stabilisation and a normative momentum of their own. The

European Law Journal, Vol. 13, No. 2, March 2007, pp. 272–277.

© 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK

and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA