What Institution possess the most important competences issuing the most binding legislation for Member States? Is this a criterion to state its power? Or are there other competencies to address?
I suggest the European Parliament should possess the most important competences, e.g. in representing political will of the European electorate as well as a duty to uphold international norms, because it is comprised of directly elected national representatives from EU member states.
@ Michael It would appear from your FAQ that the Commission has competences to propose legal acts, but is not a legislator. Moreover, the Commission cannot propose legs acts to the European Parliament or the Council in some areas. Can you please clarify ?
According to the Lisbon treaty, the council of ministers and the Parliament can only legislate based on a proposal from the Commission, they hold the 'right of initiative'. This means that the power is within the hands of the Commission, and not the Parliament or the Council. There are some power struggles between the Council and the Commission, but currently it is the Commission who are, and always have been, the driving force of EU legislation, together with the Curia I should add. The Lisbon treaty did not change this despite giving more power to the Parliament. The areas the commission cannot make proposals is quite complicated, but mostly connected with areas where the EU does not have full, or have shared, competence.
I assume we speak of the ordinary legislative procedure:
None of the three institutions is really dominant.
The commission can 'only' propose laws. The parliament can 'only' amend them. The council can 'only' agree or disagree with the amendments of the parliament.
To a law to get fully approved it must be voted in the parliament AND council. As long as this is not done the law does not exist. The commission has also the competence to retract their proposal. So we can say that the three institutions balance each other.
An interesting point is that informal there is many discussion among the three institutions in what we call 'trialogues'. So basically the three institutions talk with each other to create a law who is acceptable for all three of them.
Once again: None of the three institutions dominates the others.
This is an old debate. In terms of the legislative process, I would defend it is the Council who has the upper hand. There is a strategic asymmetry in the balance of power between the Council and the EP based on the structure of the Ordinary Procedure and in how the EP and Council are composed . On the other hand, the Commission is the body that initiates legislation, but it does not adopts it. This means that the Commission is always constrained by the choice set of the Council and the EP.
@Cesar That's true but you only look at the formal side. There's a lot more happening informal. There we see that the commission has more to say than it looks at first sight.
@Alessandro. I would be inclined to believe you are right. However, I would argue that agents, if they are rational, have very much in mind the formal procedures when they interact informally. Practitioners often said that the Commission does the fundamental work in EU policy-making. And I believe this is right. But this not give them decisiveness per se. Reading the literature on informal governance, I am not at all convinced by arguments that place more weight in the Commission than in the Council. But prove be wrong, ;)
@Cesar You are clearly thinking from a rational-choice point of view. Actors are not always rational. Sometimes norms and values take the upper hand. In the trialogues there is a sphere of working together and compromise. That's why and how the commission can play an important role (like the two other institutions). I can refer you to social-constructivism literature.
In the wake of the recent crises the picture emerges of an EU dominated by the Member States. While ordinary legislative work has been left to the participants in the OLP, the European Council - this in tandem with the Council - has taken all important decisions shaping Europe's future (banking crisis, financial crisis, sovereign debt crisis, asylum crisis). This contrasts with the impression one would get upon reading the Treaties: Parliament isn't as powerful as one would think; the European Council is far more implied with decision-making than appears from the text of the Treaties; the Commission is helpless without proper participation of the Member States (e.g. asylum crisis). Next to the institutions dominated by the Member States (European Council and Council), the Court of Justice should not be overlooked. It plays an important and active role in European politics although it remains largely unknown to the public. That being said, recent validity questions put to the Court connected to European Council decisions have not led to a declaration of invalidity. Upon reading the jugments one is left with the impression that the Court shows great deference towards European Council decisions, possibly intimidated by the political weight those decisions carry (and the possible disastrous consequences of declaring them invalid), Such deference is less apparent when deciding on the legality of acts resulting from the OLP. Therefore, I believe that the European Council is the most powerful EU institution in the current political climate - and will continue to be for a long time.