Suppose someone’s rights under EU law are infringed. The member state refuses to enforce the law at the highest level. The victim asks the European Commission to enforce EU law against the offending member state. The EC¹ does a superficial preliminary check and agrees that the case can move forward (past the initial screening criteria).
After deeper checks, the EC decides that they will kill the case because they are proposing future law that will remove the right anyway. Is this legal?
It seems really bizarre and chaotic that as the law changes, and a legal case often takes years, enforcement would not be based on a snapshot of the law at the time the incident occurs. And it seems extra fucked up that they would base a decision to withhold legal action on the mere speculation of future law that will be proposed, not even a law that has at least passed in Parliament. But I’m not a lawyer.
Does the idea of enforcing law that does not match the law at the time of an incident have some kind of latin name or something so I can search more about this practice?
¹ Is “EC” an abbreviation for the European Commission, or the European Council? Not sure if it’s a safe acronym to use. Laws often have EC in the citiation.
Update
I think “ex ante” is the latin term which is the opposite of “ex post facto”. Though it does not seem to be specific to the legal practice of enforcing law before it is enacted.
all 2 comments