# EU institutions and the Court of Justice

> **Key takeaway:** Commission proposes/enforces; Council + EP legislate; CJEU interprets (Art 267 references historically). UK: no ordinary references; EUWA s.6 governs case-law use. Know institution names precisely.

- **Jurisdiction:** England & Wales
- **Practice area:** Public Law
- **Last reviewed:** 2026-08-04
- **Interactive page:** https://kttclegal.info/library/notes/PublicLaw/eu-institutions-and-cjeu
- **Keywords:** EU institutions, European Commission, CJEU, preliminary reference, Article 267, European Parliament, Council, CILFIT

## What is this about?

The EU's institutional triangle (Commission, Council, Parliament) makes and administers EU law, while the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ensures uniform interpretation. UK courts no longer make preliminary references, but understanding the architecture remains important for reading authorities and for any ongoing specialised dispute mechanisms.

## What is the core rule?

The European Commission proposes legislation, polices Member State compliance, and acts as executive in defined fields. The Council (Member State governments) and European Parliament legislate under ordinary/special procedures. The European Council sets political direction. The CJEU (Court of Justice and General Court) hears infringement, annulment, and preliminary reference cases (TFEU Art 267 lineage): national courts could refer questions of EU law for binding rulings that structured domestic application. After exit, UK courts follow EUWA rules on taking account of/departing from CJEU case law rather than referring.

## What are the elements or test?

1. Which institution acted (Commission/Council/EP/CJEU)?
2. Was the measure legislative, delegated, or implementing?
3. For historical litigation: was a preliminary reference available/used?
4. For current UK: persuasive weight of CJEU authorities under EUWA s.6 as amended?

## Which authorities matter?

- **TEU provisions on institutions; TFEU Art 267 (preliminary rulings) as pre-exit framework** — Treaty architecture of institutions and the reference procedure.
- **European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, s.6 (as amended)** — Domestic rules on CJEU case law after exit.
- **CILFIT (Case 283/81) [1982] ECR 3415 (historical)** — When national courts of last instance were obliged to refer — classic reference doctrine.

## How does this apply in practice?

Do not attempt Art 267 references from UK courts post-exit. Some Withdrawal Agreement/TCA bodies have distinct dispute roles — check the instrument. Pair with sources and supremacy notes.

## What are common pitfalls?

- Assuming UK courts can still refer questions to the CJEU in ordinary domestic cases
- Confusing European Council with Council of the EU
- Treating Commission soft law as always binding

## When would a practitioner use this?

Reading EU judgments; explaining institutional roles; advising on weight of post-exit CJEU authority.

## Quick reference

Commission proposes/enforces; Council + EP legislate; CJEU interprets (Art 267 references historically). UK: no ordinary references; EUWA s.6 governs case-law use. Know institution names precisely.

---

*Reference material from [KTTC Legal](https://kttclegal.info/), not legal advice. Work product supports instructing solicitors and barristers under their supervision. England & Wales.*