EU coursework - NA-Assignment, Exercises of European Union law

This document, titled "EU coursework - N/A," is part of a European Union Law course and critiques a ChatGPT-generated essay on EU competences. It highlights weaknesses such as lack of depth, critical analysis, and references to cases and treaty articles. The student outlines improvements, including a structured introduction, detailed discussion of EU competences (exclusive, shared, complementary), and analysis of reforms like the Lisbon Treaty. The essay also addresses judicial review mechanisms, such as preliminary rulings under Article 267 TFEU, and cases like Germany v Commission and Costa v ENEL. The conclusion emphasizes the need for clearer treaty provisions to prevent "competence creep" and ensure effective frameworks for EU competences.

Typology: Exercises

2024/2025

Available from 03/08/2025

charles-khama
charles-khama 🇮🇹

3.4

(23)

8.3K documents

1 / 4

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
pf3
pf4

Partial preview of the text

Download EU coursework - NA-Assignment and more Exercises European Union law in PDF only on Docsity!

3/8/25, 12:55 PM about:blank EU coursework - N/A ‘Semester 1 Summative Assessment-Saima Khan There are a multitude of weaknesses in this Chat GPT generated answer. From lack of depth and critical analysis to a lack of cases and references. The following are some examples: ~ There is no ascertainable introduction which outlines the topics that will be discussed in the essay nor does it describe the stance that will be taken in the essay. This leads to confusion and a lack of analysis throughout the essay. - Itdoes not talk about the 3 different types of EU competences in enough depth. It simply names them and does not describe their function or purpose nor the differences between them. - There are no references to specific Articles of relevant treaties which shows a lack of research and effort. - Some paragraphs such as the ‘Legal Mechanisms for Dispute Resolution’ do not answer the question and lack relevance. It does not effectively address the question and its claims that the Member States are pushing back against EU Law. = There is no discussion of previous reforms such as the Lisbon Treaty. = There are no references that could lead to potential claims of plagiarism. ~ Only one case used to back up claims which shows a serious lack of depth, and again itis not referenced. ~ There is no sustained argument throughout the essay. ~ Does not provide nearly enough depth as to why Member states have been using judicial review nor give any examples. In conclusion not only are there glaring shortcoming in the general structure of the essay there are also significant shortfalls in the content and their relevance. Points to Include In my essay | would amend the structure significantly, add an introduction outlining the Points discussed in the essay and my overall stance on the statement which will be sustained throughout the essay. | would also provide a brief history on EU competencies up to this point including any relevant reforms such as the Lisbon Treaty.Additionally | would add relevant Treaty Articles and provide in depth definitions and correctly reference cases regarding the 3 types of EU competencies. | would include these points as follows: Introduction ~ would highlight that the system of EU competences is highlighted in the Treaty on the European Union’ and reforms made in the Lisbon Treaty.” - Background: All EU actions must have a legal basis which is amenable to judicial review. Pre Lisbon Treaty there was no clear categorisation on the division of powers i.e. lagal bases were primarily explored in case law and academic commentary. The EU worked on an implied powers doctrine meaning if the EU has explicit powers in ‘one area then it could also claim implied powers necessary to achieve the objectives 1 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/47. 2 Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community (2007] OJ C306/1 1/4