Article

Derivative illegality in European composite administrative procedures

Article

Derivative illegality in European composite administrative procedures

If you want to read the PDF, try requesting it from the authors.

Abstract

This article considers the review of legality in composite procedures - i.e. European administrative procedures where national and EU authorities decide jointly. It explores how EU courts deal with the question of whether, and to what extent, irregularities occurring at national level are relevant for the legality of final decisions adopted at EU level. It presents two claims: first, that EU courts have developed a differentiated doctrine of "derivative illegality", or "contamination effects" from national to European stages, depending on the level at which discretion is located. Such illegality is categorically excluded where national authorities predetermine the procedure's outcome, and admitted under certain conditions where the EU level enjoys discretion to diverge from the national level. Second, it is argued that the case law's rejection or limitation of derivative illegality in composite procedures allows the ECJ to observe four constitutional principles: the prohibition of EU courts to review national measures, the autonomy and uniformity of EU legal order, and the rule of law.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

Chapter
Paying particular attention to the institutional dimension of the EU legal framework for the placing on the market of Novel Foods, this chapter examines the main elements of Regulation 2015/2283, including the definition of Novel Food, the objectives of the legislative measure, and the procedure for the authorisation of Novel Foods. The analysis focuses especially on the roles of the diverse actors involved, and on the Regulation’s collocation in the broader context of EU food law and European integrated administration.
Article
Full-text available
This Article deals with the issues related to the judicial review of transnational acts which are adopted particularly within the context of the European integration process. The European Union is a privileged playground for the development of administrative acts of this type, primarily because of the existence of various and diverse administrative cooperation mechanisms. Transnational administrative acts are, either because of their adoption process or because of their conditions of enforcement, governed by at least two national legal orders. The question of the availability of judicial review in the context of transnational administrative acts is a complex one, because the presence of one exogeneous element may disrupt the straightforward path toward the right of access to courts—as both the determination of the competent court and the scope of the review carried out by the court seized become uncertain. This Article first draws up a typology of transnational administrative acts. Second, on the basis of this typology, this Article analyzes the solutions developed by the case law of the Court of Justice and assesses them in the light of the principles of territoriality of administrative law and the right to effective judicial protection.
Technical Report
Full-text available
The paper distinguishes two contrasting models of accountability, one based on principal-agent relations, which is backward-looking, the other a dynamic and forward-looking model. The paper argues that this second model of accountability is more appropriate for independent bodies like the ECB/SSM and the SRB, operating in technically complex, rapidly evolving environments under conditions of high uncertainty, where parliaments and other political authorities have very limited sanctioning powers. It then goes on to review the nature and effectiveness of three main forms of accountability as applied to these institutions-administrative, judicial, and political-together with the contribution of external review bodies, such as the European Court of Auditors and the European Ombudsman, to their accountability at European level. Following the dynamic, forward-looking approach advocated above, the paper argues that the best way to improve the accountability of the SSM and the SRB is to request the ECB/SSM and SRB to make the findings of their internal quality assurance and review bodies publicly available (subject to constraints on professional secrecy) and for the EP to use these findings to scrutinize and stimulate public debate about the operations and effectiveness of the two institutions.
Article
Full-text available
Composite administrative procedures – Exclusive jurisdiction of Union courts to review non-binding national preparatory acts – No jurisdiction of Union courts to enforce national law – Autonomy and uniformity of EU law – No judicial control possible of violation of domestic law by national authorities – National rule of law gap – Judicial review, effective judicial protection, and principle of administrative legality
Article
Full-text available
Masks, gloves, exports licences and composite procedures: Implementing Regulation 2020/402 and the limelight of accountability - Luis Arroyo Jiménez, Mariolina Eliantonio
Chapter
Full-text available
The operationalisation in late 2014 of Regulation 1024/2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions and establishing a Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSMR) has profoundly changed the European financial market regulatory and supervisory landscape. The most apparent change is the role of the European Central Bank (ECB) in the new integrated single supervisory framework in which it is responsible for the effective and consistent functioning of the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM). One prominent feature of the SSM are the arrangements concerning the application of national law by the ECB. Pursuant to Article 4 (3) sub-para. 1 SSMR, in applying all relevant Union law for the purpose of carrying out the tasks conferred on it by the SSMR, including all relevant secondary law, the ECB must not only apply national legislation by which options explicitly granted in regulations have been exercised, but also national legislation transposing relevant EU Directives. These arrangements have implications that surpass the operation of the SSMR itself, as they touch upon fundamental aspects of European legal doctrine that have received comparably less attention until now. By way of illustration, in this short written version of a contribution to the 2019 ECB Legal Conference the implications of two aspects linked to the application by a Union institution of national law are discussed: the direct application by the ECB of Directives that have been inadequately implemented into national law and, moreover, the exercise of public power by the ECB that is at least partially rooted in national law. The latter point has recently also been scrutinised by the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) in its decision on the compatibility with the German Federal Constitution of the Single Supervisory Mechanism and the Single Resolution Mechanism.
Chapter
Before joining the General Court in 2010, I had the pleasure of working in the Brussels office of a well-reputed Belgo-Dutch law firm. As any international firm combining people of various origins, generations and social background, it had its internal tensions. As one could expect, the relations between the Dutch and the Belgians were not always perfect. Neither were the relations between the Dutch speakers and the French speaking colleagues always harmonious. Even so, it was (and still is) an enjoyable and successful firm. With hindsight, I see two important factors that contributed to overcoming internal frictions. The first factor was explained to me by the then office manager of the firm. In his view, and now also mine, human conflicts often arise because of perceptions, which do not necessarily coincide with objective facts and true intentions. The stronger emotions are, the wider this gap tends to become. Lifting the veil of perceptions, therefore, helps to avoid and solve conflicts. The second factor that contributed to the firm’s success was a sense of common purpose. There were no fundamental doubts about the objectives pursued by the partnership: offering a good service and being paid accordingly. Readers may wonder what these personal recollections have to do with the internal market project and European integration. Now, the answers to this question relate to the two factors mentioned above: the contrast between perceptions and reality and the absence of uncertainties as to the objectives pursued.
Article
The cornerstone of the Community regulatory framework on this subject is EC Directive 90/220/EEC, as repealed by EC Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMO), which is based on a fundamental premise: that in order to prevent the risks caused by the release of genetically modified organisms, GMOs can only be released subject to the grant of a prior authorisation, following a scientific assessment, which confirms that such organisms do not represent a risk to the environment and human health. Yet it is obvious that Member States are not willing to entirely transfer their sovereignty in relation to issues that are of such fundamental importance to environmental protection and human health; at the same time however, the objective of achieving free movement of GMOs implies the establishment of a genuine Community procedure for this sector. The need to strike a balance between these competing demands therefore requires an enormous collaborative effort from national and Community authorities, which, contrary to expectations, has not produced any concrete results as yet. The authorisation procedure that has been developed was intended to bridge the gap between the divergent interpretations of what actually constitutes a biotechnical risk; conversely, it has reached a stasis, and causing protracted delays in the procedures granting authorisations. Admittedly, some changes to the procedure were implemented in 2001, but they were not intended to restructure the general architecture of the procedure established in 1990. Yet are such remedies going to be effective? Or is it time to make a more radical revision of the existing procedures by redistributing the competences on this delay?
Article
  The discussion about the transformation of forms of government and governance in Europe cannot avoid touching upon the role of administrations or administrative actors. Within the EU's multi-level system, the activities of agenda-setting, policy formulation, and implementation all involve some form of interaction between public actors from the sub-national, national, supranational, and international levels. Cooperation amongst administrations in Europe has become the backbone of the EU's unique system of government and governance. Forms of cooperation have led to an integrated administration, which has developed in an evolutionary fashion and operates in large parts beyond the formally constituted rules of the treaties. This article explores the implications of this phenomenon and argues for the need of a changed perspective.
supra note 59, 1133 et seq
  • Op Caranta
  • Cit
Caranta, op. cit. supra note 59, 1133 et seq.
and 91 et seq. 107. See Case C-466/93
  • See Curti Gialdino
See Curti Gialdino, I vizi dell'atto nel giudizio davanti alla Corte di Giustizia dell'Unione Europea (Giuffrè, 2008), pp. 86-88 and 91 et seq. 107. See Case C-466/93, Atlanta, EU:C:1995:370, para 16.
I vizi dell'atto nel giudizio davanti alla Corte di Giustizia dell'Unione Europea (Giuffrè
  • See Curti Gialdino
See Curti Gialdino, I vizi dell'atto nel giudizio davanti alla Corte di Giustizia dell'Unione Europea (Giuffrè, 2008), pp. 86-88 and 91 et seq.