| 1. |
- Bergström, Carl Fredrik, 1965-
(författare)
-
Introduction
- 2016. - 1
-
Ingår i: Rulemaking by the European Commission: the New System for Delegation of Powers. - Oxford : Oxford University Press. - 9780198703235 ; , s. 1-17
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This chapter explain the basic notions will be used in the book, how they have emerged and what they mean; ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ law, ‘legislative’ and ‘non-legislative’ acts, ‘delegated’ and ‘implementing’ acts, ‘delegation of powers’, ‘essential elements’ and ‘implementation’. The tone is neutral, careful not to reduce the complexity or interfere with the qualified assessments of all different authors. Focus is set on the development over time and the institutional context in which that development has taken place. An important ambition is to identify the legal sources which have been central for the development and also the sources which are today fundamental for the new system of delegation of powers. In addition to that statistics are presented on EU regulatory activity, which are central for all chapters of the book. Finally, the aim of the book is formulated and some important delimitations explained.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bergström, Carl Fredrik, 1965-, et al.
(författare)
-
Patterns and Findings: Five Central Themes
- 2016. - 1
-
Ingår i: Rulemaking by the Euroepan Commission: the New System for Delegation of Powers. - Oxford : Oxford University Press. - 9780198703235 ; , s. 257-269
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The last chapter of the book provides a general conclusion where the striking patterns which can be observed from the authors are set out and the most forceful findings sought to identify. These patterns and findings are sorted within five different themes covering; the contrast between the constitutional expectations on the reform and its result; the seemingly smooth operation of the regulatory machinery; the over-simplified and still unclear implications for the institutional balance of powers; the unsolved and, thus, remaining problems where fundamental difference of opinion has persisted; and, finally, the judicial response. In addition to that the editors provide their answer to the basic question they addressed – If the new system has really affected the old doctrine of delegation of powers – and discuss, briefly, some of all that which remains for further study.
|
|
| 3. |
- Bergström, Maria
(författare)
-
Judicial Protection for Private Parties in European Commission Rulemaking
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Rulemaking by the European Commission. - Oxford : Oxford University Press. - 9780198703235 ; , s. 205-232
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Against the background of the general developments of judicial protection of private parties within the European Union, this chapter analyses the remaining incoherencies of judicial protection for private parties in European Commission rulemaking. Whereas enhanced judicial control would increase the democratic legitimacy of Commission rulemaking, the Lisbon Treaty introduced some relaxed rules on stranding for private parties to challenge non-legislative acts. Although stronger scrutiny of non-legislative acts involving non-majoritarian institutions such as the Commission is welcome, it is still unclear how far the Lisbon changes allow for judicial protection for private parties in Commission rulemaking. The remaining questions concern the coherence of the terminology used in Articles 290 and 291 TFEU on the one hand and in Article 263 TFEU on the other. A narrow interpretation of the Article 263 criteria of regulatory acts, direct concern and implementing measures might clasp with demands put on the EU legal order by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EU Charter). In contrast, a wider interpretation of the key concepts would increase democratic control of Commission rulemaking, enhance judicial protection of private parties and meet the demands of the ECHR and the EU Charter. In particular, the Court of Justice’s approach when interpreting the imprecise term ‘regulatory act’ (cf. French les actes réglementaires, and German Rechtsakte mit Verordnungscharakter), will provide a measure of the importance it now attributes to the principle of effective judicial protection.
|
|
