EU Administrative Research Articles

EU Administrative Rules in Practice: The Example of the Proposed IORP II Directive

The legislative system of the European Union is determined by the distinction made between legislation and administrative rules and between delegation and implementation pursuant to the EU Treaty. This article analyses the implementation of this system in practice, on the basis of the revision of the IORP Directive. Not only do both distinctions give rise to conflicts between mostly national and EU legislatures but they also lead to disputes regarding the substance of the EU rules. This article also provides more detailed insight into the role of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA).

In the Aftermath of the Crisis: The EU Administrative System between Impediments and Momentum

The European responses to the financial and public debt crisis have triggered a process of administrative reorganization and growth within two fundamental sectors of the EU, the internal market of financial services and the EMU. This paper argues that the process of reorganization and growth of the EU administrative machinery within the single financial market and the EMU is characterized by a number of inherent tensions. Four of them are prominent and refer, respectively, to the powers conferred to the satellite administrative bodies established in order to tackle the crisis, to the jurisdictions of the new administrations, to the degree of centralization which is sought within the new mechanisms for the implementation of EU laws and policies, to the accountability mechanisms. When assessed in the light of their capability to improve the EU administrative capacities, such tensions appear to be deeply ambivalent. On the one hand, they might operate as "fault lines" of the whole EU administrative machinery, destabilizing its functioning in two important fields of EU action. On the other hand, by pointing to a host of unsolved issues in EU administrative law, they provide an opportunity for opening a genuine institutional and scientific discussion on the ways in which the EU administrative system should be adjusted or reformed.

Analytical and Methodological Framework of Research in European and/or EU Studies Curriculum

Abstract: The aim of this part is to provide a thorough view of the methodological and analytical framework of our study concerning the most important aspects of current developments within the EU Studies curricula. Lately, while speaking about Core Curriculum in European Studies, one can find various names: EU Studies, European Integration Studies or simply, European Studies. So, starting off from previous findings of other research conducted within the field (EpsNet, TEPSA, UACES, Tuning, Enseigner l’Europe), we tried to harmonize the actual debate of Curriculum in European Studies. The Methodology of our research consisted in collecting information about courses of European Studies from 12 EU Member States: BE, DK, FR, GE, IT, PT, SP, UK, LT, PL, RO, SK at the three level degrees: BA, MA and PhD. Then, we proceeded to identify the domains for each course, by placing them in the 9 fields agreed by the European Commission: EU Political and Administrative Studies, EU Legal Studies, EU Historical Studies, EU Economic Studies, EU International Relations and Diplomacy Studies, EU Intercultural Dialogue Studies, EU Communication and Information Studies, EU and Comparative Regionalism Studies, EU Interdisciplinary Studies. Subdomains were established for each domain. We arranged the courses first in compliance with the found categories and then upon the specializations where they are taught. This allowed us to notice that, unlike the previous approaches which regarded European Studies as both a Multidisciplinarity, and also as an Interdisciplinary discipline, we can perceive the European Studies also as a Disciplinary approach, i.e. as a subdomain of either a traditional domain, or of a new one (e.g. Political Studies; Law; History; Economy; Sociology; International Relations; Communication; Regional Studies).

Guarding the guardian: ‘Article 258 TFEU complaints’ before the European Ombudsman

The infringement procedure of Article 258 TFEU has been consistently viewed by the EU administration and judges as a bipolar bargaining game between the European Commission and the defaulting member state, in which individuals have no role to play. The European Ombudsman's efforts to triangularize the infraction process have resulted in the introduction of a number of soft-law, non-justiciable commitments for the Commission, which are currently set out in the 2012 Communication on its relations with complainants. This article considers the Ombudsman's contribution in the field of infringement complaints by empirically examining the application of the principal provisions of the Commission's Communication in his decision-making. The resulting finding is that Article 258 TFEU complainants have substantially benefited from the Ombudsman's creativity beyond the tight constraints of legality. Points for practitioners The analysis brings to the fore a number of key soft-law, non-justiciable commitments that the European Union administration is expected to honour in its everyday dealings with the European citizenry. The discussion also explores the transformative impact that extra-judicial means for the delivery of administrative justice can have on the ethos and praxis of supranational management. The European Commission's reaction to the European Ombudsman's investigative pressure and the resultant restraints on the former's discretionary powers are useful lessons, which transcend the European Union context and could set the tone for relevant developments in the domestic spheres of the EU member states.

Administrative Procedures and the Implementation of EU Law and Policies -- Contribution by the Research Network on EU Administrative Law (Reneual) Project on Administrative Procedure to the EU Commission's 'Assises De La Justice' Conference in Brussels -- 21-22 November 2013 to the Topic of EU Administrative Law

Well-designed rules of administrative procedure for implementation of EU law and policies will have beneficial effects both for effectiveness of implementation as well as for the realisation of general principles of EU law: A codification of EU administrative procedure law has the potential improve compliance with the rule of law and the principle of legality in the EU, to enhance legal certainty and further the principles of good administration, to simplify the diversity of procedures and make more transparent rights and obligations of individuals and administrations alike. This will not be without effect on increasing the legitimacy of exercise of public powers in the Union.In order to live up to this potential, EU administrative procedure law needs to overcome its fragmentation. So far, each sector-specific legislation, despite addressing common problems, differs with respect to the formulation of procedural provisions. One of the central challenges for regulating EU administrative procedures is finding solutions for the forms of intense procedural cooperation between national and European administrative actors through ‘composite procedures’ characterised by multi-jurisdictional input into decision-making. The multiplication of composite procedures across the policy fields of the EU, furthering de-central administration of a single legal space under the concept of subsidiarity, currently has the potential of diffusing responsibility and endangering the constitutionally guaranteed right to an effective remedy.The ReNEUAL draft model rules on administrative procedure have been developed and discussed together with lawyers from practice and academia and from all over Europe. They are designed to offer solutions of how to ensure modern, state of the art and tailor-made solutions to the challenges facing implementation of EU law and policies in today’s realities of integrated administration.

Efficiency, Citizens and Administrative Culture. The Politics of Good Administration in the EU

So far the debate on good administration in the EU has mainly focused on whether the EU institutions could adopt rules on good administration, and whether they should indeed wish to do so. The questions relating to a possible legal basis have been addressed by the reforms included in the Treaty of Lisbon (Article 298 TFEU together with the Charter). While EU citizens continue to battle with the fundamentals of good administration when interacting with the EU institutions, the Commission seems determined to direct the discussion to the further improvement of national administrations, even if the greatest gaps in regulation currently concern its own actions and direct EU administration more generally. Even if the Charter of Fundamental Rights includes a right to good administration, its main contribution relates to the specific questions addressed by the provision, and do not extend to requirements concerning a need to observe the requirements of good administration more generally. This paper argues that currently the balance is heavily on institutional interests, which are deemed difficult to reconcile with citizens' rights, leaving the institutions to emphasize efficiency, flexibility and both substantive and procedural discretion. The recent legislative initiative by the European Parliament with recommendations to the Commission on a Law of Administrative Procedure of the EU has potential to shift the balance, in particular as it aims at a closer regulation of the administrative procedure. However, ultimately Article 298 TFEU involves a number of political questions relating to finding the appropriate balance between the various interests that come into play when defining what actually counts as good administration. These questions should not be left to the administration itself to settle with reference to its own institutional preferences.

Contrasting models of EU administration in judicial review of risk regulation

Judicial review has been an important influence in the development of administrative risk regulation in the European Union. One way in which this influence has been felt is in the development of legal rules and principles for structuring and controlling administrative decision making on risk. Judicial formulation of these rules rests on often unstated premises about the nature and role of the administration within the EU's institutional structure. An examination of the case law shows that two distinct models of administration are operating in different strands of the case law. As jurisprudence in this area develops, the choice between these models will have significant impacts on the shape of risk regulation in the EU.

The Quiet Revolution in EU Administrative Procedure: Judicial Vetting of Precautionary Risk Assessment

The Quiet Revolution in EU Administrative Procedure: Judicial Vetting of Precautionary Risk Assessment

Optimal treatment of hyponatremia in clinical practice

SUMMARY: Hyponatremia is the most common electrolyte disorder and can lead to a wide spectrum of symptoms, from apparently asymptomatic to life-threatening. Severe symptoms are usually a consequence of cerebral edema and should prompt immediate treatment with hypertonic fluid. In less severe cases, or after resolution of severe symptoms thorough clinical examination of volume status, additional laboratory tests are needed in order to identify the underlying cause and to classify the hyponatremia as hypo-, eu- or hyper-volemic. Although most cases of hyponatremia are attributed to an excessive action of antidiuretic hormone (vasopressin), optimal therapy regimes differ. While hypovolemic hyponatremia is treated appropriately with the administration of isotonic saline, eu- and hyper-volemic hyponatremia are classically treated with fluid restriction. In recent years a new class of drugs, vasopressin receptor-2 antagonists, called vaptans, have emerged as a potent and safe choice for the treatment of fluid r...

Europos administracinės teisės samprata ir ES administracinių procedūrų rinkinio rengimo prielaidos

There are several reasons, according to which it is worth analyzing European administrative law. First, this is a rather new branch of law. Second, the European administrative law is treated in different countries from different legal traditions positions, consequently, any effort to unify the approach to it can provide a basis for a unified European administrative law model. Third, there are no works dedicated to the analysis of the phenomenon of the European administrative law in Lithuania. Therefore, this article deals with the concepts of the European administrative law. It is stated that the comprehensive image of the European administrative law reveals three European administrative law concepts. The first concept of the European administrative law characterizes it as the European Union (hereinafter – EU) administrative law, the validity of boundaries of which can be based on three aspects – functional, institutional and procedural. The second concept of the European administrative law identifies it as the law of administrative cooperation., whereas the third concept allows the European administrative law to be seen as the law common to various public administrations of European countries – ius commune. The article focuses on the analysis of the above-mentioned three approaches and the EU set of administrative procedures as an instrument to promote the development of the EU administrative law. The author comes to the conclusion that the concept of the ‘European Administrative Law’ is broader than the concept of the ‘EU Administrative Law’. The European administrative law can be perceived not only as a part of law that establishes the EU administration’s administrative legal status, its’ activity principles, forms and methods, but also as a law of administrative cooperation between states, governmental and non-governmental organizations and various corporations, based on a wide range of multilateral treaties or conventions, which cross the limits of the EU. Moreover, the European administrative law can be understood as a law with common concepts, general principles characteristic to different European countries’ public administrations as well as a science, with the help of which diverse administrative legal systems of various countries could be compared. Taking into account the content of various working documents, the author draws the conclusion that for the further development of the EU administrative law the establishment of uniform operating rules for the EU administration in its’ relations with the society is of exceptional importance. There are a number of important reasons to develop the Law on administrative procedure of the EU. First, it is generally recognized that the EU needs common binding legislation that sets out clear operating rules of the EU administration in its’ relations with legal and natural persons, and that would increase the transparency of the EU administration and its’ accessibility to citizens. Second, the drafting of the law on administrative procedure of the EU lies in the legal framework as well; the importance of the article 298 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, the articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU as well as “soft” law (i.e. codes of good administrative behavior) are obvious here.

EU Agencies: Does the Meroni Doctrine Make Sense?

Two decades ago the process of agencification of the EU administration was initiated and has gained momentum ever since. Today there are about 30 agencies scattered across the EU, active in different policy fields and entrusted with different tasks. In a first part this article looks at the history and rationale of agency creation and at the political framework in which EU agencies operate. In a second part, building on the definition and classification of agencies by Griller and Orator, a closer look will be taken at the institutional position of the EU agencies. Because the creation of agencies was neither excluded nor foreseen in the Founding Treaties most authors search for clarification in the 1958 Meroni ruling of the CJEU This article challenges this line of reasoning by identifying a number of problems. Furthermore this article also challenges the way in which a number of authors deduct the principle of institutional balance from the Meroni ruling, applying it to the functioning of agencies, thereby misconstruing the original concern which the Court sought to express through this principle. In the last part the article links this legal discussion to the political discussions on the future framework for the agencies, identifying a critical role for the Commission in supporting the above mentioned dominant legal reasoning.

European Administration. Normative Fundaments and Systemic Models

Making use of the relevant literature in the area, this paper proposes a systemic approach to the European administration. The difficulty of the research design stems from the inconsistency of the regulations European treaties exhibit, as well as from the sectorial approaches, mostly of legal nature, on the conceptualization of the EU administration. To this we add the complexity of the analyzed process which, under the conditions set by the EU enlargement tends to overcome, both in sphere and content, many of the administrations of the federal states or international organizations. The systemic model we propose is a complex system, of a mixed architecture. It is there that the self-regulatory processes have a unique specificity and make use of both a legal foundation and of complementary processes such are those of Europeanization, convergence and administrative dynamic

Seven Challenges for EU Administrative Law

This contribution has the objective to reflect on existing and impending challenges to EU public law from an administrative perspective. This will be undertaken against the fast-paced developments of the past 50 years linking various levels of government and administration in the Member States and the EU to administrative networks which are active also on the international scene. In this context, European administrative law has grown and evolved and has become an important, yet often not very fully understood, factor shaping the reality of policy implementation in the EU. 1 An Administrative Perspective on EU Law – Changing Perspectives of EU Administrative Law European integration through law is highly dynamic process. This paper makes an attempt to contribute to the thinking about EU public law by contextualising and giving an overview of some of the central aspects of the evolving scholarship necessary to tackle the challenges to the EU’s future as a legal system from an administrative law perspective. After an initial flourishing in legal literature and case law in the founding period of the European integration process, especially in the context of the ECSC, administrative law virtually disappeared from the horizon of EU legal scholars. The initial administrative perspective on European integration was a rather restricted and even tendentious one. In the context of the original EEC it was often associated more with the aim of denying the ‘state’ quality of the E(E)C than of attempting to encompass the real nature of legal relations within the early European Communities. The disappearance of this administrative perspective can be largely traced to the interest herwig.hofmann@uni.lu This paper is a footnoted version of a presentation I gave at the First REALaw research conference in Groningen on June 3, 009. I would like to especially thank Gerard Rowe for investing much of his time into developing and clarifying the ideas contained in this article. Many others have generously contributed their time to discussing the ideas therein. This came to be known under the idea of the Communities being the Member States’ special purpose vehicle or ‚Zweckverband’ for achieving certain limited policy goals. See for example H.P. Ipsen, Zur Exekutivrechtsetzung in der Europaischen Gemeinschaft, in: P. Badura, R. Scholz (eds.), Wege und Verfahren des Verfassungslebens (Beck Verlag, Munchen, 993), 4 5-44 .

Towards a European Administrative Procedure Act

Under the joint responsibility of the Member States to imple- ment EU law, administrative law systems of the EU are converging and a common body of EU administrative law is emerging. Most debates on this process of EU administrative law integration have focused on differences and divergences between national systems vis-a-vis the EU system. The concept of administra- tion at the level of the EU, however, is difficult to compare to that in use in most domestic systems in continental Europe. In this contribution, we bring the lens of the United States (U.S.) approach to the debate. The problems and challenges the EU administration faces do resemble those which confronted the federal admin- istration in the U.S. more than 50 years ago. The article discusses some of the parallels between the U.S. and EU system and zooms in on the EU's 'problem zones': preparation of regulation - in particular the role of participation and the use of evidence therein - and the position of agencies. On the basis of experiences with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in controlling the U.S. administra- tion and the federal agencies, the contribution then reflects on the desirability of a general EU Administrative Law Act, especially in view of the upcoming extension of judicial review of general rules the Lisbon Treaty will most likely bring. The conclusion is in short that the American APA offers food for European thought and that a lot could be gained with a European styled APA 'light version'.

Administrative Law and Multi-Level Administration: An EU and US Comparison

AbstractThe aim of this chapter is to assess what, if anything, administrative law can demonstrate about multi-level administration in the European Union and the United States. The particular focus of the examination is not on the content of administrative law in each legal order, but rather on the impact of EU and US federal administrative law on the Member States and US States respectively. It will be seen that, while US federal administrative law has primarily only influential effect on US States, EU administrative law is often binding on Member States. This observation challenges presumptions often made, particularly in political science, as to the degrees of inter-penetration in administration in the EU and the US. It will be argued that the cause of divergence is largely derived from differing judicial attitudes as to the fundamental tenets of the co-operation between the different levels of administration, and indeed, more general understandings of federalism in the two jurisdictions. In this way, this study also provides a useful prism through which to consider integration in the EU and US more broadly.

Administrative Law and Multi-Level Administration: An EU and US Comparison

Abstract The aim of this chapter is to assess what, if anything, administrative law can demonstrate about multi-level administration in the European Union and the United States. The particular focus of the examination is not on the content of administrative law in each legal order, but rather on the impact of EU and US federal administrative law on the Member States and US States respectively. It will be seen that, while US federal administrative law has primarily only influential effect on US States, EU administrative law is often binding on Member States. This observation challenges presumptions often made, particularly in political science, as to the degrees of inter-penetration in administration in the EU and the US. It will be argued that the cause of divergence is largely derived from differing judicial attitudes as to the fundamental tenets of the co-operation between the different levels of administration, and indeed, more general understandings of federalism in the two jurisdictions. In this way, this study also provides a useful prism through which to consider integration in the EU and US more broadly.

Different pattern of brain pro-/anti-oxidant activity between depleted and enriched uranium in chronically exposed rats

Uranium is not only a heavy metal but also an alpha particle emitter. The main toxicity of uranium is expected to be due to chemiotoxicity rather than to radiotoxicity. Some studies have demonstrated that uranium induced some neurological disturbances, but without clear explanations. A possible mechanism of this neurotoxicity could be the oxidative stress induced by reactive oxygen species imbalance. The aim of the present study was to determine whether a chronic ingestion of uranium induced anti-oxidative defence mechanisms in the brain of rats. Rats received depleted (DU) or 4% enriched (EU) uranyl nitrate in the drinking water at 2 mg −1 kg −1 day −1 for 9 months. Cerebral cortex analyses were made by measuring mRNA and protein levels and enzymatic activities. Lipid peroxidation, an oxidative stress marker, was significantly enhanced after EU exposure, but not after DU. The gene expression or activity of the main antioxidant enzymes, i.e. superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT) and glutathione peroxidase (GPx), increased significantly after chronic exposure to DU. On the contrary, oral EU administration induced a decrease of these antioxidant enzymes. The NO-ergic pathway was almost not perturbed by DU or EU exposure. Finally, DU exposure increased significantly the transporters (Divalent-Metal-Transporter1; DMT1), the storage molecule (ferritin) and the ferroxidase enzyme (ceruloplasmin), but not EU. These results illustrate that oxidative stress plays a key role in the mechanism of uranium neurotoxicity. They showed that chronic exposure to DU, but not EU, seems to induce an increase of several antioxidant agents in order to counteract the oxidative stress. Finally, these results demonstrate the importance of the double toxicity, chemical and radiological, of uranium.

EU Administrative Governance

EU Administrative Governance

Holding (Quasi‐)Autonomous EU Administrative Actors to Public Account

Abstract: This article addresses problems of accountability in relation to two specific kinds of administrative actors in the EU system of multilevel governance, namely comitology committees and EU‐level agencies. With regard to both sets of actors, the accountability issue is often framed in terms of delegation from a principal to an agent. This article explores the delegation of powers discourse and the question whether this framing adequately covers accountability forums and mechanisms that are emerging as a matter of legal and institutional practice. The latter sub‐constitutional level is particularly relevant given the high degree of institutionalisation of both categories of administrative actors. Using these two categories of administrative actors as case studies, this article suggests that a delegation model of accountability in a democratic sense is not adequate and only captures part of emerging practice. A looser conceptual framing, understanding public accountability as a process in which power is checked and balanced by various actors, fits better within a more constitutional perspective on holding EU executive power to account.

The Spanish zoogenetic conservation from a non governmental organization (SERGA)

The Spanish Society for the Conservation of Animal Genetic Resources (SERGA) starts its activities as a scientific association in 1988, responding to the demands of farmers, researchers and administrations regarding the lost of the rich zoogenetic patrimony of Spain.SERGA was formed as a presidential association with centralized management, but in 2002 was adapted to the federalist structure of Spain, creating sections by regions. SERGA was National Focal Point in FAO until 2000, and represents Spain in all forum related to animal genetic conservation.Also in 2000 we start collaboration with SPREGA, the Portuguese Society, developing several Iberic actions. We have done together seven international congresses with more than four hundred papers published in specific proceedings about three main subjects: Assisted reproduction; Zooethnology and Applied Genetics.We have participated in national Committees and assisted both nations in the preparations of the national inform for the FAO´s global strategy.Now we are trying to contact other Mediterranean initiatives to establish a common strategy revindicating the role of the region in Europe.The European Mediterranean count with more than 80% of the European domestic breeds, but few of our delegates are present in the decision points of the EU administration.