A Loyal Commission

  • R. Eljalill Tauschinsky


How can a Commission duty of loyalty towards the persons subject to its rule-making be implemented? This implementation is the concretisation of the conditions for justification of the Commission’s powers and requires disinterestedness and fairness. Disinterestedness should be operationalised through a mechanism which makes the Commission reflect on its motives, and fairness should be operationalised through a mechanism which brings greater transparency to the influence of the various interests on the decision-making process. This chapter makes concrete suggestions about how the current process of making delegated and implementing acts fits these requirements.


  1. Akman P (2014) The role of intent in the EU case law on abuse of dominance. Eur Law Rev 39(3):316Google Scholar
  2. Alemanno A, Meeuwse A (2013) Impact assessment of EU non-legislative rulemaking: the missing link in ‘new comitology’. Eur Law J 19(1):76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashdown MJ (2010) In defence of the rule in Re Hastings-Bass. Trusts Trustees 16(10):826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashworth A (2009) Principles of criminal law. Oxford University Press, p 149 et seqGoogle Scholar
  5. Barents R (2014) EU procedural law and effective legal protection. Common Mark Law Rev 51:1437Google Scholar
  6. Blom-Hansen J (2008) The origins of the EU comitology system: a case of informal agenda-setting by the commission. J Eur Publ Policy 15(2):208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blom-Hansen J, Brandsma G (2009) The EU comitology system: intergovernmental bargaining and deliberative supranationalism? J Common Mark Stud 47(4):719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blum WJ (1967) Motive, intent, and purpose in Federal Income Taxation. Univ Chic Law Rev 34(3):485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brandsa GJ, Blom-Hansen J (2010) The EU comitology system: what role for the commission? Public Adm 88(2):496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calliess C (2011) Art. 296 EUV [Gemeinsame Grundsätze für die Rechtsakte der Union]. In: Calliess C, Ruffert M (eds) EUV/AEUV Kommentar, 4th edn. Verlag CH Beck, p 2507Google Scholar
  11. Campbell C (1996) On the concept of motive in sociology. Sociology 30(1):101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Craig P (2012) EU administrative law. Oxford University Press, p 340Google Scholar
  13. Dal Bó E (2006) Regulatory capture: a review. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 22(2):203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dehousse R (2003) Comitology: who watches the watchmen? J Eur Publ Policy 10(5):798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Egeberg M, Schaefer GF, Trondal J (2003) The many faces of EU Committee Governance. West Eur Polit 26(3):19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eising R (2007) The access of business interests to EU institutions: towards élite pluralism? J Eur Publ Policy 14(3):384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fisher E (2007) Risk regulation and administrative constitutionalism, HartGoogle Scholar
  18. Fox-Decent E (2011) Sovereignty’s promise: the state as fiduciary. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  19. Freedman JO (1976) Expertise and the administrative process. Adm Law Rev 28:363Google Scholar
  20. Friedbacher TJ (1996) Motive unmasked: the European Court of Justice, the free movement of goods, and the search for legitimacy. Eur Law J 2(3):226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Galligan D (1997) Due process and fair procedures: a study of administrative procedures. Oxford University Press, p 52 et seqGoogle Scholar
  22. Galoob SR, Leib EJ (2014) Intentions, compliance and fiduciary obligations. Legal Theory 20(2):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. García Ureta A (2003) Misuse of powers as a ground for the annulment of community acts: a case law approach. Rivista Italiana Di Diritto Pubblico Comunitario XIII(3–4):775Google Scholar
  24. Georgiev V (2013) Too much executive power? Delegated law-making and comitology in perspective. J Eur Publ Policy 20(4):535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gornitzka A, Holst C (2015) The expert-executive nexus in the EU: an introduction. Polit Gov 3(1):1Google Scholar
  26. Greenwood J (2007) Review article: organized civil society and democratic legitimacy in the European Union. Br J Polit Sci 37:333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jakobs G (1991) Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, 2nd edn. De Gruyter, p 148 et seqGoogle Scholar
  28. Jos PH, Tompkins ME (2004) The accountability paradox in an age of reinvention: the perennial problem of preserving character and judgment. Adm Soc 36(3):255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Karvonen A, Brand R (2009) Technical expertise, sustainability and the politics of specialized knowledge. In: Kütting G, Lipschutz RD (eds) Environmental governance: power and knowledge in a local-global world. Routledge, p 41Google Scholar
  30. Kerry S (2012) Control of trustee discretion: the rule in Re Hastings-Bass. UCL J Law Jurisp 1:46Google Scholar
  31. Kohler-Koch B, Finke B (2007) The institutional shaping of EU-society relations: a contribution to democracy via participation? J Civ Soc 3(3):205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Larsson T (2003) Precooking in the European Union: the world of expert groups. ESO—The Expert Group on Public Finance, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  33. Laruelle A, Valenciano F (2002) Inequality among EU citizens in the EU’s council decision procedure. Eur J Polit Econ 18:475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee M (2015) Experts and public in EU environmental law. In: Arnull A, Chalmers D (eds) Oxford handbook of European Union law. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  35. Macdonald RA (1980) Judicial review and procedural fairness in administrative law: II. McGill Law J 26:1Google Scholar
  36. Mahoney C, Beckstrand MJ (2011) Following the money: European Union funding of civil society organizations. J Common Mark Stud 49(6):1339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mendes J (2011) Participation and the role of law after Lisbon: a legal view on article 11 TEU. Common Mark Law Rev 48:1849Google Scholar
  38. Odudu O (2001) Interpreting Article 81(1): object as subjective intention. Eur Law Rev 26(1):60Google Scholar
  39. Pollack MA (2003) Control mechanisms or deliberative democracy? Two images of comitology. Comp Pol Stud 36:125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roberts J (1991) The possibilities of accountability. Acc Organ Soc 16(4):355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schwarze J (1992) European administrative law. Sweet and MaxwellGoogle Scholar
  42. Schweiker W (1993) Accounting for ourselves: accounting practice and the discourse of ethics. Acc Organ Soc 18(2):231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shapiro M (1992) The giving reasons requirement. Univ Chic Leg Forum 1992:207Google Scholar
  44. Shearer T (2002) Ethics and accountability: from the for-itself to the for-the-other. Acc Organ Soc 27:541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sinclair A (1995) The chameleon of accountability: forms and discourses. Acc Organ Soc 20:219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith L (2003) The motive not the deed. In: Getzler J (ed) Rationalizing property, equity and trusts: essays in honour of Edward burn. ButterworthsGoogle Scholar
  47. Stewart RB (2014) Remedying disregard in global regulatory governance: accountability, participation and responsiveness. Am J Int Law 108:211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Temple Lange J (2002) How much do the smaller member states need the European Commission? The role of the commission in a changing Europe. Common Mark Law Rev 39:315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Trondal J, Veggland F (2003) Access, voice and loyalty: the representation of domestic civil servants in EU committees. J Eur Publ Policy 10(1):59Google Scholar
  50. Tsakatika M (2005) Claims to legitimacy: the European Commission between continuity and change. J Common Mark Stud 43(1):193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Türk A (2013) Oversight administrative rulemaking: judicial review. Eur Law J 19(1):126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Welch D (1987) Removing discriminatory barriers: basing disparate treatments analysis on motive rather than intent. South Calif Law Rev 60:733Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Eljalill Tauschinsky
    • 1
  1. 1.WalldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations