• R. Eljalill Tauschinsky


Delegated and implementing acts are wide-spread and permeate our daily lives. However, despite their ubiquity and relevance, it is unclear how the Commission’s power to adopt these important acts relates to their subjects’ democratic rights. Given their direct impact, how can the Commission’s powers to adopt delegated and implementing acts be justified? I started out with searching for a justification of the Commission’s rule-making powers vis-a-vis the persons subject to these rules. I ended with a call for a mechanism through which the Commission accounts for its motives and a mechanism (possibly explanatory memoranda) through which the Commission explains which actors were involved in which way in the rule-making processes. Are these latter measures thus the answer to the question of how the Commission can be justified in exercising rule-making powers over persons within the Member States? The answer to this is that for this justification the abstract normative framework has to work together with concrete, must almost necessarily more evolutionary than revolutionary, procedural changes, in order to gain effect


  1. Baier A (1986) Trust and antitrust. Ethics 96(2):231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Conaglen M (2005) The nature and function of fiduciary loyalty. Law Q Rev 121:452Google Scholar
  3. Curtin D (1997) Postnational democracy. Kluwer Law InternationalGoogle Scholar
  4. Dana J, Weber RA, Kuang JX (2007) Exploiting moral wiggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Econ Theory 33:67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Cremer D, Tyler TR (2007) The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation. J Appl Psychol 92(3):639Google Scholar
  6. Finn P (1989) The fiduciary principle. In: Youdan TG (ed) Equity, fiduciaries and trusts. CarswellGoogle Scholar
  7. Fox-Decent E (2005) The fiduciary nature of state legal authority. Queen’s Law J 31:259Google Scholar
  8. Fox-Decent E (2011) Sovereignty’s promise: the state as fiduciary. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Friedrichs J, Mihov J, Popova M (2005) Synergies and tradeoffs in international cooperation: broadening, widening, and deepening. Eur Integr Online Papers 9(13)Google Scholar
  10. Getzler J (2011) An interdisciplinary view of fiduciary law: “As if” – accountability and counterfactual trust. Boston Univ Law Rev 91:973Google Scholar
  11. Hatje A (2001) Loyalität als Rechtsprinzip in der Europäischen Union. Nomos, p 63Google Scholar
  12. Hirschman AO (1970) Exit, voice and loyalty: responses to decline in firms, organizations and states. Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Judge D, Earnshaw D (2002) The European Parliament and the commission crisis: a new assertiveness? Governance 15(3):345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kahl W (2011) Art. 4 EUV (Absatz 3). In: Calliess C, Ruffert M (eds) EUV/AEUV Kommentar, 4th edn. CH BeckGoogle Scholar
  15. Leib EJ, Ponet DL (2012) Fiduciary representation and deliberative engagement with children. J Polit Philos 20(2):178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Majone G (2001) Two logics of delegation: agency and fiduciary relations in EU governance. Eur Union Polit 2(1):103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mendes J (2016) The making of delegated and implementing acts: legitimacy beyond inter-institutional balances. In Bergström CF, Ritleng D (eds) Law-making by the EU Commission: the new system. Oxford University Press, p 243Google Scholar
  18. Muntean AM (2000) The European Parliament’s political legitimacy and the Commission’s ‘Misleading Management’: towards a ‘Parliamentarian’ European Union? Eur Integr online Papers 4(5)Google Scholar
  19. Perez F (2013) Political communication in Europe: the cultural and structural limits of the European public sphere. Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  20. Pettit P (1998) Republican theory and political trust. In: Braithwaite V, Levi M (eds) Trust & governance. Russel Sage FoundationGoogle Scholar
  21. Ribstein LE (2001) Law v. trust. Boston Univ Law Rev 81:553Google Scholar
  22. Royce J (1908) The philosophy of loyalty. MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  23. Schwarze J (2004) Judicial review of European administrative procedure. Law Contemp Probl 68(1):85Google Scholar
  24. Shapiro S (1987) The social control of impersonal trust. Am J Sociol 93(3):623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shapiro S (2012) The grammar of trust. In: Pixley J (ed) New perspectives on emotion in finance. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Smith L (2014) Fiduciary relationships: ensuring the loyal exercise of judgement on behalf of another. Law Q Rev 130:608, 615 et seqGoogle Scholar
  28. Tyler TR (1994) Governing amid diversity: the effect of fair decisionmaking procedures on the legitimacy of government. Law Soc Rev 28(4):809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tyler TR (1998) Trust and democratic governance. In: Braithwaite V, Levi M (eds) Trust & governance. Russel Sage FoundationGoogle Scholar
  30. von Bogdandy A, Venzke I (2012) In whose name? An investigation of international courts’ public authority and its democratic justification. Eur J Int Law 23(1):7Google Scholar
  31. Waldron J (2012) How law protects dignity. Camb Law J 71(01):200CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations