Advertisement

From a Formalistic to an Integrative Model: The Case of EU Economic Regulation

  • Leigh Hancher
  • Pierre Larouche
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter highlights key trends in EU law in the last ten to fifteen years, as regards the regulation of network industries and of services of general economic interest (SGEIs) more generally. Our central claim is that over the relevant period of time, EU law has been—and still is—in the process of moving from one legal paradigm to another. The first paradigm is more traditional, static, formalistic, and self-contained (mono-disciplinary). Its hallmark is the use of legal definitions and concepts to create categories in which phenomena are placed, by way of pigeonholing or labeling, and to which consequences are attached. It was more appropriate in earlier times when EU law was concerned with establishing market access and realizing the Internal Market. The second paradigm is more dynamic, integrative, and inter-disciplinary. Its hallmark is the use of general guidelines and principles to assess specific situations in a wider sectorial setting, with progressive refinement, until the point where a conclusion can be reached and consequences attached. It leads to ‘managed competition’, where EU law integrates other objectives besides market access. As for substantive law, EU electronic communications law, since 2002, presents the best—albeit not complete—example of the new paradigm, with its reliance on technological neutrality and economic analysis. EU energy law has not gone as far down that path. Interestingly, the ECJ judgment in Altmark can be seen as an attempt to steer the law concerning SGEIs away from formalism, towards the new paradigm. However, developments following Altmark show that the other institutions have not fully followed the ECJ. As for institutions, EU electronic communications and energy law have followed a similar path, away from formalistic separations (i) between EU and Member State institutions, (ii) along national borders or (iii) between regulation and competition law. At the same time, the separation between the regulatory authority and the national legislative and executive powers has been strengthened. The policing of SGEIs under Article 106(2) TFEU would benefit from following a similar institutional path.

Keywords

Supra Note Electronic Communication Universal Service Network Industry National Regulatory Authority 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Cabau E (2010) Unbundling of transmission system operators. In: Jones C et al (eds) The internal energy market: the third liberalisation package. Claeys & Casteels Publishing, LeuvenGoogle Scholar
  2. Chirico F et al (2007) Network Neutrality in the EU, TILEC Discussion Paper 2007-30. available on SSRN at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1018326. Accessed 14 May 2012
  3. De Visser M (2009) Network-based governance in EC law—the example of EC competition and EC communications law. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Geradin D (2004) Limiting the Scope of Article 82 EC: What can the EU Learn from the U.S. Supreme Court’s Judgment in Trinko in the Wake of Microsoft, IMS and Deutsche Telekom?, 41 CMLRev 1519Google Scholar
  5. Hancher L (1999) Community, state and market. In: Craig P, de Búrca G (eds) The evolution of EU law, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Hancher L et al (2003) Principles of good market governance. J Netw Ind 4:355Google Scholar
  7. Jones C, Webster W (2006) The internal energy market. Claeys & Casteels, LeuvenGoogle Scholar
  8. Larouche P (2000) Competition law and regulation in European telecommunications. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Larouche P (2002) A closer look at some assumptions underlying EC regulation of electronic communications. J Netw Ind 3:129–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Larouche P (2005) Coordination of European and member state regulatory policy—horizontal, vertical and transversal aspects. In: Geradin D et al (eds) Regulation through agencies in the EU. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 164–179Google Scholar
  11. Larouche P (2008) Contrasting legal solutions and the comparability of US and EU experiences. In: Levêque F, Shelanski H (eds) Antitrust and regulation in the EU and US: legal and economic perspectives. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  12. Larouche P, de Visser M (2006) The triangular relationship between the Commission, NRAs and national courts revised, 64 Communications and Stratégies pp. 124Google Scholar
  13. Lavrijssen S, Hancher L, Chapter 8 in this bookGoogle Scholar
  14. Monti M (2010) A New Strategy for the Single Market—At the Service of Europe's Economy and Society, Report to the President of the European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  15. Pelkmans J et al (2000) Better EU regulatory quality: assessing current initiatives and new proposals. In: Galli G, Pelkmans J (eds) Regulatory reform and competitiveness in Europe, vol. I. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 461Google Scholar
  16. Petit N (2004) Circumscribing the scope of EC competition law in network industries? A comparative approach to the US supreme court ruling in the Trinko Case. J Netw Ind 5:347Google Scholar
  17. Roggenkamp M (2006) Energy law in Europe: national, EU and international law and institutions. Oxfrod University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Thatcher M (2007) Internationalisation and economic institutions: comparing European experiences. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Tridimas T (2011) EU financial regulation: federalization, crisis management and law reform. In: Craig P, de Búrca G (eds) The evolution of EU law, 2nd edn. Oxfrod University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Tridimas T (2009) Community Agencies, Competition Law and ECSB Initiatives, Yearbook of European Law 216Google Scholar
  21. Van der Haar I (2008) The principle of technological neutrality: connecting EC network and content regulationGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author(s) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tilburg Law School, Tilburg Law and Economics Center (TILEC)Tilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations