Introduction

  • Christian Adam
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the European Administrative Governance book series (EAGOV)

Abstract

The European Commission uses administrative acts to interfere with domestic policy application in a legally binding way. By initiating annulment litigation against supranational administrative acts, governments can effectively subject such interferences to judicial review and thereby judicialize compliance conflicts with the Commission. The question at the heart of this study is when and why governments use this instrument. From the “integration through law” perspective, this is particularly puzzling, since national governments have had little to gain within the EU’s judicial arena. This study argues that governmental litigation can be a form of legal activism by national governments hoping to provoke judicial law-making. The phenomenon of governments actively turning to the Court of Justice can therefore be integrated into the “integration through law” perspective.

Keywords

European Union Member State National Government Judicial Review European Union Policy 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abbott, K. W., Keohane, R. O., Moravcsik, A., Slaughter, A.-M., & Snidal, D. (2000). The concept of legalization. International Organization, 54, 401–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alter, K. J. (1998). Who are the “masters of the treaty”?: European governments and the European Court of Justice. International Organization, 52, 121–147.Google Scholar
  3. Arnull, A. (1995). Private applicants and the action for annulment under article 173 of the EC-treaty. Common Market Law Review, 32, 7–49.Google Scholar
  4. Arnull, A. (2001). Private applicants and the action for annulment since CODORNIU. Common Market Law Review, 38, 7–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game. What happens after a bill becomes law. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bergmann, T. (2000). The European Union as the next step of delegation and accountability. European Journal of Political Research, 37, 415–429.Google Scholar
  7. Blauberger, M. (2009a). Compliance with rules of negative integration: European state aid control in the new member states. Journal of European Public Policy, 16, 1030–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blauberger, M. (2009b). Of “good” and “bad” subsidies: European state aid control through soft and hard law. West European Politics, 32, 719–737.Google Scholar
  9. Blauberger, M. (2009c). Staatliche Beihilfen in Europa. Die Integration der Beihilfekontrolle in der EU und die Europäisierung der Beihilfepolitik in den neuen Mitgliedstaaten. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Börzel, T. A., Hofman, T., & Panke, D. (2011). Caving in or sitting it out? Longitudinal patterns of non-compliance in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 19, 1–18.Google Scholar
  11. Burley, A.-M., & Mattli, W. (1993). Europe before the Court: A political theory of legal integration. International Organization, 47, 41–76.Google Scholar
  12. Chayes, A., & Chayes, A. H. (1993). On compliance. International Organization, 47, 175–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union). (1988). Judgement of the Court of Justice of 7 June 1988 in case C-63/87: Commission v Greece. European Court Reports, 1988, 02875.Google Scholar
  14. Commission (European Commission). (1985). Commission decision No. 86/187/EEC of 13 November 1985 on aids granted by Greece in the form of interest rebates in respect of exports of all products with the exception of petroleum products. Official Journal of the European Communities, 1986(L 136), 61.Google Scholar
  15. Downs, G. W., Rocke, D. M., & Barsoom, P. N. (1996). Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation? International Organization, 50, 379–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duina, F. G. (1997). Explaining legal implementation in the European Union. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 25, 155–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Falkner, G., Treib, O., Hartlapp, M., & Leiber, S. (2005). Complying with Europe. EU harmonisation and soft law in the member states. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Franchino, F. (2005). Forum section the study of EU public policy. European Union Politics, 6, 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guiliani, M. (2003). Europeanization in comparative perspective: Institutional fit and national adaptation. In K. Featherstone & C. Radaelli (Eds.), The politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Haas, P. (1998). Compliance with EU directives: Insights from international relations and comparative politics. Journal of European Public Policy, 5, 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haverland, M. (2000). National adaptation to European integration: The importance of institutional veto points. Journal of Public Policy, 20, 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haverland, M., Steunenberg, B., & van Waarden, F. (2011). Sectors at different speeds: Analysing transposition deficits in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 49, 265–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knill, C. (1998). European policies: The impact of national administrative traditions. Journal of Public Policy, 18, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Knill, C., & Lenschow, A. (1998). Coping with Europe: The impact of British and German administrations on the implementation of EU environmental policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 5, 595–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krislov, S., Ehlermann, C.-D., & Weiler, J. (1986). The political organs and the decision-making process in the United States and the European community. In M. Cappelletti, M. Seccombe, & J. Weiler (Eds.), Integration through law: Europe and the American federal experience. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  26. Lampinen, R., & Uusikylä, P. (1998). Implementation deficit—Why member states do not comply with EU directives. Scandinavian Political Studies, 21, 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lenaerts, K., & Vanhamme, J. (1997). Procedural rights of private parties in the community administrative process. Common Market Law Review, 34, 531–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  29. Mastenbroek, E. (2003). Surviving the deadline: The transposition of EU directives in the Netherlands. European Union Politics, 4, 371–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayntz, R. (1977). Die Implementation politischer Programme. Theoretische Überlegungen zu einem neuen Forschungsgebiet. Die Verwaltung, 10, 51–66.Google Scholar
  31. Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. (1983). Effective policy implementation. Lexington: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  32. Mbaye, H. A. (2001). Why national states comply with supranational law: Explaining implementation infringements in the European Union, 1972–1993. European Union Politics, 2, 259–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Panke, D. (2007). The European Court of Justice as an agent of Europeanization? Restoring compliance with EU law. Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 847–866.Google Scholar
  34. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation. How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland, or, why it’s amazing federal programs work at all; this being a saga of the Economic Development Administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation of ruined hopes. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  35. Röhl, H.-C. (2005). Die anfechtbare Entscheidung nach Art. 230 Abs. 4 EGV als rechtschutzform. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  36. Scharpf, F. W., Reissert, B., & Schnabel, F. (1976). Politikverflechtung: Theorie und Empirie des kooperativen Föderalismus. Kronberg: Scriptor Verlag.Google Scholar
  37. Siedentopf, H., & Ziller, J. (1988). Making European policies work: The implementation of community legislation in the member states. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Steunenberg, B., & Toshkov, D. (2009). Comparing transposition in the 27 member states of the EU: The impact of discretion and legal fit. Journal of European Public Policy, 16, 951–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stone Sweet, A. (2010). The European Court of Justice and the judicialization of EU governance. Living Reviews in European Governance, 5, 1-50.Google Scholar
  40. Stone Sweet, A., & Brunell, T. L. (1998). Constructing a supranational constitution: Dispute resolution and governance in the European community. American Political Science Review, 92, 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stone Sweet, A., & Brunell, T. L. (2012). The European Court of Justice, state noncompliance, and the politics of override. American Political Science Review, 106, 204–213.Google Scholar
  42. Sverdrup, U. (2004). Compliance and conflict management in the European Union: Nordic exceptionalism. Scandinavian Political Studies, 27, 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tallberg, J. (2002). Paths to compliance: Enforcement, management, and the European Union. International Organization, 56, 609–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Toshkov, D. (2008). Embracing European law: Compliance with EU directives in central and Eastern Europe. European Union Politics, 9, 379–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Toshkov, D. (2011). The quest for relevance: Research on compliance with EU law. Unpublished Working Paper. http://www.dimiter.eu/articles/Compliancereview.pdf. Accessed 5 Aug 2014.
  46. Treib, O. (2003). Die Umsetzung von EU-Richtlinien im Zeichen der Parteipolitik: Eine akteurszentrierte Antwort auf die Misfit-These. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 44, 506–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Treib, O. (2008). Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs. Living Reviews in European Governance, 3, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zürn, M., & Joerges, C. (2005). Law and governance in postnational Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Adam
    • 1
  1. 1.MünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations