Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Governmental Litigation as a Form of Legal Activism

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Politics of Judicial Review

Part of the book series: European Administrative Governance ((EAGOV))

  • 220 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter presents legal activism as a second important motivation for governments to subject supranational acts to judicial review. Legal activism is understood as governments’ attempt to strategically use litigation as an instrument to provoke judicial law-making and thereby get the Court to develop the set of EU rules according to the litigant government’s preferences. To support this argument, it presents a comparative case study on decisions made by the German government on whether or not to initiate an action for annulment against two negative state aid decisions adopted by the Commission. The chapter shows that the German government only litigated against the supranational administrative act that had the potential to provoke judicial law-making since it strongly relied on an indeterminate legal concept.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    On the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Official Journal C 83/210 Protocol No. 3.

  2. 2.

    Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen C-26/62. European Court Reports: English Special edition: p. 1.

  3. 3.

    Costa v ENEL C-6/64. European Court Reports: English Special edition: p. 585.

  4. 4.

    Rewe Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein C-120/78. European Court Reports 1979: p. 649; Procureur du Roi v Benoit and Gustave Dassonville C-8/74. European Court Reports 1974: p. 837.

  5. 5.

    Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on Services in the Internal Market. Official Journal L 376; 27.12.2006, p. 36–68.

  6. 6.

    2006/744/EC: Commission Decision of 8 March 2006 on the State Aid implemented by Germany for Magog Schiefergruben GmbH & Co. KG. Official Journal L 307, 7.11.2006: p. 196–204.

  7. 7.

    That is, (Dach-)Schiefer.

  8. 8.

    2006/744/EC: Commission Decision of 8 March 2006 on the state aid implemented by Germany for Magog Schiefergruben GmbH & Co. KG. Official Journal L 307, 7.11.2006: p. 196–204.

  9. 9.

    Technologieprogramm Bergbau.

  10. 10.

    State aid No. C 31/04 (ex NN 53/04)—Schiefergruben Magog. Official Journal C 282, 19/11/2004: p. 3–6.

  11. 11.

    That is, Altdeutsche Deckung.

  12. 12.

    Commission Regulation No. 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises, Official Journal 2001 L 10/33.

  13. 13.

    Thirty-five percent for the development of the prototype and an additional 10 % for the publication of development results in a relevant journal and licensing of another enterprise to use the development results (Commission 2006: para. 56–57).

  14. 14.

    2006/513/EC: Commission Decision of 9 November 2005 on the State Aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg. Official Journal L 200, 22.7.2006, p. 14–34.

  15. 15.

    Medienanstalt Berlin-Brandenburg.

  16. 16.

    The Commission initially evaluated whether the measure also indirectly constituted illegal aid to T-Systems, the operator of the DVBT transition network, but it dropped these accusations during the formal investigation procedure.

  17. 17.

    Initiative Digitaler Rundfunk.

  18. 18.

    Communication of 28 May 2002 from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions—The eEurope2005 action plan: an information society for everyone [COM (2002) 263final].

  19. 19.

    Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the transition from analog to digital broadcasting. SEC (2003) 992. 17/092003.

  20. 20.

    The aid to ProSiebenSat.1 was to be reduced from 330,000 to 250,000 EUR per year after two years should more than 200,000 households be reached via DVBT.

  21. 21.

    Verband privater Kabelnetzbetreiber.

  22. 22.

    Communication of 28 May 2002 from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions—The eEurope2005 action plan: an information society for everyone [COM (2002) 263final].

  23. 23.

    Switchover Communication on the transition from analog to digital broadcasting (from digital “switch-over” to analog “switch-off”)—COM (2003) 541.

  24. 24.

    Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Landesmedienanstalten.

  25. 25.

    Commission Regulation No. 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises, Official Journal 2001 L 10/33.

  26. 26.

    Commission Regulation No. 364/2004 of 25 February 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No. 70/2001 as regards the extension of its scope to include aid for research and development, Official Journal 2004 L 63.

  27. 27.

    Altdeutsche Deckung.

  28. 28.

    Kingdom of Belgium v Commission: C-234/84. European Court Reports 1986: p. 02263; Bretagne Angleterre Irlande (BAI) v Commission: C-14/96. European Court Reports 1999: p. II-00139; Alzetta Mauro and others v Commission: T-298/97. European Court Reports 2000: p. II-02319; Confederación Española de Transporte de Mercancías (CETM) v Commission: T-55/99. European Court Reports 2000: p. II-03207.

  29. 29.

    State Aid Action Plan, Less and Better Targeted Aid: A Road Map for State Aid Reform 2005–08 Consultation Document, SEC (2005) 795.

References

  • Alter, K. J. (1998). Who are the “masters of the treaty”? European governments and the European Court of Justice. International Organization, 52, 121–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alter, K. J. (2006). Private litigants and the new international courts. Comparative Political Studies, 39, 22–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M. W., & Hartlapp, M. (2010). Much ado about money and how to spend it! Analysing 40 years of annulment cases against the European Union Commission. European Journal of Political Research, 49, 202–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Blauberger, M. (2012). With Luxembourg in mind…the remaking of national policies in the face of ECJ jurisprudence. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(1), 109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, T. A. (2006). Participation through law enforcement. Comparative Political Studies, 39, 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie. (2000). Sachstandsbericht und Empfehlungen der Initiative “Digitaler Rundfunk” zur Digitalisierung von Hörfunk und Fernsehen unter Berücksichtigung der Verbreitung über Kabel, Satellit und Rundfunksender. Digitaler Rundfunk in Deutschland—Startszenario 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burley, A.-M., & Mattli, W. (1993). Europe before the Court: A political theory of legal integration. International Organization, 47, 41–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, M. L., Reinhardt, E., & Shaffer, G. (2008). Does legal capacity matter? Explaining dispute initiation and antidumping actions in the WTO. International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development Issue Paper, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrubba, C. J., Gabel, M., & Hankla, C. (2008). Judicial behavior under political constraints: Evidence from the European Court of Justice. American Political Science Review, 102, 435–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrubba, C. J., Gabel, M., & Hankla, C. (2012). Understanding the role of the European Court of Justice in European integration. American Political Science Review, 106, 214–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cichowski, R. A. (2007). The European Court and civil society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union). (2009). Judgement of the court of first instance of 6 October 2009 in case T-21/06: Germany v Commission. European Court Reports, 2009, II-00197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission (European Commission). (2004). Commission decision on state aid No. C 31/04 (ex NN 53/04) by Germany to Schiefergruben Magog: Invitation to submit comments pursuant to article 88(2) of the EC treaty. Official Journal of the European Communities, 2004(C 282), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission (European Commission). (2005a). Commission decision of 9 November 2005 on the state aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg (notified under document number C (2005) 3903). Official Journal of the European Communities, 2006(L 200), 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission (European Commission). (2005b). State aid action plan—Less and better targeted state aid: A roadmap for state aid reform 2005–2009 of 7.6.2005: COM (2005) 107 final. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52005DC0107:EN:NOT. Accessed 9 April 2013.

  • Commission (European Commission). (2006). Commission decision No. C (2006) 641 of 8 March 2006 on the state aid implemented by Germany for Magog Schiefergruben GmbH & Co. KG. Official Journal of the European Communities, 2006(L 307), 196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission (European Commission). (2007). Commission decision of 23 October 2007 on the state aid scheme C 33/06 (ex N 576/04) which Germany intended to implement for the introduction of digital terrestrial television in Bavaria (notified under document number C (2007) 5094). Official Journal of the European Communities, 2008(L 222), 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conant, L. (2002). Justice contained. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, C. L., & Bermeo, S. B. (2009). Who files? Developing country participation in GATT/WTO adjudication. The Journal of Politics, 71(3), 1033–1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falkner, G. (2011a). In and out of EU decision traps. In G. Falkner (Ed.), The EU’s decision traps. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Falkner, G. (2011b). Introduction: The EU’s decision traps and their exits. In G. Falkner (Ed.), The EU’s decision traps. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ferejohn, J. (2002). Judicializing politics, politicizing law. Law and Contemporary Problems, 65, 41–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galanter, M. (1974). Why the “haves” come out ahead. Law & Society Review, 9, 95–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, G. (1992). The European community’s internal market. International Organization, 46, 533–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, G., Kelemen, D. R., & Schulz, H. (1998). The European Court of Justice, national governments, and legal integration in the European Union. International Organization, 52, 149–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Germany, Federal Republic of Germany. (2005). Consultation document for SAAP 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, J., & Seawright, J. (2007). Techniques for choosing cases. In J. Gerring (Ed.), Case study research. Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granger, M.-P. F. (2004). When governments go to Luxembourg … : The influence of governments on the Court of Justice. European Law Review, 29, 3–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handelsblatt. (2005). DVB-T im Osten ohne Privatsender. Handelsblatt. http://www.handelsblatt.com/technologie/it-tk/it-internet/digitales-antennenfernsehen-dvb-t-im-osten-ohne-privatsender/2584518.html. Accessed 20 Apr 2012.

  • Hartlapp, M., & Bauer, M. W. (2011). Determinanten der Konfliktgenese bei der Durchführung europäischer Politiken. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 52, 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidenhain, M. (2010). European state aid law. München: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschl, R. (2004). The political origins of the new constitutionalism. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 11, 71–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jupille, J. (2004). Procedural politics: Issues, influence, and institutional choice in the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, R. A. (1991). Adversarial legalism and American government. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 10, 369–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, R. A. (2001). Adverserial legalism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, D. R. (2006). Suing for Europe—Adverserial legalism and European governance. Comparative Political Studies, 39, 101–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, D. R. (2011). Eurolegalism—The transformation of law and regulation in the European Union. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R., Moravcsik, A., & Slaughter, A.-M. (2000). Legalized dispute resolution: Interstate and transnational. International Organization, 54(3), 457–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. (2008). Costly procedures: Divergent effects of legalization in the GATT/WTO dispute settlement procedures. International Studies Quarterly, 52(3), 657–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh, H. H. (1997). Transnational legal process. Nebraska Law Journal, 75, 181–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landesmedienanstalten, Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Landesmedienanstalten. (2005). Digitalisierungsbericht 2005. http://www.die-medienanstalten.de/service/publikationen/digitalisierungsbericht/archiv.html. Accessed 17 Oct 2014.

  • Malecki, M. (2012). Do ECJ judges all speak with the same voice? Evidence of divergent preferences from the judgments of chambers. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(1), 59–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann-Raudies, T., & Painter, M. (2008). Task force DVB-T Deutschland von ARD und ZDF. http://www.ueberallfernsehen.de/dvbtdownloads129.pdf. Accessed 14 Oct 2014.

  • Martinsen, D., & Falkner, G. (2011). Social policy: Problem-solving gaps, partial exits and court-decision traps. In G. Falkner (Ed.), The EU’s decision traps. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCown, M. (2003). The European parliament before the bench: ECJ precedent and EP litigation strategies. Journal of European Public Policy, 10, 974–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordlander, K., & Mellin, H. (2006). Switching to action: Commission applies state aid action plan to digital switchover. European State Aid Law Quarterly, 2, 257–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandholtz, W., & Zysman, J. (1989). 1992: Recasting the European bargain. World Politics, 42(1), 95–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. (1988). The joint-decision trap: Lessons from German federalism and European integration. Public Administration, 66, 239–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, S. K. (2000). Only an agenda setter? The European commission’s power over the council of ministers. European Union Politics, 37, 37–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, S. K. (2011). Overcoming the joint-decision trap in single-market legislation. The interplay between judicial and legislative politics. In G. Falkner (Ed.), The EU’s decision traps. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, S. K., Blauberger, M., & Nouland, W. (2008). Jenseits von Implementierung und Compliance—Die Europäisierung der Mitgliedstaaten. In I. Tömmel (Ed.), Die Europäische Union. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (2002). The supreme court and the attitudinal model revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, M. (1980). Comparative law and comparative politics. Southern California Law Review, 53, 537–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet, A. (1999). Judicialization and construction of governance. Comparative Political Studies, 31, 147–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet, A., & Brunell, T. L. (2012a). The European Court of Justice, state noncompliance, and the politics of override. American Political Science Review, 106, 204–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet, A., & Brunell, T. L. (2013). Trustee courts and the judicialization of international regimes: The politics of majoritarian activism in the ECHR, the EU, and the WTO. Journal of Law and Courts, 1, 61–89.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. München, Bayern, Germany

    Christian Adam

Authors
  1. Christian Adam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Adam, C. (2016). Governmental Litigation as a Form of Legal Activism. In: The Politics of Judicial Review. European Administrative Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57832-7_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation