Preliminary comments on the role of courts as regulatory watchdogs

Legisprudence

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 257-270

  Popelier, Patricia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Efficiency; Judicial review; Procedural rationality; Proportionality; Regulatory reform

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875902866     PISSN: 17521467     EISSN: 17521475     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5235/17521467.6.3.257     Document Type: Article

References (111)

1. In particular the special issue in (2011) 3 European Public Law, edited by A. Meuwese and P. Popelier.
2. P. Popelier, 'Governance and Better Regulation: Dealing with the Legitimacy Paradox' (2011) 3 European Public Law 555, 565.
3. P. Popelier, A. Mazmanyan and W. Vandenbruwaene (eds.), The Role of Constitutional Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012).
4. With thanks to Anne Meuwese who gave us the inspiration for this term.
5. OECD, Guiding Principles for Regulatory Quality and Performance (OECD 2005). See also Commission, 'Better Regulation for Growth and Jobs in the European Union' (Communication) COM (2005) 97 final; 'The Path to Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth' (BIS, November 2012) http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/p/10-1296-path-to-strong-sustainable-andbalanced-growth.pdf accessed 31 December 2012 (for the link between economic growth and better regulation in the UK). Note.
6. I. Lynch-Fannon, 'Legislative Policy, Law and Competitiveness: A Mysterious and Difficult Relationship in the EU' (2009) 1 European Law Journal 98 (for a critical view).
7. K. Meßerschmidt, 'The Good Shepherd of Karlsruhe: The "Hartz IV" Decision on Unemployment Benefits and Social Allowances - A Good Example of Regulatory Review by the German Federal Constitutional Court?' in P. Popelier, A. Mazmanyan and W. Vandenbruwaene (eds.), Role of Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012).
8. We may expect, however, judicial activism by the ECJ to find more acceptance, in so far as regulatory reform purports a commonly shared economic goal. Cf.
9. J. Bengoetxea, N. MacCormick and L. M. Soriano, 'Integration and Integrity in the Legal Reasoning of the European Court of Justice' in G. de Búrca and J.H.H. Weiler, The European Court of Justice (Oxford University Press 2001) 43.
10. Commission, 'European Governance' (White Paper) COM (2001) 428 final, 17.
11. S. Shapiro and R. Murphy, 'Eight Things Americans Can't Figure Out about Controlling Administrative Power' in H. Hofmann and R. Weaver (eds.), Transatlantic Perspectives on Administrative Law (Bruylant 2011) 16-19.
12. J. Bengoetxea, N. MacCormick and L. M. Soriano, 'Integration and Integrity in the Legal Reasoning of the European Court of Justice' in G. de Búrca and J.H.H. Weiler, The European Court of Justice (Oxford University Press 2001) 53.
13. E. Korkea-Aho, 'EU Soft Law in Domestic Legal Systems: Flexibility and Diversity Guaranteed' (2009) 16 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 271, 277-280.
14. See e.g. regarding the potential self-binding effect of EU regulatory guidelines such as the IIA.
15. A. Alemanno, 'The Better Regulation Initiative at the Judicial Gate: A Trojan Horse within the Commission's Walls or the Way Forward?' (2009) 15 European Law Journal 382.
16. D. Keyaerts, Ex ante Evaluation of EU Legislation Intertwined with Judicial Review? Comment on Vodafone Ltd v. Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (C-58/08) (2010) 35(6) European Law Review 869, 881-882.
17. M. Dawson, New Governance and the Transformation of European Law (Cambridge University Press 2011) 261.
18. P. Craig, EU Administrative Law (2nd edn., Oxford University Press 2012) 400-445.
19. H. Hofmann, G. Rowe and A. Türk, Administrative Law and Policy of the European Union (Oxford University Press 2011) 203, 797-799 (both articles on the limits of administrative judicial review).
20. K. Meßerschmidt, 'The Good Shepherd of Karlsruhe: The "Hartz IV" Decision on Unemployment Benefits and Social Allowances - A Good Example of Regulatory Review by the German Federal Constitutional Court?' in P. Popelier, A. Mazmanyan and W. Vandenbruwaene (eds.), Role of Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012).
21. Commission, 'Smart Regulation in the European Union' (Communication) COM (2010) 543 final, 6.
22. H. Toner, 'Impact Assessments and Fundamental Rights Protection in EU Law' (2006) European Law Review 316.
23. P. Popelier, 'The Court as Regulatory Watchdog: The Procedural Approach in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights' in P. Popelier, A. Mazmanyan and W. Vandenbruwaene (eds.), The Role of Constitutional Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012).
24. For an extensive overview of the ECtHR case law in this respect.
25. Hatton v. United Kingdom, no. 36022/97, ECHR 2001; Hatton v. United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, ECHR 2003-VIII.
26. Zehentner v. Austria, no. 20082/02, ECHR 2009; Kay v. the UK, no. 37341/06, ECHR 2010.
27. Lecarpentier v. France, no. 67847/01, ECHR 2006; Malysh and Others v. Russia, no. 30280/03, ECHR 2010; Konstantin Markin v. Russia, no. 30078/06, ECHR 2010.
28. Hatton v. United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, ECHR 2003-VIII; Evans v. the UK [GC], no. 6339/05, ECHR 2007-I; A.,B. and C. v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, ECHR 2010.
29. Zammit Maempel v. Malta, no. 24202/10, ECHR 2011.
30. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1924.
31. K. Meßerschmidt, Gesetzgebungsermessen (Nomos 2000).
32. K. Meßerschmidt, 'The Good Shepherd of Karlsruhe: The "Hartz IV" Decision on Unemployment Benefits and Social Allowances - A Good Example of Regulatory Review by the German Federal Constitutional Court?' in P. Popelier, A. Mazmanyan and W. Vandenbruwaene (eds.), Role of Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012) (regarding the case law of the German BundesVerfassungsgericht).
33. D. Keyaerts, 'Courts as Regulatory Watchdogs: Does the European Court of Justice Bark or Bite?' in P. Popelier, A. Mazmanyan and W. Vandenbruwaene (eds.), The Role of Constitutional Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012).
34. D. Keyaerts, 'Courts as Regulatory Watchdogs: Does the European Court of Justice Bark or Bite?' in P. Popelier, A. Mazmanyan and W. Vandenbruwaene (eds.), The Role of Constitutional Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012).
35. K. Meßerschmidt, 'Efficiency and the Principle of Proportionality: Shall Lawyers Learn from Economists?' (2001) EuroFaculty Papers Riga http://www.eurofaculty.lv accessed 31 December 2012 (writing that 'the thesis that.efficiency and proportionality are two facets of the same principle').
36. K. Meßerschmidt, 'Ökonomische Effizienz und Juristische Verhältnismässigkeit: Gemeinsames und Trennendes' in E. Gawel (ed.), Effizienz im Umweltrecht: Grundsatzfragen Wirtschaftlicher Umweltnutzung aus Rechts-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftlicher Sicht (Nomos 2001) 219-251 (for a more extensive study in German).
37. Commission, 'European Governance' (White Paper) COM (2001) 428 final, 8; OECD, Guiding Principles for Regulatory Quality and Performance (OECD 2005) 3; Decision of the Flemish Government of 24 October 2003 regarding the principles of good regulation, VR/2003/24/10/DOC.1039 and VR/2003/07.11/DOC.1039bis. See also Commission, 'Smart Regulation in the European Union' (Communication) COM (2010) 543 final, 4 (considering the evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of existing legislation a key tool in the new approach of so-called 'smart' regulation).
38. See e.g.: Commission, 'Impact Assessment Guidelines' SEC (2009) 92.
39. At least if economic efficiency is interpreted in its broad sense.
40. K. Meßerschmidt, 'Efficiency and the Principle of Proportionality: Shall Lawyers Learn from Economists?' (2001) EuroFaculty Papers Riga, 11-13 http://www.eurofaculty.lv. accessed 31 December 2012.
41. A. Flückiger, 'Effectiveness: A New Constitutional Principle' (2009) 50 Legislaçao 183, 184-185.
42. A. Alemanno, 'The Better Regulation Initiative at the Judicial Gate: A Trojan Horse within the Commission's Walls or the Way Forward?' (2009) 15 European Law Journal 382.
43. A. Alemanno, 'A Meeting of Minds on Impact Assessment: When Ex Ante Evaluation Meets Ex Post Judicial Control' (2011) 17(3) European Public Law 485, 502 (about impact assessments as 'an aid to the court').
44. Case C-58/08 Vodafone Ltd and Others v. Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform [2010] ECR I-4999 at [55] and [58]; Case C-176/09, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union [2011] OJ C204/11 at [65]; D. Keyaerts, 'Ex ante Evaluation of EU Legislation Intertwined with Judicial Review? Comment on Vodafone Ltd v. Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (C-58/08) (2010) 35(6) European Law Review 869, 869-884 (for an analysis of the Vodafone case).
45. C. Scott, 'Governing without Law or Governing without Government? New-ish Governance and the Legitimacy of the EU' (2009) 15(2) European Law Journal 160, 172.
46. P. Verbruggen, 'Does Co- Regulation Strengthen EU Legitimacy?' (2009) 15(4) European Law Journal 431, 440
47. E.A. Posner, 'Controlling Agencies with Cost-benefit Analysis: A Positive Political Theory Perspective' (2001) 68 University of Chicago Law Review 119.
48. W. Voermans and Y. Schuurmans, 'Better Regulation by Appeal' (2011) 17(3) European Public Law 507, 519-522.
49. S. Shapiro and R. Murphy, 'Eight Things Americans Can't Figure Out about Controlling Administrative Power' in H. Hofmann and R. Weaver (eds.), Transatlantic Perspectives on Administrative Law (Bruylant 2011) 7-33 (for a more critical assessment).
50. Evaldsson v. Sweden, no. 75252/01, ECHR 2007; Aizpurua Ortiz v. Spain, no. 42430/05, ECHR 2010. However, with respect to the application of this principle in the latter case, see the dissenting opinion of Judge Myer.
51. Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law Making [2003] OJ C321/01, para. 17.
52. A. Meuwese and L. Senden, 'European Impact Assessment and the Choice of Alternative Regulatory Instruments' in J. Verschuuren (ed.), The Impact of Legislation: A Critical Analysis of Ex ante Evaluation (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2009) 160-162.
53. More specifically on the conditions regarding the use of alternative regulatory mechanisms inferred from the IIA as well as general principles of law.
54. C.F. Sabel and J. Zeitlin, 'Learning from Difference: the New Architecture of Experimentalist Governance in the EU' (2008) 14(3) European Law Review 271.
55. J. Scott and S. Sturm, 'Courts as Catalysts: Re-thinking the Judicial Role in New Governance' (2007) 13(3) Columbia Journal of European Law 565.
56. M. Dawson, New Governance and the Transformation of European Law (Cambridge University Press 2011) 256-266 (for a discussion).
57. Case T-135/96 Union Européenne de l'artisanat et des petites et moyennes entreprises (UEAPME) v. Council of the European Union [1998] ECR II-2335.
58. J. Scott and S. Sturm, 'Courts as Catalysts: Re-thinking the Judicial Role in New Governance' (2007) 13(3) Columbia Journal of European Law 565.
59. M. Dawson, New Governance and the Transformation of European Law (Cambridge University Press 2011) 258-259.
60. In some academic circles, judicial review of the legislative process is nevertheless regarded as more controversial than substantive judicial review. For this observation.
61. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1918-1926.
62. This, however, seems to refer mainly, but not only, to pure procedural review, invalidating laws for procedural defects irrespective of its content, rather than semi-procedural review. See also I. Bar-Simon-Tov's contribution to this Legisprudence issue.
63. K. Schlaich by: U. Karpen, 'On the State of Legislation Studies in Europe' (2006) 7 European Journal of Law Reform 59, 67-68.
64. Arguing that the lawmaker should not be harnessed to procedural standards as primary lawmaking is not merely a matter of administration and lawmakers are not officials.
65. Hirst (no. 2) v. the UK, no. 74025/01, ECHR 2005; Hirst (no. 2) v. the UK [GC], no. 74025/01, ECHR 2005-IX. Se also: Alajos Kiss v. Hungary, no. 38832/06, ECHR 2010.
66. See the many critical interventions by MP's when debating the Report on 'Voting by convicted prisoners' (House of Commons, 10 February 2011) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110210/debtext/110210-0001.htm accessed 31 December 2012. Note.
67. D. Nicol, 'Legitimacy of the Commons Debate on Prisoner Voting' (2011) Public Law 681 (for an analysis of the debate).
68. S. Briant, 'Dialogue, Diplomacy and Defiance: Prisoners' Voting Rights at home and in Strasbourg' (2011) 3 European Human Rights Law Review 243, 248-250.
69. Lecarpentier v. France, no. 67847/01, § 47, ECHR 2006.
70. S. Foster, 'Reluctantly Restoring Rights: Responding to the Prisoner's Right to Vote' (2009) 9 Human Rights Law Review 498.
71. For an analogous application of the informed nature of parliamentary proceedings, see: Joined Cases C-128/09,C-129/09, C-130/09, C-131/09, C-134/09, C-135/09, C- 134/09 and C-135/09 Antoine Boxus and Willy Roua & Others v. Région Wallonne [2011] ECR I-0.
72. P. Popelier, 'Governance and Better Regulation: Dealing with the Legitimacy Paradox' (2011) 3 European Public Law 555, 558-560.
73. A. v. the UK, no. 35373/97, ECHR 2002-X.
74. M. Curtin and I. Dekker, 'Good Governance: The Concept and Its Application by the European Union' in D.M. Curtin and R.A. Wessel (eds.), Good Governance and the European Union (Intersentia 2005) 4.
75. Article 8 of the Loi organique no. 2009-403 du 15 avril 2009 relative à l'application des articles 34-1, 39 et 44 de la Constitution, Journal Officiel 16 April 2009.
76. J.-P. Duprat, 'The Judicial Review of Ex Ante Impact Assessment in France: An Attempt to Fuse the Principles of Legal Certainty and Institutional Balance' (2012) 6(3) Legisprudence 383.
77. According to the parliamentary documents, the purpose was to improve regulatory quality, to make parliamentary work more efficient and to increase the modalities for Parliament to express itself, see: Assemblée Nationale, 2008-2009, no. 1314 http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/projets/pl1314.asp accessed 31 December 2012. Note.
78. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1927.
79. For this objection, which the author challenges in his paper.
80. A. Bar Cendón, 'The White Paper on "The Governance of Europe" and the Reform of the Union' (European Commission) http://ec.europa.eu/governance/contrib_cendon_summary_en.pdf accessed 31 December 2012.
81. Arguing it is 'perhaps the most innovative and remarkable thing' in the White Paper on European Governance.
82. Commission, 'European Governance' (White Paper) COM (2001) 428 final, 8.
83. Articles 2 and 5 of the Protocol No 2 on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality.
84. Committee of the Regions' White Paper on Multilevel Governance [2009] OJ C211/2.
85. J.-P. Duprat, 'The Judicial Review of Ex Ante Impact Assessment in France: An Attempt to Fuse the Principles of Legal Certainty and Institutional Balance' (2012) 6(3) Legisprudence 383.
86. W. Vandenbruwaene, 'The Judicial Enforcement of Subsidiarity: The Quest for an Appropriate Standard' in P. Popelier, A. Mazmanyan and W. Vandenbruwaene (eds.), The Role of Constitutional Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012) (for a discussion).
87. T. Hickman, Public Law after the Human Rights Act (Hart Publishing 2010) 125 and 129.
88. R.A.J. van Gestel, 'Evidence-based Lawmaking and the Quality of Legislation: Regulatory Impact Assessments in the European Union and the Netherlands' in H. Schäffer and J. Iliopoulos-Strangas (eds.), State Modernization in Europe (Bruylant 2007) 141-142.
89. 'laws and policy initiatives are to be supported by research evidence and policies are preferably introduced on trial and error basis'.
90. K. Meßerschmidt, Gesetzgebungsermessen (Nomos 2000).
91. K. Meßerschmidt, 'The Good Shepherd of Karlsruhe: The "Hartz IV" Decision on Unemployment Benefits and Social Allowances - A Good Example of Regulatory Review by the German Federal Constitutional Court?' in P. Popelier, A. Mazmanyan and W. Vandenbruwaene (eds.), Role of Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012) 875-877.
92. The author defines the duty to act as a prudent legislator as a mere responsibility (Obliegenheit) rather than a legal duty in the strict sense (Verfassungspflicht).
93. K. Meßerschmidt, 'The Race to Rationality Review and the Score of the German Federal Constitutional Court' (2012) 6(3) Legisprudence 347.
94. Lord Bingham in Denbigh [2006] UKHL 15 at [29]-[31] (for the UK debate regarding administrative decisions).
95. D. Mead, 'Outcomes Aren't All: Defending Process-Based Review of Public Authority decisions under the Human Rights Act' (2011) 61 Public Law 73 (for a reply).
96. S. and Marper v. the UK, nos. 30562/04; 30566/04, ECHR-2008; Hardy and Maile v. the United Kingdom, no. 31965/07, ECHR-2012.
97. Smith and Grady v. the UK nos. 33985/96; 33986/96, ECHR VI, in particular at [95].
98. M. Dawson, New Governance and the Transformation of European Law (Cambridge University Press 2011) 261 (regarding the ECJ, see).
99. K. Meßerschmidt, 'The Good Shepherd of Karlsruhe: The "Hartz IV" Decision on Unemployment Benefits and Social Allowances - A Good Example of Regulatory Review by the German Federal Constitutional Court?' in P. Popelier, A. Mazmanyan and W. Vandenbruwaene (eds.), Role of Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012) (regarding the German Constitutional Court).
100. The principle of subsidiarity serves as case in point: both the Commission's impact assessment and the opinions of the National Parliaments could serve as interpretatory aids.
101. P. Craig, 'Subsidiarity: A Political and Legal Analysis' (2012) 50 Journal of Common Market Studies 72, 78.
102. A. Biondi, 'Subsidiarity in the Courtroom' in A. Biondi, P. Eeckhout and S. Ripley (eds.), EU law after Lisbon (Oxford University Press 2012) 227.
103. W. Vandenbruwaene, 'The Judicial Enforcement of Subsidiarity: The Quest for an Appropriate Standard' in P. Popelier, A. Mazmanyan and W. Vandenbruwaene (eds.), The Role of Constitutional Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012) (for a close analysis of these arguments).
104. See ibid. for an analysis of the case law of both the German BundesVerfassungsgericht and the European Court of Justice in this respect.
105. Commission, 'Communication from the Commission on the Collection and Use of Expertise by the Commission: Principles and Guidelines - Improving the Knowledge Base for Better Policies' COM (2002) 713 final, 9.
106. A. Alemanno, 'Science and EU Risk Regulation: The Role of Experts in Decision-Making and Judicial Review' in E. Vos (ed.), European Risk Governance: Its Science, Its Inclusiveness and Its Effectiveness (Connex Report Series No. 6, 2008) 51 ff.
107. See e.g.: Case T-13/99 Pfizer Animal Health SA v. Council of the European Union [2002] ECR II-3305.
108. A. Alemanno, 'The Dialogue between Judges and Experts in the EU and WTO' in F. Fontanelli, G. Martinico and P. Carozza (eds.) Shaping Rule of Law through Dialogue (Europa Law Publishing 2010) 351-362 (for a discussion).
109. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1926.
110. Pure procedural judicial review is commonly regarded as less justified than substantive judicial review, because it is not aimed at the protection of individual rights.
111. M. Dawson, New Governance and the Transformation of European Law (Cambridge University Press 2011) 264.