Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T19:38:10.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of Better Regulation in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David Keyaerts
David Keyaerts*
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp, Research Group Government and Law,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reports
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 241 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lorenzo Allio, “The emergence of better regulation in the European Union” (Ph.D. thesis on file at the University of London – Kin g’s College, 2008); Wiener, Jonathan B., “Better regulation in Europe”, 59 Current Legal Problems (2006), pp. 447–518 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Meuwese, Anne and Popelier, Patricia, “Legal implications of Better Regulation: A special issue”, 3 European Public Law (2011), pp. 455–466 Google Scholar and other contributions in that special issue.

3 See exceptionally Alemanno, Alberto, “A meeting of minds on impact assessment. When ex ante evaluation meets ex post judicial control”, 3 European Public Law (2011), pp. 485–505 Google Scholar; Alemanno, Alberto, “The Better Regulation initiative at the judicial gate: A Trojan horse within the walls of the Commission or the way forward?”, 5 European Law Journal (2009), pp. 382–401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Case C-161/06, Skoma Lux sro, [2007] ECR I-10841, §48.

5 Case C-161/06, Skoma Lux sro, [2007] ECR I-10841, §49–50.

6 Case 78/77, Lührs, [1978] ECR 169; Case 161/88, Binder, [1989] ECR 2438.

7 Opinion of AG Sharpston to Case C-345/06, Heinrich, [2009] ECR I-1659, §56.

8 Case C-478/99, Commission v. Sweden, [2002] ECR I-4147 §10–24: Normative content affecting rights and obligations of individuals should be inserted in a legally binding form. Non-normative content can be left out and made public by other means than a legal act, e.g. travaux préparatoires.

9 Case C-300/07, Oymanns, [2009] ECR I-4779, §45.

10 Case C-110/03, Belgium v. Commission, [2005] ECR I-2801, §30– 31.

11 OJ EU 17 March 1999, C073/1.

12 Case 349/85, Denmark v. Commission, [1988] ECR 169, §9.

13 Joined Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04, Alliance for Natural Health and others, [2005] ECR I-6451, §92.

14 Case C-136/04, DeutschesMilch-Kontor, [2005] ECR I-10095, §32; Case C-344/04, IATA and ALFAA, [2006] ECR I-403, §76.

15 Case C-221/09, AJD Tuna Ltd, [2011], available on the Internet at <http://curia.europa.eu> (last accessed on 18 April 2012), opinion of Trstenjak.

16 Case C-137/09, Josemans, [2010] available on the Internet at <http://curia.europa.eu> (last accessed on 18 April 2012).

17 Case C-426/93, Germany/Council, [1995] ECR I-3723, §46–51 which puts a rather quantitative burden of proof on the applicant. This implies in our opinion a rather quantitative justification by the EU-lawmaker. IA combined with the SCM model could provide a solid justification.

18 Case T-13/99, Pfizer Animal Health SA, [2002] ECR II-3305.

19 Case C-233/94, Germany v. Parliament and Council, [1997] ECR I-2405, §28.

20 See for an overview: Lenaerts, Koen, Arts, Dirk and Maselis, Ignace, (Ed. Bray, Robert), Procedural Law of the European Union (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2006), at p. 307–308 Google Scholar.

21 Groussot, Xavier, “Case C-310/04”, 3 Common Market Law Review (2007), pp. 772–773 Google Scholar.

22 The legislator enjoys broad discretion in areas which involve political, economic and social choices on its part, and in which it is called upon to undertake complex assessments. See case C-233/94 Germany v Parliament and Council, [1997] ECR I-2405, § 55–56. In our opinion this involves almost every field of the EU-lawmaker.

23 See about the concept: Craig, Paul, EU Administrative Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 668–669 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Case C-189/01 Jippes and Others, [2001] ECR I5689, §82–83 and the case law cited there.

25 Popelier, Patricia, “Behoorlijke regelgeving in de rechtspraak”, in Judo, Frank (ed.), Behoorlijke regelgeving ons aller zorg (Brussels: Larcier, 2005), at p. 34 Google Scholar.

26 Case C-310/04, Spain v. Council, [2006] ECR I-7285, §123.

27 Keyaerts, David, “Interaction between ex ante evaluation and judicial review by EU-courts”, in Mader, Luzius and De Almeida, Marta Tavares (eds.), Quality of Legislation. Principles and instruments (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2011), pp. 109118Google Scholar.

28 Keyaerts, David, “Ex ante evaluation of EU legislation intertwined with judicial review? Comment on Case C-58/08 Vodafone”, 6 European Law Review (2010), pp. 869–884 Google Scholar. See Case C-176/09, Luxembourg v. Parliament and Council, [2011], available on the Internet at <http://curia.europa.eu> (last accessed on 18 April 2012), at §65.

29 Case C-58/08, Vodafone and others, [2010] ECR I-4999, §55ff.

30 Case C-58/08, Vodafone and others, [2010] ECR I-4999, §65.

31 Case C-310/04, Spain v. Council, [2006] ECR I-7285, Opinion of A.G. Sharpston, §82 and 89–94; Xavier Groussot, “Case C-310/04”, supra note 21, at p. 781–782, opposes the idea of a general obligation to carry out impact studies.

32 Joined cases T-252/07, T-271/07 and T-272/07, Sungro SA and Others v. Commission and Council, [2010] ECR II-55, §60 (underlined/italicized by the author).

33 See a similar context e.g., Case T-10/92 – 12/92 and T-15/92, CBR Cementbedrijven NV e.a./Commissie, [1992], ECR II-2267, §28.

34 See e.g. Alberto Alemanno, “The Better Regulation initiative at the judicial gate”, supra note 3, pp. 392–394.

35 Keyaerts, David, “ ‘Ex ante evaluatie’ en de toetsing door het Hof van Justitie”, 2 Sociaal Economische Wetgeving (2010), pp. 61–75 Google Scholar.

36 Case C-58/08, Vodafone and others, [2010] ECR I-4999, §55.

37 Case C-310/04, Spain v. Council, [2006] ECR I-7285, §120ff.

38 Joint cases C-133/93, C-300/93 en C-362/93, Crispoltoni e.a., [1994] ECR I-4973, §43.

39 Joint cases C-248/95 and 249/95, SAM Schiffahrt, [1997] ECR I-4475, opinion. Jacobs, §38; Case C-241/01, National Farmers‘ Union, [2002] ECR I-9079, opinion. Mischo, §51. See also with respect to justification: Case C-127/07, Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine e.a., [2008] ECR I-9895, §61–62; Case C-58/08, Vodafone e.a., [2010] ECR I-4999, opinion of AG Maduro Poiares, §42.

40 Case C-127/07, Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine, [2008] ECR I-9895, §61–62.

41 Case C-58/08, Vodafone e.a., [2010] ECR I-4999, §68.

42 Case C-212/91, Angelopharm, [1994] ECR I-171, §33. See about the convergence between political and scientific rationality in EU lawmaking: Corkin, Joseph, “Science, legitimacy and the law: Regulating risk regulation judiciously in the European Community”, 33 European Law Review (2008), pp. 359–384 Google Scholar.

43 Case C-425/08, Enviro Tech (Europe) Ltd, [2010] ECR I-10035, §63–64.

44 Case T-70/99, Alpharma, [2002] ECR II-3495, §172.

45 Case T-70/99, Alpharma, [2002] ECR II-3495, §183, Case T-13/99, Pfizer Animal Health SA, [2002], ECR II-3305, §172.

46 Art. 2 Protocol Nr. 2.

47 See Case C-58/08, Vodafone and others, [2010] ECR I-4999, §68.