¹ On the various sources of this multi-level body of law, see European Migration Law 35 (P. Boeles et al, eds., 2009).Google Scholar

² Regarding the various functions of administrative procedures, see E. Schmidt-Aßmann, Europäisches Verwaltungsverfahrensrecht, in Perspektiven der Rechts in der Europäischen Union, 131, 132–134 (P.C. Müller-Graff, ed., 1998).Google Scholar

³ See A. von Bogdandy, Founding Principles, in Principles of European Constitutional Law, 11, 26–28 (A. von Bogdandy & J. Bast, eds., 2^nd ed., 2010).Google Scholar

⁴ See, inter alia, T. A. Aleinikoff, Federal Regulation of Aliens and the Constitution, 83 American Journal of International Law (AJIL) 862–871 (1989); G. Renner, Ausländerrecht in Deutschland 1–46 (1998). For a pleading in favour of ‘equal treatment’ of immigration proceedings, See Boeles, P., Fair Immigration Proceedings in Europe 455–463 (1997).Google Scholar

⁵ After the Pupino judgment of the ECJ (Case C-105/03, Pupino, 2005 E.C.R. I-5285) one could speak of ‘general principles of Union law’ in its entirety, given the Court's straightforward extension of its jurisprudence on the general principles of Community law into the realm of the EU Treaty's third pillar. In view of the merger of the pillars under the Lisbon Treaty, I will henceforth use the new terminology (‘EU law', ‘Union institutions', etc.) even where the historical context would actually demand the term ‘Community'.Google Scholar

⁶ Regarding their “constitutional status”, see Case C-101/08, Audiolux, 2009 E.C.R. I-0000, para. 63. For comprehensive accounts, see e.g. General Principles of European Community Law (U. Bernitz & J. Nergelius, eds., 2000); X. Groussot, General Principles of Community Law (2006); T. Tridimas, The General Principles of EU Law (2006); for a recent study, See Prechal, S., Competence Creep and General Principles of Law 3 Review of European Administrative Law 5 (2010).Google Scholar

⁷ Cases 7/56 and 3–7/57, Algera et al. v. Common Assembly, 1957 E.C.R. (English special edn.) 39, 54 et seq‥ Google Scholar

⁸ Cases 205/82 to 215/82, Deutsche Milchkontor, 1983 E.C.R. 2633, para. 17 et seq. Google Scholar

⁹ Case C-542/08, Barth, 2010 I-0000, para. 17 et seq. Google Scholar

¹⁰ Case C-555/07, Kücükdeveci, 2010 E.C.R. I-0000, para. 23. As to the limits, see Case C-299/95, Kremzow, 1997 E.C.R. I-2629, para. 19.Google Scholar

¹¹ See, e.g., S. Kadelbach, European Administrative Law and the Law of a Europeanized Administration, in Good Governance in Europe's Integrated Market, 167, 191 (C. Joerges & R. Dehousse, eds., 2002).Google Scholar

¹² On the duty of the Member States to ensure that fundamental rights are observed when transposing directives and applying national law based on them, see Case C-107/97, Rombi and Arkopharma, 2000 E.C.R. I-3367, para. 65; Case C-276/01, Steffensen, 2003 E.C.R. I-3735, para. 69 et seq.; Cases C-20/00 and C-64/00, Booker Aquacultur and Hydro Seafood, 2003 E.C.R. I-7411, para. 88; on the interpretation of the results prescribed by a directive consistently with fundamental rights, see Case C-540/03, Parliament v. Council, 2006 E.C.R. I-5769, paras. 61 and 104–5; Case C-305/05, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophones, 2007 E.C.R. I-5305, para. 28.Google Scholar

¹³ Cf. Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01, Rechnungshof v. Österreichischer Rundfunk, 2003 E.C.R. I-4989, para. 45.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cases 201/85 and 202/85, Klensch, 1986 E.C.R. 3477, para. 8; Case 5/88, Wachauf, 1989 E.C.R. 2609, para. 19; Case C-2/92, Bostock, 1994 E.C.R. I-955, para. 16; Case C-351/92, Graff, 1994 E.C.R. I-3361, para. 17; Case C-292/97, Karlsson, 2000, E.C.R. I-2737, para. 37.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Case 44/79, Hauer, 1979 E.C.R. 3727, para. 14.Google Scholar

¹⁶ For an overall appraisal, see K. Kańska, Towards Administrative Human Rights in the EU: Impact of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, 19 European Law Journal (ELJ) 296–326 (2004); D.U. Galetta, Inhalt und Bedeutung des europäischen Rechts auf eine gute Verwaltung, Europarecht 57–81 (2007); J. Wakefield, The Right to Good Administration 57–92 (2007).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Case C-462/98 P, Mediocurso v. Commission, 2000 E.C.R. I-7183, para. 36 (with omissions).Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Case T-228/02, Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran v. Council, 2006 E.C.R. II-4665, para. 89.Google Scholar

¹⁹ The case-law is summarized by Kariska, supra, note 16, 315–18; J. Schwarze, European Administrative Law CXLVIII–CUV (2006).Google Scholar

²⁰ The applicant does not have to prove that the violation has caused a wrongful decision in terms of substance. However, not every formal defect constitutes a violation of the rights of the defence. The details are subject to a complex jurisprudence, see e.g. Case T-147/97, Champion Stationary et al. v. Council, 1998 E.C.R. II-4137, para. 87. Cf. Schwarze, J., Judicial Review of European Administrative Procedure, 68 Law and Contemporary Problems 85,98 (2004).Google Scholar

²¹ For a comprehensive study, see Swedish Agency for Public Management (Statskontoret), Principles of Good Administration in the Member States of the European Union (2005), available at: http://www.statskontoret.se/upload/Publikationer/2005/200504.pdf.Google Scholar

²² On the structural conflicts with more lenient approaches to sanction violations of procedural rights, See Kahl, W., Grundrechtsschutz durch Verfahren in Deutschland und in der EU, 95 Verwaltungs-Archiv 1, 19–28 (2004).Google Scholar

²³ Case 32/62, Alvin v. Council, 1963 E.C.R. (English special edn.) 49, summary no. 1.Google Scholar

²⁴ Case 17/74, Transocean Marine Paint v. Commission, 1974 E.C.R. 1063, para. 15.Google Scholar

²⁵ See Case 85/76, Hoffmann-La Roche v. Commission, 1979 E.C.R. 461, para. 9.Google Scholar

²⁶ On the ‘first generation’ of procedural rules, See Bignami, F., Three Generations of Participation Rights before the European Commission, 68 Law and Contemporary Problems 61, 63–67 (2004).Google Scholar

²⁷ Case 234/84 and Case 40/85, Belgium v. Commission, 1986 E.C.R. 2263, para. 27, and 2321, para. 28; Case 259/85, France v. Commission, 1987 E.C.R. 4393, para. 12; Case C-301/87, France v. Commission, 1990 E.C.R. I-307, para. 29.Google Scholar

²⁸ Cases C-48/90 and C-66/90, Netherlands et al. v. Commission, 1992 E.C.R. I-565, para. 44.Google Scholar

²⁹ Case C-49/88, Al-Jubail Fertilizer et al. v. Council, 1991 E.C.R. I-3187, para. 15.Google Scholar

³⁰ See G. della Cananea, The European Union's Mixed Administrative Proceedings, 68 Law and Contemporary Problems 197–217 (2004). On the concept of composite administration (Verwaltungsverbund), see E. Schmidt-Aßmann, Das allgemeine Verwaltungsrecht als Ordnungsidee 377 et seq (2006).Google Scholar

³¹ Case C-269/90, Technische Universität München, 1991 E.C.R. I-5469, paras. 14 and 25.Google Scholar

³² Case C-32/95 P, Commission v. Lisrestal et al., 1996 E.C.R. I-5373, para. 21, confirming Case T-450/93, Lisrestal et al. v. Commission, 1994 E.C.R. II-1177, para. 42 et seq.Google Scholar

³³ For details, See Nehl, H.P., Principles of Administrative Procedure in EC Law 41–99 (1999); O. Mader, Verteidigungsrechteim Europäischen Gemeinschaftsverwaltungsverfahren 131–285 (2006).Google Scholar

³⁴ See Case C-48/96 P, Windpark Groothusen v. Commission, 1998 E.C.R. I-2873, para. 48.Google Scholar

³⁵ See e.g. Case C-194/99 P, Thyssen Stahl v. Commisison, 2003 E.C.R. I-10821, para. 30: “In all proceedings in which sanctions, especially fines or penalty payments, may be imposed, observance of the rights of the defence is a fundamental principle of Community law …”.Google Scholar

³⁶ See Bitter, S., Procedural Rights and the Enforcement of EC Law through Sanctions, in The Emerging Constitutional Law of the European Union, 15, 25–27 (A. Bodnar et al., eds., 2003).Google Scholar

³⁷ See Nehl, H.P., Europäisches Verwaltungsverfahren und Gemeinschaftsverfassung 288 (2002). The approach of Article 41 of the Charter is arguably more lenient, see Kańska, supra, note 16, 316–17.Google Scholar

³⁸ See K. Lenaerts and J. Vanhamme, Procedural Rights of Private Parties in the Community Administrative Process, 34 CMLREV 531, 535–537 (1997).Google Scholar

³⁹ Case C-49/88, Al-Jubail Fertilizer et al. v. Council, 1991 E.C.R. I-3187, para. 15.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Case C-7/98, Krombach, 2000 E.C.R. I-1935, para. 42.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Id., paras. 25–26.Google Scholar

⁴² For a review of the role of Article 6(1) ECHR in administrative matters, See Grabenwarter, C., Verfahrensgarantien in der Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit 35–81, 355–396 (1997). According to the Grand Chamber (GC) of the European Court of Human Rights, decisions regarding the entry, stay and deportation of aliens are not covered by Article 6(1) ECHR, see, Maaouia v. France, Appl. No. 39652/98, Judgment of 5 October 2000, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2000-X, para. 40.Google Scholar

⁴³ Cases C-204/00 P et al, Aalborg Portland A/S, 2004 E.C.R. I-123, para. 64.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Kadi et al. v. Council and Commission, 2008 E.C.R. I-6351, paras. 290, 336–337, 349.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ This point is also made by Bitter, supra, note 36, 24–25.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Case T-306/01, Yusuf et al. v. Council and Commission, 2005 E.C.R. II-3533, para. 328; Case T-315/01, Kadi v. Council and Commission, 2005 E.C.R. II-3649, para. 258. The Court of Justice later found this premise to be wrong and, consequentially, draw the opposite conclusion, see Cases C-402/05 P et al., supra, note 44, para. 348.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Case T-228/02, Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'lran v. Council, 2006 E.C.R. II-4665, para. 89.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Cf. G. della Cananea, Return to the Due Process of Law: The European Union and the Fight against Terrorism, 32 European Law Review (E.L. Rev.) 896, 900 (2007).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Case C-28/05, Dokter, 2006 E.C.R. I-5431, para. 71 et seq. Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Id., para. 75 et seq. Google Scholar

⁵¹ As regards the implementation of the guarantees and, in particular, the periods within which the rights of the defence must be exercised, Member States enjoy a certain degree of autonomy, see Case C-349/07, Sopropé, 2008 E.C.R. I-10369, para. 38.Google Scholar

⁵² See Eur. Court H.R., Lupsa v. Romania, Appl. No. 10337/04, Judgment of 8 June 2006, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2006-VII, paras. 51–61.Google Scholar

⁵³ See Eur. Court H.R., Čonka v. Belgium, Appl. No. 51564/99, Judgment of 5 February 2002, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2002-I, paras. 59–63.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Boeles et al., supra, note 1, 377–380.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ But see J. E Méndez, H. Olea and A. Feldmann, International Standards of Due Process for Migrant Workers, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees, in Human Rights and Refugees, Internally Displaced Persons and Migrant Workers, 459, 465 and 470 (A.F. Bayefsky, ed., 2006), referring to decisions of the Inter-American human rights system.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See Articles 28–31 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, O.J. 2004 L 158/77.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Cf. Groenendijk, K., Forty Years of Free Movement of Workers: Has it Been a Success and Why?, in Rethinking the Free Movement of Workers, 11, 21 (P. Minderhoud & N. Trimikliniotis, eds., 2009).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See Case C-136/03, Dörr and Ünal, 2005 E.C.R. I-4759, paras. 66–69, concerning Articles 8 and 9 of EEC Directive 64/221 (no longer in force).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Case C-327/02, Panayotova, 2004 E.C.R. I-11055, paras. 26–27.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Cf. Peers, S., Human Rights in the EU Legal Order, in EU Immigration and Asylum Law, 115, 121 (S. Peers & N. Rogers, eds., 2006), advocating an application “wherever there is a link to a right conferred by Community law”.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See, inter alia, Article 5(4) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, O.J. 2003 L 251/12; Articles 10(1) and 20(1) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, O.J. 2004 L 16/44; Article 11 of Council Directive 2009/50/EC of 25 May 2009 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment, O.J. 2009 L 155/17.Google Scholar

⁶² Article 12(1) of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, O.J. 2005 L 326/13. But see the exceptions in Article 12(2) and (3). Cf. Strik, T., The Procedures Directive: An Overview, in The Procedures Directive: Central Themes, Problem Issues, and Implementation in Selected Member States, 7,13 (K. Zwaan, ed., 2008).Google Scholar

⁶³ See, e.g., J. Balzacq & S. Carrera, Migration, Borders and Asylum: Trends and Vulnerabilities in EU Policy (2005); J. Monar, The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, in Principles of European Constitutional Law, 551, 575, 579–580 (A. von Bogdandy & J. Bast, eds., 2010).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See, supra, note 12.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ On the paradox of over-regulation through judge-made law, see Schmidt-Aßmann, supra, note 2, 142.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ For a similar approach to the related issue of judicial protection, See Brouwer, E., Effective Remedies in Immigration and Asylum Law Procedures: A Matter of General Principles of EU Law, in Whose Freedom, Security and Justice? 57 (A. Baldaccini, E. Guild & H. Toner, eds., 2007).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See surpa, note 17.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Cf. Case C-127/08, Metock, 2008 E.C.R. I-6241, paras. 77–78.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See Costello, C., The Asylum Procedures Directive in Legal Context: Equivocal Standards Meet General Principles, in Baldaccini et al., supra, note 66, 151, 175–176.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See Boules et al., supra note 1, 391.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Eur. Court H.R. (GC), Maaouia v. France, Appl. No. 39652/98, Judgment of 5 October 2000, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2000-X, para. 39; Eur. Court H.R. (GC), Üner v. The Netherlands, Appl. No. 46410/99, Judgment of 18 October 2006, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2006-XII, para. 56.Google Scholar

⁷² See also Méndez et al, supra note 55, 463–465, comparing immigration and criminal proceedings in terms of due process.Google Scholar

⁷³ Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, O.J. 2008 L 348/98.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ As stated in the 11^th recital of the Preamble of the Directive.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ See Bast, J., Der Vorschlag der Europäischen Kommission für eine Abschiebeverfahrens-Richtlinie, in Perspektivwechselim Ausländerrecht?, 648, 650–653 (K. Barwig, S. Beichel-Benedetti & G. Brinkmann, eds., 2007).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Articles 12–14 of the Directive. For details, See Acosta, D., The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in EU Migration Law: Is the European Parliament Becoming Bad and Ugly?, 11 European Journal of Migration and Law (EJML) 19 (2009), A. Baldaccini, The Return and Removal of Irregular Migrants under EU Law: An Analysis of the Returns Directive, 11 EJML 1, 11–13 (2009).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Cf. Case 222/86, Heylens, 1987 E.C.R. 4097, paras. 14–16; C-327/02, supra, note 59, paras. 26–27.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Cf. Case 540/03, supra, note 12, para. 60.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See supra, note 61.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See Peers, supra, note 60, 121.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service, O.J. 2004 L 375/12.Google Scholar

⁸² See supra, note 8.Google Scholar