The European Competition Network in the European Administrative System: Theoretical Concerns

• Authors: Csatlós Erzsébet
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The public administration of the European Union (EU) is a sui generis multi-level structure under constant development. After five decades of successful functioning, the European Union still lacks a coherent and comprehensive set of codified rules of administrative procedure at all levels. The existing acquis related to European administration and administrative procedures is fragmented, sector specific and although it is based on the constitutional principles of the democratic traditions of its Member States, such coincidence is often insufficient for the present requirements of good administration. The EU basically relies on indirect administration, while a growing number of cooperation forms exists of the competent authorities that aims to ensure efficacy of execution and to overcome diversity of non-harmonised legal areas. The aim of this paper is to place the European Competition Network (ECN) in this structure, explore and examine its legal nature as it is probably the most advanced example for such cooperation. The ECN incorporates and reveals the major procedural law questions of European administration; it is a rather successful form of cooperation, and although its core issues fail to correspond to the fundamental requirements of European administrative procedures, there seem to be positive changes in the evaluation of soft law and the functioning of the system.

FR

L’administration publique de l’Union européenne (UE) est une structure sui generis aux plusieurs niveaux de l’évolution constante. Après cinq décennies de bon fonctionnement, l’Union européenne (UE) ne dispose toujours pas de l’ensemble cohérent et complexe de règles codifiées de procédures administratives à tous les niveaux. L’acquis existant relatif à l’administration européenne et aux procédures administratives est fragmenté et spécifique au secteur. Même si l’acquis est fondé sur les principes constitutionnels des traditions démocratiques des États membres, une telle coïncidence est souvent insuffisante par rapport aux exigences actuelles d’une bonne administration. L’UE s’appuie essentiellement sur l’administration indirecte alors qu’il existe un nombre croissant de type de coopération entre les autorités compétents afin d’assurer l’efficacité de l’exécution et de surmonter la diversité entre des domaines du droit non-harmonisés. L’objectif de cet article est de placer le Réseau européen de la concurrence (ECN) dans cette structure, d’explorer et d’examiner sa nature juridique, car il s’agit probablement de l’exemple le plus avancé de ce type de coopération. Le REC intègre et révèle les principales questions de droit procédural de l’administration européenne. Il est une forme de coopération plutôt fructueuse, et bien que ses enjeux essentiels ne correspondent pas aux exigences fondamentales des procédures administratives européennes, il semble y avoir des changements positifs dans l’évaluation du soft law et du fonctionnement du système

Keywords

EN

European administration; cooperation; public authority; EC; soft law

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych
• Journal: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
• Year: 2018
• Volume: 11(17)
• Pages: 53-74

Dates

published

2018-08-30

Contributors

author

Csatlós Erzsébet

• Department of Public Administrative Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Szeged

References

• Amerasinghe, C.F. (2005). Principles o f the Institutional Law of International Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Peters, B.G. and Pierre, J. (2004). Multi-level Governance and Democracy: A Faustian Bargain? In I. Bache and M. Flinders (eds), Multi-level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 75–89.
• Bache, I. and Flinders, M. (2004). Multi-level Governance: Conclusions and Implications. In I. Bache and M. Flinders (eds), Multi-level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 195–206.
• Bauer, M.W. and Trondal, J. (2015). Th e Administrative System of the European Union. In M.B. Bauer and J. Trondal (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of the European Administrative System. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1–28.
• Bianchi, A. (2016). International Law Theories: An Inquiry into Different Ways of Thinking.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• von Bogdandy, A., Dann, P. and Goldmann, M. (2010). The Exercise of Public Authority Advancing International Institutional Law by International Institutions. Berlin–Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
• Brammer, S. (2008) Horizontal aspects of the decentralisation of EU competition law enforcement. Doctoral dissertation. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Retrieved from: https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/1979/1881/2/doctoraatbrammer.pdf (10.03.2018).
• Cengiz, F. (2010). Multi-level governance in competition policy: The European Competition Network. European Law Review, 35(5), 660–677.
• Chiti, E. (2011). EU and Global Administrative Organizations. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
• Chiti, E. (2015). In the Aftermath of the Crisis – The EU Administrative System Between Impediments and Momentum. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 17 (1), 311–333.
• Csatlós, E. (2016). Perspectives of the Cooperation of National Administrative Authorities in the EU. Jogelméleti Szemle,16(3), 45–55.
• Curtin, D. and Egeberg, M. (2013). Towards a New Executive Order in Europe? London: Routledge.
• Dezső, M. and Vincze, A. (2012). Magyar alkotmányosság az európai integrációban.Budapest: HvgOrac.
• Drechsler, W. (2009). Towards a Neo-Weberian European Union? Lisbon Agenda and Public Administration. Halduskultuur, 10, 6–21.
• Fegus, V.R. (2014). The Growing Importance of Soft Law in the EU. InterEULawEast, 1(1), 145–161.
• Ficzere, L. (2011). Európai közigazgatás – nemzeti közigazgatás. In B. Gerencsér and P.Takács (eds), Ratio legis, ratio iuris: ünnepi tanulmányok Tamás András tiszteletére 70. születésnapja alkalmából. Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 383–384.
• Galetta, D.U, Hofmann, H.C.H., Puigpelat, O.M. and Ziller, J. (2015). The General Principles of EU Administrative Procedural Law. Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, Brussels: European Parliament. Retrieved from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2015/519224/IPOL_IDA(2015)519224_EN.pdf (10.03.2018).
• Galetta, D.U., Hofmann, H.C.H., Schneider, J.P. and Tünsmeyer, V.M. (2014). ReNEUAL Model Rules on EU Administrative Procedure, Book V – Mutual assistance. Retrieved from: http://www.reneual.eu/images/Home/BookV-mutual_assistance_online_publication_individualized_final_2014-09-03.pdf (10.03.2018).
• Galetta, D.U., Hofmann, H.C.H., L ottini, M., Marsch, N., Schneider, J.P. and Tidghi, M.(2014). ReNEUAL Model Rules on EU Administrative Procedure, Book VI – Administrative Information Management. Retrieved from: http://www.reneual.eu/images/Home/BookVI-information_management_online_publication_individualized_final_2014-09-03.pdf (10.03.2018.)
• Hardacre, A. and Kaeding, M. (2011). Delegated & Implementing Acts. The New Comitology. EIPA Essential Guide. Maastricht: European Institute of Public Administration. Retrieved from: tp://aei.pitt.edu/33497/1/20110912105558_EipascopeSpecialIssue_Art5.pdf (10.03.2018).
• Heidbreder, E.G. (2009). Structuring the European Administrative Space: Channels of EU Penetrations and Mechanisms of National Chance. KFG Working Paper Series, 5.
• Hofmann, H.C.H. (2009a). Composite Decisionmaking Procedures in EU Administrative Law. Administrative Law Review, 61, 199–222.
• Hofmann, H.C.H. (2009b). Which Limits? Control of Powers in an Integrated Legal System. In C. Barnard and O. Odudu (eds), The Outer Limits of European Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 45–62.
• Hofmann, H.C.H. (2015). The Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Administrative Space. In M.B. Bauer and J. Trondal (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of the European Administrative System. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 301–311.
• Hofmann, H.C.H. and Türk, A.H. (2 006). Policy implementation. In H.C.H. Hofmann and A.H. Türk, EU Administrative Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 74–125.
• Israel, A., Lang, J.M. and Hübener, F. (2016). A Practitioner’s View on the Role and Powers of National Competition Authorities Background to the ECN plus project. Brussels: European Union. P/A/ECON/2016-06, PE 578.972.
• Jimenez, C.L. (2016). The Fining System in the Enforcement of EU Competition Law:A Time for Reassessment? Doctoral Thesis. University of Southampton, Faculty of Business, Southampton Law School. Retrieved from: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/404886/ (10.03.2018).
• Kingsbury, B., Krisch, N. and Stewart, R.B. (2005). The Emergence of Global Administrative Law. Law and Contemporary Problems, 68(3)–(4), 15–62.
• Kingsbury, B., Kirsch, N., Stewart, R.B. and Wiener, J. (2005). Foreword: Global Governance as Administration – National and Transnational Approaches to Global Administrative Law. Law and Contemporary Problems, 68(3)–(4).
• Klamert, M. (2014). The Principle of Loyalty in EU Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Klucka, J. (2007). The General Trends of EU Administrative Law. The International Lawyer, 41(4), 1047–1054.
• Koprić, I., Musa, A. and Novak, G.L. (2011). Good Administration as a Ticket to the European Administrative Space. Zbornik PFZ, 61(5), 1515–1560.
• Kovács, A., Tóth, T. and Forgács, A. (2016). Effects of European Soft Law at National Administrative Courts. Loyola University Chicago International Law Review, 14 (1), 1–30.
• Kristjánsdóttir, M.V. (2013). Good Admini stration as a Fundamental Right. Icelandic Review of Politics and Administration, 9(1), 237–255.
• Linderfalk, U. (2007). On the Interpretation of Treaties. The Modern International Law as Expressed in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Marsden, P. (2009). Checks and balances: EU competition law and the rule of law. Competition Law International, 5(1), 24–28.
• Mastenbroek, E. and Martinsen, D.S. (2018). Filling the gap in the European administrative space: the role of administrative networks in EU implementation and enforcement. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(3), 422–435.
• Mataija, M. (2010). The European Competition Network and the Shaping of European Competition Policy. Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy, 6, 75–101.
• Metcalfe, L. (2001). Law, Conservatism and Innovation: a Management Perspective. In A.George, P. Machado and J. Ziller (eds), Law and Public Management: Starting to Talk. EUI Working Paper LAW, 12. San Domenico: European University Institute, 5–10.
• Muheme, D., Neyrinck, N. and Petit, P. (2016). Procedural Rights in EU Antitrust Proceedings. In C. Cauffman and Q. Hao (eds), Procedural Rights in Competition Law in the EU and China. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer, 129–160.
• Ortino, M. (2017). EU External Competences and the Participation to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, European Business Law Review, 28(6), 911–936.
• Panizza, R. (2015). EU Administrative Law. Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and
• Constitutional Affairs. Brussels: European Parliament. Retrieved from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2015/51920 7/IPOL_ATA(2015)519207_EN.pdf (10.03.2018).
• Raitio, J. (2003). The Principle of Legal Certainty in EC Law. Dordrecht: Springer-Science+Business Media, B.V.Roben, V. (2008). The Enforcement Authority of International Institutions. German Law Journal, 9(11), 1965–1986.
• Scholten, M. (2017). Mind the trend! Enforcement of EU law has been moving to ‘Brussels’. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(9), 1348–1366.
• Schwarze, J. (2011). European administrative law in the light of the Treaty of Lisbon:introductory remarks. Brussels: European Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Brussels: European Parliament. Retrieved from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2011/432777/IPOL-JURI_NT(2011)432777_EN.pdf (10.03.2018)
• Senden, L.A.J. (2005). Soft law and its implications for institutional balance in the EC.Utrecht Law Review, 1(2), 79–99.
• Senn, M. (2011). Non-State Regulatory Regimes. Understanding Institutional Transformation. Berlin–Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. Slaughter, A.M. (2003). Global Government Networks, Global Information Agencies, and Disaggregated Democracy. Michigan Journal of International Law, 24(4), 1041–1075.Smyrnova, K. (2013). Rethinking EU Soft Law : New Dimensions in Competition Law. Law of Ukraine, 13(3), 125–132.
• Ştefan, O. (2013). Soft Law in Court: Competition Law, State Aid, and the Court of Justice of the European Union. European Monographs Series Volume 81. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
• Torma, A. (2011). Az Európai Közigazgatási Térségről – magyar szemmel. Miskolci Jogi Szemle, 6, 196–210.
• Türk, A.H. (2012). Lawmaking after Lisbon. In A. Biondi, P. Eeckhout and S. Ripley (eds), EU Law after Lisbon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.de Visser, M. (2009). Network-Based Governance in EC Law: The Example of EC Competition and EC Communications Law. Portland: Hart Publishing.Vogiatzis, N. (2018). The European Ombudsman and Good Administration in the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Voss, K. (2013). The Principle of Equality: A Limit to the Commission’s Discretion in EU Competition Law Enforcement? Global Antitrust Review, (6), 149–166.
• Zaring, D. (2005). Informal Procedure, Hard and Soft, i n International Administration. Chicago Journal of International Law, 5(2), 547–603.

Identifiers

DOI

10.7172/1689-9024.YARS.2018.11.17.3