EU and administrative governance
EU Administrative Governance: Overview
EU administrative governance refers to the systems, rules, and principles that regulate how EU institutions (like the European Commission, the European Parliament, the European Court of Justice) and agencies perform administrative functions. It includes rule-making, decision-making, enforcement, and oversight within the EU legal framework.
Key themes include:
Principle of legality: EU institutions must act within their conferred powers.
Transparency: Decisions and processes should be open.
Proportionality: Actions must not exceed what is necessary to achieve objectives.
Right to fair hearing: Procedural fairness in administrative decisions.
Judicial review: Oversight of administrative acts by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU).
Important Case Law in EU Administrative Governance
Let’s analyze five landmark cases that have shaped EU administrative governance, with detailed explanations:
1. Case 294/83 Les Verts v European Parliament (1986)
Facts:
Les Verts, a political party, challenged the European Parliament's refusal to register their party, alleging violation of EU democratic principles.
Held:
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that the European Parliament, like all EU institutions, must respect the rule of law and act within its powers.
Significance:
This case established the principle that EU institutions are bound by the rule of law and subject to judicial review. It reinforced that no institution is above the law, fundamental to administrative governance.
2. Case 27/62 Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (1963)
Facts:
A company challenged customs duties imposed by the Dutch authorities, claiming violation of EU treaty provisions.
Held:
The ECJ established the principle of direct effect, meaning EU law can create rights for individuals enforceable in national courts.
Significance:
While a foundational case for EU law, it impacts administrative governance by ensuring that administrative bodies at national and EU levels must respect directly effective EU law, strengthening legal certainty and individuals’ rights.
3. Case 24/68 Commission v Italy (Cassis de Dijon) (1968)
Facts:
The Commission challenged Italy’s restrictive rules on import of certain alcoholic beverages.
Held:
The ECJ ruled that restrictions must be justified, proportional, and non-discriminatory.
Significance:
This case introduced the principle of proportionality in EU administrative governance, requiring administrative actions to be suitable and necessary for legitimate aims without excessive restrictions.
4. Case C-331/88 Fedesa and Others v Commission (1990)
Facts:
Fedesa and others challenged the Commission’s decision to withdraw authorizations for certain pesticides without giving them a chance to be heard.
Held:
The Court ruled the Commission had violated the right to be heard, a fundamental procedural right in EU administrative procedures.
Significance:
Established that EU administrative bodies must observe procedural fairness and give affected parties the opportunity to present their case before adverse decisions.
5. Case T-177/01 Pfizer Animal Health SA v Council (2002)
Facts:
Pfizer challenged an EU Council decision that restricted the use of a veterinary drug.
Held:
The General Court annulled the Council’s decision on grounds that it violated procedural rules and lacked sufficient reasoning.
Significance:
Shows the importance of transparency and reasoned decisions in EU administrative governance. Decisions must be properly justified, and bodies must follow fair procedures.
Summary Table of Principles and Cases
| Case | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| Les Verts (1986) | Rule of law applies to EU institutions |
| Van Gend en Loos (1963) | Direct effect of EU law on administrative bodies |
| Cassis de Dijon (1968) | Proportionality in administrative restrictions |
| Fedesa (1990) | Right to be heard and procedural fairness |
| Pfizer Animal Health (2002) | Transparency and requirement for reasoned decisions |
Final Notes:
EU administrative governance is shaped by a balance of institutional power and individual rights.
Judicial review by the CJEU enforces accountability and legality.
Principles like proportionality, transparency, and fairness guide administrative action.
Cases above demonstrate how these principles have been applied in concrete disputes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments