No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2017
The aim of this chapter is to assess what, if anything, administrative law can demonstrate about multi-level administration in the European Union and the United States. The particular focus of the examination is not on the content of administrative law in each legal order, but rather on the impact of EU and US federal administrative law on the Member States and US States respectively. It will be seen that, while US federal administrative law has primarily only influential effect on US States, EU administrative law is often binding on Member States. This observation challenges presumptions often made, particularly in political science, as to the degrees of inter-penetration in administration in the EU and the US. It will be argued that the cause of divergence is largely derived from differing judicial attitudes as to the fundamental tenets of the co-operation between the different levels of administration, and indeed, more general understandings of federalism in the two jurisdictions. In this way, this study also provides a useful prism through which to consider integration in the EU and US more broadly.
1 The term ‘binding force’ is used here instead of, for example, ‘direct effect’, which is more often used in the EU context. The term ‘direct effect’ is often interpreted in different ways and can be contested; it is also not a term that is useful in the US context. As such, for the purpose of this comparison, it is considered preferable to avoid it.
2 Toth, AG, ‘The Authority of Judgments of the European Court of Justice: Binding Force and Legal Effects’ (1984) 4 Yearbook of European Law 1, 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 See, eg, Schwarze, J (ed), Administrative Law Under European Influence (London, Sweet and Maxwell, 1996)Google Scholar; Schwarze, J, European Administrative Law (London, Sweet and Maxwell, 1992)Google Scholar; Búrca, G de, ‘Proportionality and Wednesbury Unreasonableness: The Influence of European Legal Concepts on UK Law’ (1997) 3 European Public Law 561 Google Scholar; Birkinshaw, P, European Public Law (London, Cambridge University Press, 2003)Google Scholar; Anthony, G, ‘Community Law and the Development of UK Administrative Law: Delimiting the Spill-Over Effect’ (1998) 4 EPL 253 Google Scholar; Schwarze, J, ‘Towards a Common European Public Law’ (1995) 1 EPL 227 Google Scholar; Hilson, C, ‘The Europeanization of English Administrative Law: Judicial Review and Convergence’ (2003) 9 EPL 125 Google Scholar.
4 See, eg, Egeberg, M (ed), Multilevel Union Administration: The Transformation of Executive Politics in Europe (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kassim, H, ‘The European Administration: between Europeanization and Domestication’ in Hayward, J and Menon, A (eds), Governing Europe (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2003)Google Scholar; Hofmann, HCH and Türk, AH (eds), EU Administrative Governance (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 See, eg, Meltzer, D, ‘Member State Liability in Europe and in the United States’ (2006) 4 International Journal of Constitutional Law 39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mashaw, J, ‘Reasoned Administration: The European Union, the United States, and the Project of Democratic Governance’ (2007) 76 George Washington Law Review 99 Google Scholar; and Lenaerts, K and Gutman, K, ‘“Federal Common Law” in the European Union: A Comparative Perspective from the United States’ (2006) 54 American Journal of Comparative Law 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 See, eg, Menon, A and Schain, M (eds), Comparative Federalism: The European Union and the United States in Comparative Perspective (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Nicolaïdis, K and Howse, R (eds), The Federal Vision: Legitimacy and Levels of Governance in the United States and the European Union (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001) 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 Weiler, JHH, ‘Federalism Without Constitutionalism: Europe’s Sonderweg’ in Nicolaïdis, K and Howse, R (eds), The Federal Vision (New York, Oxford University Press, 2002) 54, 54Google Scholar.
8 For a summary, see Donnelly, CM, Delegation of Governmental Power to Private Parties: A Comparative Perspective (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007) 10–13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Sbragia, A, ‘The United States and the European Union: Comparing Two Sui Generis Systems’ in Menon, A and Schain, MA (eds), Comparative Federalism (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006) 15, 15Google Scholar.
10 Ibid.
11 Gatto, A, ‘Governance in the European Union: A Legal Perspective’ (2006) 12 Columbia Journal of European Law 487, 489Google Scholar. See also Búrca, G de, ‘The Constitutional Challenge of New Governance in the European Union’ (2003) 28 European Law Review 814 Google Scholar.
12 Zweigert, K and Kötz, H (Weir, T, tr), An Introduction to Comparative Law, 3rd edn (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1998) 15 Google Scholar (noting that ‘the primary aim of all comparative law, as of all sciences, is knowledge’).
13 Harlow, C, ‘Voices of Difference in a Plural Community’ in Voices of Difference in a Plural Community’ in Beaumont, P, Lyons, C, and Walker, N (eds), Convergence and Divergence in European Public Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2002) 199, 208Google Scholar; Legrand, P, ‘Public Law, Europeanization, and Convergence: Can Comparatists Contribute?’ in Beaumont, P, Lyons, C, and Walker, N (eds), Convergence and Divergence in European Public Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2002) 227, 246Google Scholar.
14 See generally Committee of Independent Experts, Second Report on Reform of the Commission: Analysis of Current Practice and Proposals for Tackling Mismanagement, Irregularities and Fraud Volume I (1999) (CIE Second Report); Craig, P, ‘The Constitutionalisation of Community Administration’ (2003) 28 EL Rev 840, 841Google Scholar; Article 53b of Council Regulation (EC) 1605/2002 on the financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ 2002 L248/1 (the Financial Regulation); Craig, P, EU Administrative Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar chs 2 and 3.
15 P Craig, ‘The Constitutionalisation of Community Administration’, above n 14, 841; P Craig, EU Administrative Law, above n 14, ch 2.
16 Art 55(1), Financial Regulation, above n 14; see also Art 54, Financial Regulation. See generally Saurer, J, ‘The Accountability of Supranational Administration: The Case of European Union Agencies’ (2009) 24 American University International Law Review 429 Google Scholar; Curtin, D, ‘Delegation to EU Non-Majoritarian Agencies and Emerging Practices of Public Accountability’ in Gerardin, D and Petit, N (eds), Regulation Through Agencies in the EU: A New Paradigm of European Governance? (London, Routledge, 2005) 88 Google Scholar; D Curtin, ‘Holding (Quasi-) Autonomous EU Administrative Actors to Public Account’ European Law Journal, Special Issue on Accountability in the EU, July 2007, 523. For a current list of agencies, see: http://europa.eu/agencies/public_contracts/index_en.htm (accessed last on 1 May 2009).
17 HCH Hofmann and AH Türk, ‘Policy Implementation’ in HCH|Hofmann and AH Türk (eds), EU Administrative Governance, above n 4, 74, 74–6.
18 See http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc82_en.htm (accessed last on 1 May 2009).
19 See http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc82_en.htm (accessed last on 1 May 2009).
20 Craig, P, ‘The Fall and Renewal of the Commission: Accountability, Contract and Administrative Organisation’ (2000) 6 ELJ 98, 103CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
21 See http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/index.html (accessed last on 1 May 2009).
22 Saurer, J, ‘The Accountability of Supranational Administration’, above n 16, 444–6Google Scholar.
23 Ibid, 452–3. See, for eg, Kreher, A, ‘Agencies in the European Community—a step towards administrative integration in Europe’ (1997) 4 Journal of European Public Policy 225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24 Geradin, D, ‘The Development of European Regulatory Agencies: What the EU Should Learn from American Experience’ (2004–05) 11 ColJEL 1, 2Google Scholar.
25 Schwarze, J, ‘Judicial Review of European Administrative Procedure’ [2004] Public Law 146, 147 Google Scholar.
26 CIE Second Report, above n 14, para 3.2.2. See also P Craig, EU Administrative Law, above n 14, ch 3.
27 Nehl, HP, Principles of Administrative Procedure in EC Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 1999) 4 and 82Google Scholar.
28 See Cohesion Fund, available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funds/cf/index_en.htm (accessed last on 1 May 2009). For UK national administration details, see Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, available at: http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/regional/european-structural-funds/Structural%20&%20Cohesion%20Funds%20Administration/pagel (accessed last on 1 May 2009).
29 Council Regulation (EEC) 355/77 on common measures to improve the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed, OJ 1977 L51/1.
30 Article 13(3); see Case C-97/91 Oleificio Borelli SpA v Commission [1992] ECR I-6313, paras 1–4.
31 HCH Hofmann and AH Türk, ‘Policy Implementation’ in HCH Hofmann and AH Türk (eds), EU Administrative Governance, above n 4, 74, 90.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid, 91–5.
34 Council Regulation (EC) 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ 2003 L1/1; White Paper on Modernization of the Rules Implementing Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty of May 1999; Ølivind Støle, ‘Towards a Multilevel Union Administration? The Decentralization of EU Competition Policy’ in M Egeberg (ed), Multilevel Union Administration, above n 4, 86.
35 Ø Støle, ‘Towards a Multilevel Union Administration?’, above n 34, 92.
36 Wessels, W, ‘Comitology: fusion in action: Politico-administrative trends in the EU system’ (1998) 5 Journal of European Public Policy 209 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (referring to the role of national administrative actors in the Comitology process).
37 BG Peters, ‘Federalism and Public Administration: the United States and the European Union’ in AA Menon and M Schain (eds), Comparative Federalism, above n 6, 177, 179. This is sometimes referred to as ‘pay without say’; it is argued that at least Member State authorities are compensated for loss of competence to Europe by involvement in the decisionmaking processes of the Council, whereas by contrast, regional governments within Member States carry the burden of implementing EU policies without that participation: Börzel, TA and Sprungk, C, ‘Undermining Democratic Governance in the Member States? The Europeanization of National Decision-making’ in Hozhacker, R and Albaek, E (eds), Democratic Governance and European Integration: Linking Societal and States Processes of Democracy (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2007) 113, 121–2Google Scholar.
38 Yoo, JC, ‘Sounds of Sovereignty: Defining Federalism in the 1990s’ (1998) 32 Indiana Law Review 27, 41–3Google Scholar (advocating the dual federalism model).
39 Weiser, PJ, ‘Federal Common Law, Cooperative Federalism, and the Enforcement of the Telecom Act’ (2001) 76 New York University Law Review 1692, 1697Google Scholar.
40 Redish, MH, ‘Reassessing the Allocation of Judicial Business between State and Federal Courts: Federal Jurisdiction and “the Martian Chronicles”’ (1992) 78 Virginia Law Review 1769, 1772–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
41 29 USCA §§1001 ff; see also PJ Weiser, ‘Federal Common Law’, above n 39, 1697.
42 PJ Weiser, ‘Federal Common Law’, above n 39, 1692.
43 42 USC §§601 ff.
44 Ibid, §602.
45 Pub L No 104-104, 110 Stat 56 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 47 USC).
46 PJ Weiser, above n 39, ‘Federal Common Law’, 1697–8.
47 P Birkinshaw, European Public Law, above n 3, 7; see also Harlow, C, ‘European Administrative Law and the Global Challenge’ in Craig, P and Búrca, G de (eds), The Evolution of EU Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999) 261, 263Google Scholar; Breger, MJ, ‘Defining Administrative Law—A Review of an Introduction to Administrative Justice in the United States by Peter L Strauss’ (1991) 60 George Washington Law Review 268 Google Scholar.
48 5 USC §§551 ff.
49 5 USC §§551–9.
50 5 USC §§701–6.
51 ‘Government in the Sunshine Act’ 5 USC §552b.
52 5 USC §552b(c).
53 5 USC §552b(b).
54 5 USC App 2.
55 5 USC §552.
56 Even though not yet legally binding, the Charter is invoked increasingly regularly by the Court of Justice: see, for example, Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, judgment of 3 September 2008, nyr, para 335 (referring to the right to ‘effective judicial protection’, which is ‘reaffirmed’ in Art 47 of the Charter). Advocates-General have also often referred to the right to good administration found in Art 41 of the Charter: see, eg, Joined Cases C-147/06 and C-148/06 SECAP SpA v Comune di Torino (Tecnoimprese Srl and Others, intervening), judgment of 15 May 2008, nyr (Advocate-General Opinion, para 50).
57 See generally Vos, E, ‘Reforming the European Commission: What Role for EU Agencies?’ (2000) 37 Common Market Law Review 1113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chiti, E, ‘The Emergence of a Community Administration: The Case of European Agencies’ (2000) 37 CML Rev 309 Google Scholar. See, eg, Case T-74/00 Artegodan GmbH v Commission [2002] ECR II-494, paras 197–200.
58 See note 14 above.
59 See generally P Craig, ‘The Constitutionalisation’, above n 14.
60 Council Regulation (EC) 1605/2002 on the financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities OJ 2002 L 248/1 (the Financial Regulation), Art 53(1).
61 Ibid, Art 54.
62 Art 253 EC.
63 Art 5 EC.
64 Art 287 EC.
65 Art 88(2) EC.
66 Art 288 EC.
67 Art 21 EC.
68 See Arts 28, 39(2), 43 and 49 EC.
69 See, eg, C-85/96 Martínez Sala v Freistaat Bayern [1998] ECR I-2691, paras 8, 15–16, and 63 (non-contributory child-raising allowance); Case C-184/99 Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottign [2001] ECR I-6193, para 32 (the minimex); Case C-456/02 Trojani v Centre Public d’Aide Sociale de Bruxelles [2004] ECR I-7573, para 46 (the minimex); Case C-209/03 R (on the application of Dany Bidar) v London Borough of Ealing, Secretary of State for Education and Skills [2005] ECR I-2119, paras 32 and 42 (student maintenance assistance); Case C-406/04 De Cuyper v Office National de l’Emploi [2006] ECR I-6947.
70 Case 149/79 Commission v Belgium [1982] ECR 1845, para 7; Case C-405/01 Colegio de Oficiales de la Marina Merccante Espanňola v Administración del Estado [2003] ECR I-10391, paras 38–45.
71 Nehl, Principles of Administrative Procedure in EC Law, above n 27, 3.
72 Schwarze has cited the example of Council Regulation (EEC) 2988/74 concerning limitation periods and enforcement of sanctions under the rules of the European Economic Community relating to transport and competition rules, OJ 1974 L319/1: J Schwarze, European Administrative Law, above n 3, 43. See also J Schwarze, ‘Judicial Review of European Administrative Procedure’, above n 25, 148.
73 Council Regulation (EC) 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ 2003 L001/1.
74 The detailed rules for the application of Article 88 EC are found in Council Regulation 659/99, OJ 1999 L83/1.
75 The staff regulations for officials and conditions of employment of other servants of the European Community are set out in Council Regulation 259/68, OJ 1968 L56/1.
76 European Parliament and Council Directive (EC) 2004/18 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, OJ 2004 L134/114.
77 Council Directive 2001/23 EC in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses, OJ 2001 L82/16.
78 Council Regulation 1258/1999 on the financing of common agricultural policy, OJ 1999 L160/103.
79 Joined Cases 146 and 192–193/81 BayWa v BALM [1982] ECR 1503, paras 29–31.
80 The ECJ has held that the EC is competent to prescribe punitive administrative sanctions in Case C-240/90 Germany v Commission (Sheepmeat) [1992] ECR I-5363.
81 Regulation 2988/95, OJ 1995 L312/1.
82 This example is also given by Widdershoven, R, ‘European Administrative Law’ in Seerden, RJGH (ed), Administrative Law of the European Union, its Member States and the United States: A Comparative Analysis (Antwerp, Intersentia, 2007) 312 Google Scholar.
83 Ibid.
84 OJ 1992 L302/1.
85 See, eg, EC Directive 76/207, Equal treatment of men and women in the labour process, OJ 1976 L39/40.
86 J Jowell and P Birkinshaw, ‘English Report’ in Schwarze (ed), Administrative Law under European Influence, above n 3, 273, 314–15.
87 Art 51(1). This expression means that Member States are bound to comply with Charter rights when acting in the context of Community law. See, eg, Case 5/88 Wachauf v Germany [1989] ECR 2609; Communication on the legal nature of the Charter of fundamental right of the European Union COM(2000) 644 final (October 2000); and Updated Explanations relating to the text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, CONV, 828/03, 9 July 2003, 46–7.
88 Art 41(1).
89 Art 41(3).
90 Art 41(4).
91 Kan´ska, K, ‘Towards Administrative Human Rights in the EU: Impact of the Charter of Fundamental Rights’ (2004) 10 ELJ 296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 309, referring to Case T-450/93 Lisrestal v Commission [1994] ECR II-1177.
92 Ibid, citing Case T-147/99 Kaufring v Commission [2001] ECR II-1337.
93 In particular, it may be that the reach of the Charter is interpreted in accordance with the position adopted in Case C-60/00 Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ECR I-6279.
94 Schwarze, European Administrative Law, above n 3, 4–5.
95 J Schwarze, ‘Judicial Review of European Administrative Procedure’, above n 25, 148. Schwarze cites the example (at fn 9) of Art 27 of Council Regulation 1/2003, OJ 2003 L001/1, on the implementation of Arts 81 and 82 EC, which deals with the right to be heard, the right to have access to the Commission’s files and the protection of business secrets.
96 Case C-185/95 P Baustahlgewebe v Commission [1998] ECR I-8417, para 21.
97 Case 155/79 AM & S Europe Ltd v Commission [1982] ECR 1575, paras 27–8.
98 Case C-361/02 Greece v Tspalos [2004] ECR I-6405, Opinion of Advocate-General Kokott, para 30.
99 Ibid.
100 Case C-269/90 Hauptzollamt München-Mitte v Technische Universität München [1991] ECR I-5469, para 14.
101 See, eg, Case 114/76 Bela-Mühle Josef Bergman KG v Grows-Farm GmbH & Co KG [1977] ECR 1211; Case C-453/03 ABNA Ltd v Secretary of State for Health [2005] ECR I-423, paras 67–9. The principle of proportionality is now also recognised in Art 5 EC.
102 Case 54/65 Chatillon v High Authority [1966] ECR 185, 196; Case 81/72 Commission v Council (Staff Salaries) [1973] ECR 575, paras 8–10; Case 148/73 Louwage v Commission [1974] ECR 81, para 12.
103 See, eg, Case C-453/03 ABNA Ltd v Secretary of State for Health (ECJ) [2005] ECR I-423, paras 62–6.
104 Case 222/84 Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1986] ECR 1651, paras 18–19.
105 Craig, P and Búrca, G de, EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007) 562–8Google Scholar; Lenaerts, K, ‘“In the Union we Trust”: Trust Enhancing Principles of Community Law’ (2004) 41 CML Rev 317 Google Scholar.
106 Costello, C and Browne, E, ‘The EU and the ECHR before European and Irish Courts’ in Kilkelly, U (ed), ECHR and Irish Law (Bristol, Jordans, 2008) 21, 35Google Scholar.
107 See, eg, Carpenter, above n 93.
108 Case 249/86 Commission v Germany [1989] ECR 1263, para 20 (proportionality).
109 Case C-354/04 P Gestoras Pro Amnistia [2007] ECR I-1579, para 51; Case C-355/04 P Segi and Others v Council [2007] ECR I-1657, para 45.
110 See generally Craig, and Búrca, de, EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, above n 105, 337–49Google Scholar; Case 36/75 Rutili v Ministre de l’Intérieur [1975] ECR 1219; Case C-260/89 Elliniki Radiophonia Tiléorassi AE v Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis and Sotirios Kouvelas [1991] ECR I-2925, paras 42–5; Case C-368/95 Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags v Heinrich Bauer Verlag [1997] ECR I-3689.
111 See, eg, Case 33/74 Van Binsbergen v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging Metaalnijverheid [1974] ECR 1299, paras 14–16.
112 Case C-224/01 Köbler v Republik Österreich [2003] ECR I-10239.
113 See, eg, Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Norwich City Council v B&Q plc [1991] Ch 48 (Ch) 69–72.
114 G de Búrca, ‘Proportionality and Wednesbury Unreasonableness’, above n 3, 577 (noting R v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Roberts [1991] 1 CMLR 555(QBD) paras 69, 88).
115 R v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex parte International Traders Ferry Ltd [1999] 2 AC 418 (HL).
116 Ibid, 439.
117 Case 33/76 Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG and Rewe-Zentral AG v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland [1976] ECR 1989.
118 Ibid, paras 5–6.
119 Halberstam, D, ‘Of Power and Responsibility: The Political Morality of Federal Systems’ (2004) 90 Virginia L Rev 731, 774CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
120 Johnston, above n 104.
121 Ibid, paras 19–20.
122 Ibid, para 18.
123 Ibid.
124 Ibid, para 21.
125 Ibid, para 19.
126 Case 222/86 Union Nationale des Entraineurs et Cadres Techniques Professionnels du Football (UNECTEF) v Georges Heylens [1987] ECR 4097.
127 Ibid, para 14.
128 Case C-75/08 R (Mellor) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, judgment of 30 April 2009 (ECJ) nyr.
129 Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of cer tain public and private projects on the environment, OJ 1985 L175/40.
130 Ibid, paras 48–57.
131 Ibid, paras 58–60.
132 C-213/89 R v Secretary of State for Transport ex p Factortame [1990] ECR I-2433.
133 Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich v Italy [1991] ECR I-5357, para 37.
134 Case C-430-431/93 Van Schijndel & Van Veen v Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten [1995] ECR I-4705.
135 Case C-312/93 Peterbroeck, Van Campenhout & Cie SCS v Belgian State [1995] ECR I-4599.
136 For discussion, see Craig and de Búrca, EU Law, above n 105, ch 9.
137 Ibid, 250, referring to Van Schijndel, above n 134.
138 See generally Dougan, M, National Remedies before the Court of Justice: Issues of Harmonisation and Differentiation (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2004) 32 Google Scholar.
139 See n 3 above for references to writings on this issue.
140 In Re M [1994] 1 AC 377.
141 Ibid, 407. See also Scharwze, J, ‘The Convergence of the Administrative Laws of the EU Member States’ (1998) 4 European Public Law 191, 199Google Scholar; Woolwich Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1993] AC 70 (HL) 177 (Lord Goff noting that ‘it would be strange if the right of the citizen to recover overpaid charges were to be more restricted under domestic law than it is under European law’.).
142 Schwarze, , ‘The Convergence of the Administrative Laws of the EU Member States’, above n 141, 199–200 Google Scholar.
143 42 USC §1437.
144 42 USC §1437d(k).
145 5 USC §551 ff.
146 5 USCA §701 ff.
147 5 USCA §§551(1), 701(b).
148 Hunter v Underwood 362 F3d 468 (8th Cir 2004).
149 Ibid, 477. See also Rosenfeld v Hackett (D Or 2008) 24 June 2008.
150 West Penn Power Company v Train 522 F2d 302 (3rd Cir 1975).
151 42 USC §7607.
152 Public Citizen Health Research Group v Department of Health, Education and Welfare 668 F2d 537, 538 (DC Cir 1981) (Public Citizen Health Research Group).
153 5 USC §552 (2000).
154 See n 148 above, 544.
155 Ibid, 543.
156 Bonfield, AE, ‘The Federal APA and State Administrative Law’ (1986) 72 Virginia Law Review 297, 302CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
157 Ibid, 300.
158 Stason, E, ‘The Model State Administrative Procedure Act’ (1948) 33 Iowa Law Review 196, 199Google Scholar.
159 See generally Bonfield, ‘The Federal APA’, above n 156.
160 Although to some extent, this sixth concept is being abandoned by states. See, eg, 1981 MSAPA §§2-104(3)–2-104(4); see generally Bonfield, AE, ‘State Administrative Policy Formulation and the Choice of Lawmaking Methodology’ (1990) 42 Administrative Law Review 121 Google Scholar.
161 Bonfield, AE, ‘State Law in the Teaching of Administrative Law: A Critical Analysis of the Status Quo’ (1982) 61 Texas Law Review 95, 126–8Google Scholar.
162 1946 MSAPA; 1961 MSAPA; 1981 MSAPA; see also Bonfield, , ‘State Law in the Teaching of Administrative Law’, above n 161, 100 Google Scholar.
163 See, eg, Bonfield, ‘The Federal APA’, above n 156; Boyd, F Scott, ‘Florida’s ALJS: Maintaining a Different Balance’ (2004) 24 Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judges 175 Google Scholar; Shannon, BD, ‘The Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act and ADR: A New Twist for Administrative Procedure in Texas’ (1990) 42 Baylor Law Review 705 Google Scholar; Bonfield, AE, ‘The Quest for an Ideal State Administrative Rulemaking Procedure’ (1991) 18 Florida State University Law Review 617 Google Scholar.
164 Bonfield, ‘The Federal APA’, above n 156, 335.
165 Ibid and 1961 MSAPA §3(a)(2); 1981 MSAPA §3-104.
166 The 1981 MSAPA vests in state governors the authority to review the rules of their State’s agencies and to ‘rescind or suspend all or a severable portion of a rule of an agency’ at any time: 1981 MSAPA §3-202(a).
167 1981 MSAPA §§3-203–3-204(d); see Bonfield, , ‘The Quest for an Ideal State Administrative Rulemaking Procedure’, above n 163, 649 Google Scholar.
168 Bonfield, , ‘The Federal APA’, above n 156, 322 Google Scholar.
169 Edles, GJ, ‘Developing a European Administrative Law Tradition: The Model of the US Administrative Procedure Act’ (2000) 6 EPL 543, 548Google Scholar; Duffy, JF, ‘Administrative Common Law in Judicial Review’ (1998) 77 Texas L Rev 113, 115Google Scholar.
170 5 USC §706(2)(A).
171 US Constitution Article III §1.
172 Chemerinsky, E, Federal Jurisdiction, 4th edn (New York, Aspen, 2003) 260 §5.1Google Scholar; see also Field, MA, ‘Sources of Law: The Scope of Federal Common law’ (1986) 99 Harvard Law Review 881, 899CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
173 Chemerinsky, above n 172, 260–61 §5.1.
174 Field, ‘Sources of Law’, above n 172, 890.
175 28 USCA §1652.
176 Swift v Tyson 41 US (16 Pet) 1 (1842).
177 Ibid, 19.
178 Field, ‘Sources of Law’, above n 172, 900–901.
179 Erie Railroad v Tompkins 304 US 64 (1938).
180 The issue was not argued by counsel: see Field, ‘Sources of Law’, above n 172, 902.
181 Ibid, 73–7.
182 Ibid, 78.
183 Weiser, ‘Federal Common Law’, above n 39, 1705; see, eg, Clearfield Trust Co Ltd v US 318 US 363, 366–7 (1943).
184 Weiser, above n 39, 1705–15.
185 See generally Brown, GD, ‘Federal Common Law and the Role of the Federal Courts in Private Law Adjudication—a (New) Erie Problem?’ (1992) 12 Pace Law Review 229 Google Scholar; Bellia, AJ Jnr, ‘State Courts and the Making of Federal Common Law’ 153 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 825 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
186 See, for example, 6 NYJur2d Article 78 and Related Proceedings §1 (2006); 14 AmJur2d Certiorari §1 (2005); 52 AmJur2d Mandamus §2 (2005).
187 Case C-105/03 Criminal Proceedings against Pupino [2005] ECR I-5283, para 42.
188 ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people’. For useful discussion, see Printz v US 521 US 898, 918–19 (1997).
189 See generally D Halberstam, ‘Comparative Federalism and the Issue of Commandeering’ in K Nicolaïdis and R Howse (eds), The Federal Vision, above n 6, 213; Hills, RM Jnr, ‘The Political Economy of Cooperative Federalism: Why State Autonomy Makes Sense and “Dual Sovereignty” Doesn’t’ (1998) Michigan Law Review 96, 813 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Powell, HJ, ‘The Oldest Question of Constitutional Law’ (1993) 79 Virginia L Rev 633 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
190 Printz, n 188, 935 (invalidating commandeering of state and local executive officials); New York v US 505 US 144, 161 (1992) (invalidating commandeering of state legislative process); Stewart, R, ‘“Pyramids of Sacrifice”? Problems of Federalism in Mandating State Implementation of National Environmental Policy’ (1977) 86 Yale Law Journal 1196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Siegel, NS, ‘Commandeering and its Alternatives: A Federalism Perspective’ (2006) 59 Vanderbilt Law Review 1629 Google Scholar, 1632 (doubting the reasoning in New York ).
191 New York, above n 188, 168–9.
192 See Young, EA, ‘Making Federalism Doctrine: Fidelity, Institutional Competence, and Compensating Adjustments’ (2005) 46 William and Mary Law Review 1733, 1806–7Google Scholar.
193 Rossi, J, ‘Dual Constitutions and Constitutional Duels: Separation of Powers and State Implementation of Federally Inspired Regulatory Programs and Standards’ (2005) 46 William and Mary L Rev 1343, 1345Google Scholar.
194 OMB Circular A-102; 45 CFR §602, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a102/al (last accessed on 1 May 2009 and discussed below).
195 See, eg, South Dakota v Dole 483 US 203, 210 (1987); New York, above n 190, 166–7 and 174.
196 Bermann, GA, ‘The Role of Law in the Functioning of Federal Systems’ in Nicolaïdis, K and Howse, R (eds), The Federal Vision, above n 6, 192, 207–8Google Scholar.
197 Halberstam, ‘Comparative Federalism’, above n 189, 242.
198 Dehousse, R, ‘Regulation by networks in the European Community: the role of European agencies’ (1997) 4 Journal of European Public Policy 246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (presenting the increased use of agencies as an effort to promote uniformity in administration through co-ordinating networks of administrative actors).
199 Sverdrup, U, ‘Implementation’ in Graziano, P and M Vink, P (eds), Europeanization: New Research Agendas (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2007) 197, 199Google Scholar.
200 Dehousse, ‘Regulation by networks’, above n 198, 254.
201 See text relating to nn 42 to 46 above.
202 Schwarze, , European Administrative Law, above n 3, 1447 Google Scholar.
203 Dubinsky, PR, ‘The Essential Function of Federal Courts: The European Union and the United States Compared’ (1994) 42 AJCL 295, 298CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
204 Meltzer, DJ, ‘The History and Structure of Article III’ (1990) 138 U Pennsylvania L Rev 1569 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 1569. A ‘revisionist’ view holds that Congress is limited in its power to strip federal courts of power: Dubinsky, ‘The Essential Function’, above n 203, 303–8.
205 Ibid, 301.
206 Lenaerts, and Gutman, , ‘“Federal Common Law”’, above n 5, 15 Google Scholar.
207 Ibid, 15–16.
208 Dubinsky, , ‘The Essential Function’, above n 203, 344 Google Scholar.
209 FD Jacobs and KL Karst, ‘The “Federal” Legal Order: The USA and Europe Compared— A Judicial Perspective’ in M Cappelletti et al (eds), 1 Integration Through Law —Europe and the American Federal Experience 169, 217–220.
210 Lenaerts, K, ‘Interlocking Legal Orders in the European Union and Comparative Law’ (2003) 52 International Comparative Law Quarterly 873, 905CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
211 See, eg, Case 4/73 Nold v Commission [1974] ECR 491, para 13; see also Case 44/79 Hauer v Rheinland Pfalz [1979] ECR 3727, paras 17–30.
212 Schwarze, , European Administrative Law, above n 3, 17 Google Scholar.
213 Craig and de Búrca, EU Law, above n 105, 339; see also Schwarze, , European Administrative Law, above n 3, 93–5, 1434–5Google Scholar. Although these principles have been modified to fit EU purposes: Harlow, ‘European Administrative Law’, above n 13, 266–7.
214 Schwarze, J, ‘Enlargement, the European Constitution, and Administrative Law’ (2004) 53 ICLQ 969, 970CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
215 Ibid, 971.
216 J Jowell and A Lester, ‘Beyond Wednesbury: Substantive Principles of Administrative Law’ [1988] PL 368; de Búrca, ‘Proportionality and Wednesbury Unreasonableness’, above n 3; Hoffmann, Lord, ‘The Influence of the European Principle of Proportionality upon UK Law’ in Ellis, E (ed), The Principle of Proportionality (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 1999)Google Scholar; Boyron, S, ‘Proportionality in English Law: A Faulty Translation’ (1992) 12 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
217 Case 155/79 AM & S Europe Ltd v Commission [1982] ECR 1575.
218 Lenaerts and Gutman, above n 5, 19.
219 See text to n 158 above.
220 Dubinsky, above n 203, 341; see also Azoulay, L, ‘The Court of Justice and the Administrative Governance’ (2001) 7 ELJ 425, 427CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
221 Ibid, 295.
222 See generally Dougan, National Remedies, above n 138.
223 Case C-213/89 R v Secretary of State for Transport ex p Factortame [1990] ECR I-2433, paras 20 to 22.
224 J Schwarze, ‘The Europeanization of National Administrative Law’ in Schwarze (ed), Administrative Law under European Influence, above n 3, 791.
225 Joined Cases 6 and 11/69 Commission v France [1969] ECR 523, para 16.
226 Joined Cases C-213/88 and C-39/89 Luxembourg v Parliament [1991] ECR I-5643, para 29.
227 Case 240/86 Commission v Greece [1988] ECR 1835. This is discussed in Halberstam, ‘Of Power and Responsibility’, above n 119, 767–8.
228 Corvello v New England Gas Co Inc 532 F Supp 2d 396, 401 (2008).
229 Burford v Sun Oil Co 319 US 315 (1943).
230 New Orleans Public Service, Inc v Council of New Orleans 491 US 350, 361 (1989) (although federal jurisdiction was exercised in this case since resolution of the issue did not require significant familiarity with and would not disrupt state resolution of distinctively local regulatory facts and policies: 364).
231 Quackenbush v Allstate Ins Co 517 US 706, 723 (1996).
232 See n 152 above, 546.
233 Martin v Hunter’s Lessee 14 US (1 Wheat) 304, 348 (1816).
234 Dubinsky, above n 203, 324.
235 Weiser, above n 39, 1706.
236 US v Kimbell Foods 440 US 715 (1979).
237 Ibid, 730.
238 Ibid, 728.
239 Ibid.
240 Atherton v FDIC 519 US 213 (1997), 218.
241 US v Kimbell Foods 440 US 715 (1979), 728–9.
242 Hughes Aircraft Co v Jacobson 525 US 432, 447 (1999).
243 Redish, above n 40, 1773.
244 Komárek, J, ‘In the Court(s) We Trust? On the Need for Hierarchy and Differentiation in the Preliminary Ruling Procedure’ (2007) 32 European Law Review 467, 471Google Scholar.
245 O’Connor, SD, ‘Proceedings of the Middle Atlantic State-Federal Judicial Relationships Conference’ (1994) 162 Fed Rules Dec 173, 181–2Google Scholar.
246 Komárek, above n 244, 471.
247 Ibid, 472.
248 McKay, D, Designing Europe: Comparative Lessons from the Federal Experience (New York, Oxford University Press, 2001) 14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
249 M Martens, ‘National Regulators between Union and Governments: a Study of the EU’s Environmental Policy Network IMPEL’ in M Egeberg (ed), Multilevel Union Administration, above n 4, 124, 125.
250 Halberstam, above n 189, 218.
251 See, eg, Moravscik, A, ‘Federalism in the European Union: Rhetoric and Reality’ in Nicolaïdis, K and Howse, R, The Federal Vision, above n 6, 161, 186Google Scholar.
252 See also HCH Hofmann and AH Türk, ‘Policy Implementation’ in Hofmann and Türk (eds), EU Administrative Governance, above n 4, 74, 75.
253 Ibid.
254 Weiler, above n 7, 56.
255 Halberstam, above n 119.
256 Ibid, 801.
257 Lang, J Temple, ‘The Core of the Constitutional Law of the Community—Article 5 EC’ in Gormley, L (ed), Current and Future Perspectives on EC Competition Law (London/The Hague, Kluwer Law International 1997) 41 Google Scholar.
258 See generally Dougan National Remedies, above n 138.
259 See, for example, Búrca, G de, ‘The Constitutional Challenge of New Governance in the European Union’ (2003) 28 EL Rev 814, 824Google Scholar, discussing the Open Method of Co-ordination which ‘leaves a considerable amount of policy autonomy to the Member States’; see generally Búrca, G de and Scott, J (eds), Constitutional Change in the EU: from uniformity to flexibility? (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2000)Google Scholar.
You have
Access