Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:15:05.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Communicating with the European Composite Administration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Jane Reichel

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

One of the reasons for introducing a “Union” citizenship in the 1993 Maastricht Treaty was to provide a direct channel between the citizens of the Member States and the EU. In contrast to many other international organizations, the role of the individual has been central to the European project since its inception. In its famous 1962 judgment given in Van Gend en Loos,1 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) underscored the importance of the “vigilance of individuals concerned” seeking to protect their European rights in the new legal order through judicial control.2 The right to directly vote on the representatives of the European Parliament had already been introduced in the 1970s. The citizens of the Member States were thus equipped with two classic forms of political participation even prior to the introduction of Union citizenship: law making and the legal adjudication of individual cases. Nonetheless, whether these channels are sufficient to guarantee the citizens effective democratic means to influence legislation and exercise control of EU institutions in the rather complex multilevel legal system of the EU has been continuously debated.

Type
Special Issue EU Citizenship: Twenty Years On
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 15 , Issue 5: Special Issue EU Citizenship: Twenty Years On , 01 August 2014 , pp. 883 - 906
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratis der Belastingen, CJEU Case C-26/62, 1963 E.C.R. 1.Google Scholar

2 Id. at para. 13.Google Scholar

3 See Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union, Oct. 26, 2012, 2012 O.J. (C 326) art.10.3 [hereinafter TEU].Google Scholar

4 See TEU art. 9.Google Scholar

5 See TEU art. 9; Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Oct. 26, 2012, 2012 O.J. (C 326) art. 20.1 [hereinafter TFEU].Google Scholar

6 See TEU art. 10.Google Scholar

7 The principle of the institutional autonomy of the Member States was introduced in International Fruit Company v. Produktschap voor groenten en fruit, CJEU Case 51-54/71, 1971 E.C.R 1107, para. 4. The principle of procedural autonomy was established in Rewe-Zentralfinanz v. Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland, CJEU Case 33/76, 1976 E.C.R. 1989, para. 5.Google Scholar

8 See Hofmann, Herwig C.H. et al., Administrative Law and Policy of the European Union 259 (2011).Google Scholar

9 See TEU art. 5.2.Google Scholar

10 See TFEU art. 6g.Google Scholar

11 See TEU art. 4.3; TFEU art. 291.Google Scholar

12 See TFEU art. 197.1.Google Scholar

13 See id.; Carol Harlow, Three Phases in the Evolution of EU Administrative Law, in The Evolution of EU Law 443 (Paul Craig & Grainne de Búrca eds., 2011).Google Scholar

14 See Lafrage, Francois, Administrative Cooperation Between Member States and Implementation of EU Law, 16 European Public 597–616 (2010).Google Scholar

15 See Regulation 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, 2004 O.J. (L 191).Google Scholar

16 See Chiti, Eduardo, The Relationship Between National Administrative Law and European Administrative Law in Administrative Procedures, in What's New in European Administrative Law 7 (EUI Working Paper Law No. 10, 2005).Google Scholar

17 See Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: European Agencies – The Way Forward, COM (2008) 135 final (Mar. 11, 2008).Google Scholar

18 See Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, Introduction: European Composite Administration and the Role of European Administrative Law, in The European Composite Administration (Oswald Jansen & Bettina Schöndorf-Haubold eds., 2011).Google Scholar

19 See Egeberg, Morten, Guenther F Schaefer & Jan Trondal, EU Committee Governance Between Intergovernmental and Union Administration, in Multilevel Union Administration: the Transformation of Executive Politics in Europe 66 (Morten Egeberg ed., 2006); Herwig C.H. Hofmann & Alexander Türk, The Development of Integrated Administration in the EU and its Consequences, 13 Eur. L. J. 253-71 (2007); Mauro Zamboni, Globalization and Law-Making: Time to Shift a Legal Theory's Paradigm, 1 Legisprudence 125, 142 (2007).Google Scholar

20 See generally Bergström, Carl Fredrik, Comitology: Delegation of Powers in the European Union and the Committee System (2005).Google Scholar

21 See Corkin, Joseph, Constitutionalism in 3D: Mapping and Legitimating Our Lawmaking Underworld, 19 Eur. L. J. 636, 642 (2013).Google Scholar

22 See id. at 648; Joanna Mendes, Participation in European Union Rulemaking: A Rights-Based Approach 120 (2011); Maria Wiberg, The Services Directive - Law or Simply Policy 235 (2013); infra section D.Google Scholar

23 See Hofmann, et al., supra note 8, at 406.Google Scholar

24 See Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms, 2001 O.J. (L 106); Regulation 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 September 2003 on Genetically Modified Food and Feed, 2003 O.J. (L 268).Google Scholar

25 See Regulation 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 Laying Down Community Procedures for the Authorization and Supervision of Medicinal Products for Human and Veterinary Use and Establishing a European Medicines Agency, 2004 O.J. (L 136).Google Scholar

26 See Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 Laying Down a Procedure for the Provision of Information in the Field of Technical Standards and Regulations, 1998 O.J. (L 204).Google Scholar

27 See Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a Common Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communications Networks and Services (Framework Directive), 2002 O.J. (L 108). In a proposal from the Commission, the composite elements are suggested to be strengthened to be able to grant a single EU authorization to provide electronic communications across the Union. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down measures concerning the European single market for electronic communications and to achieve a Connected Continent, and amending Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC, and 2002/22/EC and Regulations (EC) No. 1211/2009 and (EU) No. 531/2012, COM (2013) 627 final (Sept. 11, 2013).Google Scholar

28 See TFEU art. 16; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Dec. 14, 2007, 2007 O.J. (C 303) art. 8.Google Scholar

29 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), arts. 57–62, COM (2012) 11 final (Jan. 25, 2012).Google Scholar

30 See id. arts. 58–59.Google Scholar

31 See Regulation 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, art. 76, 2004 O.J. (L 314); Regulation 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, art. 5, 2009 O.J. (L 284); Henrik A. Wenander, A Network of Social Security Bodies – European Administrative Coordination Under Regulation No. 883/2004, 6 REALaw 39, 67 (2013).Google Scholar

32 See TFEU arts. 4.3, para. 3.Google Scholar

33 See Matthias Ruffert & Sebastian Steinecke, The Global Administrative Law of Science 65 (2011).Google Scholar

34 See Europe 2020: A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, COM (2010) 2020 final (Mar. 3, 2010).Google Scholar

35 See European Commission, Research & Innovation (May 26, 2014), http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/index_en.cfm?pg=esfri.Google Scholar

36 Three roadmaps have been published to date: The European Roadmap for Research Infrastructures 2006 and two updated versions in 2008 and 2010. They are published on the Commission's webpage, http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/index_en.cfm?pg=esfri.Google Scholar

37 See Vetenskapsrådets guide till infrastrukturen 3 (2012).Google Scholar

38 See Reichel, Jane, BBMRI-ERIC – An Analysis of a Multi-Level Institutional Tool for the EU and Beyond, in Administrative Law beyond the State - Nordic Perspectives 92 (Anna-Sara Lind & Jane Reichel eds., 2013).Google Scholar

39 See Reichel, Jane, Ansvarstutkrävande – svensk förvaltning i EU 213 (2010).Google Scholar

40 See Hofmann, & Türk, supra note 19, at 262.Google Scholar

41 See TEU art. 10.2 para 1.Google Scholar

42 See TEU art. 10.2 para 2.Google Scholar

43 For a discussion on these issues, see Deirdre Curtin, Executive power of the European Union: law, practices, and the living constitution (2009) and Leonard F.M. Besselink, Shifts in Governance: National Parliaments and Their Governments' Involvement in European Union Decision-Making, in National parliaments and the European Union: the Constitutional Challenge for the Oireachtas and other Member States Legislatures 30 (Gavin Barrett ed., 2008).Google Scholar

44 See, e.g., MacCormick, Neil, Beyond the Sovereign State, 56 Mod. L. Rev. 1 (1993); Neil Walker, Beyond Boundary Disputes and Basic Grids: Mapping the Global Disorder of Normative Orders, 6 Int'l. J. of Const. L. 373–96 (2008); The Worlds of European Constitutionalism (Gráinne de Búrca & Joseph H.H. Weiler eds., 2012).Google Scholar

45 See Protocol on the Role of the National Parliaments in the European Union, Oct. 26, 2012, 2012 O.J. (C 326).Google Scholar

46 Harlow, Carol, Accountability in the European Union, The Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law 157 (2002).Google Scholar

47 See Mayoral, Juan, Democratic Improvements in the European Union Under the Lisbon Treaty: Institutional Changes Regarding Democratic Government in the EU, European Union Democracy Observatory (EUDO) (Feb. 2011), http://www.eui.eu/Projects/EUDO-Institutions/Documents/EUDOreport922011.pdf.Google Scholar

48 See id.; TFEU arts. 290–91.Google Scholar

49 See Lang, John Temple, Checks and Balances in the European Union: The Institutional Structure and the Community Method, 12 Eur. Pub. L. 127 (2006).Google Scholar

50 See, Debating Europe, Who Are the Presidential Candidates?, http://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/presidential-candidates/#.U7QXU02KC70 (last visited July 15, 2014).Google Scholar

51 See TEU art. 17.7.Google Scholar

52 See TEU art. 10.Google Scholar

53 See TEU art. 12.Google Scholar

54 Id. at para. B. The other five are:Google Scholar

(a) Through being informed by the institutions of the Union and having draft legislative acts of the Union forwarded to them in accordance with the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union; …Google Scholar

(c) By taking part, within the framework of the area of freedom, security and justice, in the evaluation mechanisms for the implementation of the Union policies in that area, in accordance with Article 70 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and through being involved in the political monitoring of Europol and the evaluation of Eurojust's activities in accordance with Articles 88 and 85 of that Treaty;Google Scholar

(d) By taking part in the revision procedures of the Treaties, in accordance with Article 48 of this Treaty;Google Scholar

(e) By being notified of applications for accession to the Union, in accordance with Article 49 of this Treaty;Google Scholar

(f) By taking part in the inter-parliamentary cooperation between national Parliaments and with the European Parliament, in accordance with the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union.Google Scholar

55 See Protocol (No. 2) on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, March 30, 2010, 2010 O.J. (C 83/206); Marco Goldoni, The Early Warning System and the Monti II Regulation: A Political Interpretation, Eur. Const. L. Rev., 90–108 (2014).Google Scholar

56 See Goldoni, , supra note 55, at 97.Google Scholar

57 See National MPs Protest EU Public Prosecutor Idea, EU Observer (Nov. 1, 2013), http://euobserver.com/justice/121959.Google Scholar

58 See Withdrawal of Obsolete Commission Proposals, Apr. 16, 2013, 2013 O.J. (C 109) 7.Google Scholar

59 See Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office, COM (2013) 534 final (Jul. 17, 2013).Google Scholar

60 See Knudsen, Morten & Carl, Yves, COSAC: Its Role to Date and Its Potential in the Future, in National Parliaments and the European Union: The Constitutional Challenge for the Oireachtas and Other Member States Legislatures (Gaven Barrett ed., 2008).Google Scholar

61 See Andersson, Torbjörn, Rättsskyddsprincipen: EG-rätt och nationell sanktions- och processrätt ur ett svenskt civilprocessuellt perspektiv 276 (1997); Anthony Arnull, The Rule of Law in the European Union, in Accountability and Legitimacy in the European Union 242 (Anthony Arnull & Daniel Wincott eds., 2002).Google Scholar

62 See Les Verts v. European Parliament, CJEU Case C-294/83, 1986 E.C.R. I-1339, para. 23; Parliament v. Council (Chernobyl), CJEU Case C-70/88, 1990 E.C.R. I-2041. It may be remarked that even though the CJEU in these two cases strengthened the role of the European Parliament, the cases should be seen as evidence of the importance of judicial control in the EU constitutional system. The European Parliaments procedural rights were merely lifted to the level of the other EU institutions.Google Scholar

63 At the EU level, see TU München v. Hauptzollamt München-Mitte, CJEU Case C-269/90, 1991 E.C.R. I-5469, and at the national level, see UNECTEF v. Heylens, CJEU Case C-222/86, 1987 E.C.R. 4097.Google Scholar

64 See Pfizer Animal Health v. Council, CJEU Case T-13/99, 2002 E.C.R. II-3305, paras. 199–201 (regarding a consultation of a scientific committee in law-making); Germany v. the Commission, CJEU Case C-263/95, 1998 E.C.R. I-441, para. 31 (regarding comitology procedures).Google Scholar

65 See UNECTEF, CJEU Case 222/86 at paras. 14–16.Google Scholar

66 Explanations Relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Dec. 14, 2007, 2007 O.J. (C 303/02) art 41.Google Scholar

67 See Paul Craig, EU Administrative Law 270 (2006).Google Scholar

68 See Harlow, Carol, Accountability in the European Union 147 (2002); Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, Constitutional law of the European Union 225 (2002).Google Scholar

69 See TU München v. Hauptzollamt München-Mitte, CJEU Case C-269/90, 1991 E.C.R. I-5469.Google Scholar

70 See Borelli v. Comm'n, CJEU Case C-97/91, 1992 E.C.R. I-6313, para. 13.Google Scholar

71 See Tillack v. Comm'n, 2006, CJEU Case T-193/04, E.C.R. II-3995.Google Scholar

72 See Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 Concerning Investigations Conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), May 31, 1999, 1999 O.J. (L 136/1).Google Scholar

73 As recorded in Tillack, CJEU Case T-193/04 at para. 19.Google Scholar

74 See Decision of the European Ombudsman on Complaint 1840/2002/GG Against the European Anti-Fraud Office, Nov. 20, 2003 (European Ombudsman), http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/decision.faces/en/1810/html.bookmark.Google Scholar

75 See Tillack, CJEU Case T-193/04 at para. 43.Google Scholar

76 Id. at para. 72.Google Scholar

77 See Id. at para. 135.Google Scholar

78 See, e.g., Ministero dell'Industria, del Commercio e dell'Artigianato v. Lucchini, CJEU Case C-119/05, 2007 E.C.R. I-6199; P Mediocurso v. Comm'n, CJEU Case C-462/98, 2000 E.C.R. I-7183.Google Scholar

79 See Hofmann, Jens, Legal Protection and Liability in the European Composite Administration, in The European Composite Administration 451 (Oswald Jansen & Bettina Schöndorf-Haubold eds., 2011).Google Scholar

80 See id.; Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 of 13 March 1997 on Mutual Assistance Between the Administrative Authorities of the Member States and Cooperation Between the Latter and the Commission to Ensure the Correct Application of the Law on Customs and Agricultural Matters, Mar. 22, 1997, 1997 O.J. (L 082) art. 36; Council Regulation 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 Concerning the Establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the Comparison of Fingerprints for the Effective Application of the Dublin Convention, Dec. 11, 2000, 2000 O.J. (L 316) art. 18.Google Scholar

81 See Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data (General Data Protection Regulation), arts. 55–56, 74, COM (2012) 11 final, (Jan. 25, 2012); Jane Reichel & Anna-Sara Lind, Regulating Data Protection in the EU, in Perspective on Privacy 30 (Dieter Dörr & Russell L. Weaver eds., 2014).Google Scholar

82 See Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, Nov. 21 1995, 1995 O.J. (L 281) arts. 28.6–.7.Google Scholar

83 See Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data (General Data Protection Regulation), COM (2012) 11 final, (Jan. 25, 2012).Google Scholar

84 See Wenander, Henrik, Recognition of Foreign Administrative Decisions: Balancing International Cooperation, National Self-Determination, and Individual Rights, 71 ZaöRV 755 (2011).Google Scholar

85 Horizontal free movement acts regularly contain organizational frameworks, such as contact points, etc. See, e.g., Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and 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, Apr. 30, 2004, 2004 O.J. (L 158/77); Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 12 December 2006 on Services in the Internal Market, Dec. 27, 2006, 2006 O.J. (L 376/36); Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council of 9 July 2008 Laying Down Procedures Related to the Application of Certain National Technical Rules to Products Lawfully Marketed in Another Member State, Aug. 13, 2008, 2008 O.J. (L 218/21); Directive 2005/36 EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, Sept. 30, 2005, 2005 O.J. (L 255/22).Google Scholar

86 TEU art. 11.1.Google Scholar

87 See TEU art. 11.2–4.Google Scholar

88 See Mendes, , supra note 22, at 80 (referring among others to Article 5 of the ECSC Treaty, which states that the competences of the Community were to be carried out by the institutions with a minimum of administrative machinery and in close cooperation with the parties concerned).Google Scholar

89 See Mendes, , supra note 22, at 81.Google Scholar

90 See Mendes, , supra note 22, at 88, 90.Google Scholar

91 See Mendes, , supra note 22, at 104.Google Scholar

92 See TFEU arts. 151–61; Craig, supra note 67, at 235.Google Scholar

93 See Council Resolution 85/C 136/01 of 7 May 1985 on a New Approach to Technical Harmonization and Standards, June 4, 1985, 1985 O.J. (C 136); Corkin, supra note 21, at 650; Mendes, supra note 22, at 120.Google Scholar

94 Commission White Paper on Governance, at 14, COM (2001) 428 final (July 25, 2001). See also Communication from the Commission Towards a Reinforced Culture of Consultation and Dialogue - General Principles and Minimum Standards for Consultation of Interested Parties by the Commission COM (2002) 704 final (Dec. 11, 2002).Google Scholar

95 Commission Communication on Single Market Act: Twelve Levers to Boost Growth and Strengthen Confidence “Working Together to Create New Growth,” at 20, COM (2011) 206 final. See also Commission Communication on the Single Market Act II: Together for New Growth, at 5, COM (2012) 573 final; Maria Wiberg, Services Directive – Law or Simply Policy? 295 (2013).Google Scholar

96 Agreement Between the European Parliament and the European Commission on the Establishment of a Transparency Register for Organisation and Self-employed Individuals engaged in EU Policy-making and Policy Implementation, arts. 8–10, 2010/2291 (ACI) final (June 23, 2011), http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/summary.do?id=1346318&t=f&l=en. According to Article 10, organizations involved in three activities are excluded from the expectations to register: activities concerning the provision of legal and other professional advice, activities of the social partners as participants in the social dialogue, and activities in response to direct and individual requests from EU institutions or Members of the European Parliament.Google Scholar

97 See Mendes, Joanna, Participation and the Role of Law after Lisbon: A Legal View on Article 11 TEU, 48 CMLRev 1849, 1852 (2011).Google Scholar

98 TEU arts. 11.1–.3.Google Scholar

99 See Mendes, , supra note 97, at 1852.Google Scholar

100 See Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the Citizens' Initiative, Mar. 11, 2011, 2011 O.J. (L 65/1); Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1179/2011 of 17 November 2011 Laying Down Technical Specifications for Online Collection Systems Pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Citizens' Initiative, Nov. 18 2011, 2011 O.J. (L 301/3).Google Scholar

101 See Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the Citizens' Initiative, Mar. 11, 2011, Annex, 2011 O.J. (L 65/1)Google Scholar

102 See id. art. 5.5.Google Scholar

103 See id. art. 8.2.Google Scholar

104 See id. art. 9.1(c).Google Scholar

105 See id. art. 11.Google Scholar

106 See Press Release, Brussels European Commission, Time's Up for Supporters of the First European Citizens' Initiatives – What Happens Next? (Oct. 31, 2013), europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1012_en.pdf.Google Scholar

107 See id. Google Scholar

108 Water and Sanitation Are a Human Right! Water Is a Public Good, Not a Commodity!, COM (2014) 177 final (Mar. 24, 2014); One of Us, COM (2014) 355 final (May 28, 2014).Google Scholar

109 See Corkin, , supra note 21 (analyzing these three processes).Google Scholar

110 See Teubner, Gunther, Constitutional Fragments: Societal Constitutionalism and Globalization 5 (2012).Google Scholar

111 See Arbetsdomstolen [AD] [Labor Court] 2009-12-02 Case no. A 268/04 (Swed.), http://www.arbetsdomstolen.se/upload/pdf/2009/89-09.pdf.Google Scholar

111a See, e.g., Edward, David, National Courts—the Powerhouse of Community Law, 5 Cambridge Y.B. of Eur. Legal Stud. 1 (2002); Lech Garlicki, Cooperation of Courts: The Role of Supranational Jurisdictions in Europe, 6 Int'l J. of Const. L. 509 (2008); Xavier Groussot et al., Report No. 3, Empowering National Courts in EU Law (2009).Google Scholar

112 See, e.g., TU München v. Hauptzollamt München-Mitte, CJEU Case C-269/90, 1991 E.C.R. I-5469; Borelli v. Comm'n, CJEU Case C-97/91, 1992 E.C.R. I-6313.Google Scholar

113 See Reichel, Jane & Eklund, Agnes, Representing the Public in Environmental Matters—NGOs and the Aarhus Convention, in Fundamental Rights in Europe: One Matter for Two Courts (Sonia Morano-Foadi & Lucy Vickers eds., forthcoming 2014).Google Scholar

114 See Bovens, Mark, Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework, 13 Eur. L.J. 447, 449 (2007); Ruth W. Grant & Robert O. Keohane, Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics, 99 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 29, 35 (2005).Google Scholar

115 For a critical analysis of these arguments, see Carol Harlow, Accountability in the European Union 185 (2002) and Bovens, supra note 114, at 453.Google Scholar

116 Harlow, Carol, Global Administrative Law: The Quest for Principles and Values, 17 Eur. J. Int'l L. 187, 212 (2006).Google Scholar

117 Id. Google Scholar

118 See, e.g., Konstitutionsutskottet utlåtande 2012/13:KU15 [parliamentary committee report] (Swed.).Google Scholar

119 See Hettne, Jôrgen & Reichel, Jane, Report No. 4, Att göra rätt och i tid – Behövs nya metoder för att genomföra EU-rätt i Sverige? (2012).Google Scholar

120 See Mindus, Patricia & Goldoni, Marco, Between Democracy and Nationality: Citizenship Policies in the Lisbon Ruling, 18 Eur. Pub. L. 351, 370 (2012).Google Scholar