Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Towards a Comprehensive Framework for Understanding EU Enforcement Regimes

  • Laurens VAN KREIJ

Abstract

Next to Member States, European Union (EU) level organisations have come to play a larger role in enforcement in the EU during the last two decades. Analysing the roles of Member States, networks of national authorities and EU agencies in this stage of the policy cycle through multiple academic lenses could lead to a more comprehensive understanding and assessment of their design. This article sets elementary steps towards a framework that brings together prominent theoretical insights from the legal and political disciplines, to discuss their combined leverage for understanding the EU legislator's choice for these enforcement regimes.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Towards a Comprehensive Framework for Understanding EU Enforcement Regimes
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Towards a Comprehensive Framework for Understanding EU Enforcement Regimes
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Towards a Comprehensive Framework for Understanding EU Enforcement Regimes
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is included and the original work is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use.

Footnotes

Hide All
*

The author wishes to thank the anonymous reviewer(s), Professor Dr Judith van Erp, Dr Miroslava Scholten, Professor Dr Colin Scott, Professor Dr Michiel Luchtman and Dr Sebastiaan Princen for their extensive comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Footnotes

References

Hide All

1 Röben, V, “The Enforcement Authority of International Institutions” in von Bogdandy, A et al (eds), The Exercise of Public Authority by International Institutions (Springer 2010) pp 819, 820 .

2 De Moor-van Vugt, AJC and Widdershoven, RJGM, “Administrative Enforcement” in Jans, JH et al (eds), Europeanisation of Public Law (2nd edn, Europa Law 2015).

3 M Scholten, “Mind the trend! Enforcement of EU law has been moving to ‘Brussels’” (2017) 24(9) JEPP 1348.

4 Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of 27 October 2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws [2004] OJ L364/1 (CPC Regulation).

5 Scholten, supra, note 3.

6 Eg Commission, “Monitoring the application of European Union law 2016 Annual Report” (Report from the Commission) COM(2017) 370 final; Commission, “EU law: Better results through better application” (Communication) COM(2017) C 18/02 final; European Court of Auditors, “Putting EU law into practice: The European Commission’s oversight responsibilities under Article 17(1) of the Treaty on European Union” (Landscape Review) 2018.

7 Eg De Moor-van Vugt and Widdershoven, supra, note 2, p 263.

8 Cf B Rittberger and A Wonka, “Introduction: Agency Governance in the European Union” (2011) 18(6) JEPP 780 at p 781.

9 Eg M Scholten and D Scholten, “From Regulation to Enforcement in the EU Policy Cycle: A New Type of Functional Spillover?” (2017) 55(4) JCMS 925; P Genschel and M Jachtenfuchs, “From Market Integration to Core State Powers: The Eurozone Crisis, the Refugee Crisis and Integration Theory” (2018) 56(1) JCMS 178.

10 The distinction between institutional, policy-specific, functional and political rationales is borrowed from Rittberger and Wonka, supra, note 8, p 781.

11 PC Adriaanse et al, Implementatie van EU-handhavingsvoorschriften (Boom 2008).

12 GC Rowe, “Administrative Supervision of Administrative Action in the European Union” in H Hoffman and A Türk (eds), Legal Challenges in EU Administrative Law (Edward Elgar 2009) p 189.

13 Inter alia in Case C-14/83, Von Colson and Kamann [1984] ECR I-1891, Case C-68/88, Greek Mais [1989] ECR I-2965 and Case C-265/95, Spanish strawberries [1997] ECR I-6959.

14 Adriaanse et al, supra, note 11, p 8 ff.

15 Scholten, supra, note 3.

16 M Scholten and M Luchtman, Law Enforcement by EU Authorities: Implications for Political and Judicial Accountability (Edward Elgar 2017).

17 Chamon, M, EU Agencies. Legal and Political Limits to the Transformation of the EU Administration (Oxford University Press 2016) p 16.

18 D Coen and M Thatcher, “Reshaping European Regulatory Space: An Evolutionary Analysis” (2008) 31(4) WEP 806 at p 814.

19 ibid, p 810.

20 Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 [2017] OJ L137/1.

21 Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on credit rating agencies [2009] OJ L302/1, as amended.

22 Scholten and Luchtman, supra, note 16, pp 358–359.

23 Cf EG Heidbreder, “Strategies in Multilevel Policy Implementation: Moving Beyond the Limited Focus on Compliance” (2017) 24(9) JEPP 1367.

24 Cf Coen and Thatcher, supra, note 18.

25 O Treib, “Implementing and Complying with EU Governance Outputs” (2014) 9(1) Living Reviews in European Governance 1.

26 Wallace, H, “An Institutional Anatomy and Five Policy Modes” in Wallace, H et al, Policy-Making in the European Union (6th edn, Oxford University Press 2010) p 90 .

27 Heidbreder, supra, note 23.

28 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/47.

29 MJ Hill and PL Hupe, Implementing Public Policy (2nd edn, SAGE 2009) p 22.

30 Wade, HWR and Forsyth, CF, Administrative Law (11th edn, Oxford University Press 2014).

31 TFEU, supra, note 28, Art 5 para 2; Craig, P and De Búrca, G, EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2015) p 73 ff.

32 Cf SJ Bulmer, “The Governance of the European Union: A New Institutionalist Approach” (1993) 13(4) JEPP 351 at p 358.

33 TFEU, supra, note 28, Art 3.

34 Bulmer, supra, note 32, p 365.

35 TFEU, supra, note 28, Arts 100(2) and 114(1).

36 Eg S Weatherill, “Competence Creep and Competence Control” (2004) 23 YEL 1.

37 Case C-380/03, para 80, see Craig and De Búrca, supra, note 31, pp 75–77.

38 Case C-176/03, para 48, see Craig and De Búrca, supra, note 31, pp 75–77.

39 Cf Schütze, R, European Constitutional Law (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2016) p 243 ff.

40 Eg M Accetto and S Zleptnig, “The Principle of Effectiveness: Rethinking Its Role in Community Law” (2005) 11(3) EPL 375 at pp 375–376; see also Section IV.1.

41 TFEU, Title V, Chapters 1, 2, 4 and 5.

42 Cf Heidbreder, supra, note 23, who uses the framework of RE Matland, “Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: the Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Policy Implementation” (1995) 5(2) J Public Adm Res Theory 145.

43 Rittberger and Wonka, supra, note 8, p 781.

44 Eg Pollack, MA, The Engines of European Integration (Oxford University Press 2003); RD Kelemen and AD Tarrant, “The Political Foundations of the Eurocracy” (2011) 34(5) WEP 922; A Kreher, “Agencies in the European Community – a Step Towards Administrative Integration in Europe” (1997) 4(2) JEPP 225; Rittberger and Wonka, supra, note 8.

45 AR Young, “The European Policy Process in Comparative Perspective” in Wallace et al, supra note 26, p 62.

46 Wallace, supra, note 26, pp 92–93, 95–98.

47 Cf Scholten and Scholten, supra, note 9.

48 S Lavenex, “Justice and Home Affairs, Communitarization with Hesitation” in Wallace et al, supra note 26, p 458.

49 TA Börzel, “Mind the Gap! European Integration between Level and Scope” (2005) 12(2) JEPP 217 at pp 229–230; Lavenex, supra, note 48.

50 Wallace, supra, note 26, p 100 ff.

51 Genschel and Jachtenfuchs, supra, note 9, p 180.

52 A Kassim and H Menon, “The Principal-Agent Approach and the Study of the European Union: Promise Unfulfilled?” (2003) 10(1) JEPP 121 at p 123; Kelemen and Tarrant, supra, note 44.

53 Mathieu, E, Regulatory Delegation in the European Union. Networks, Committees and Agencies (Palgrave Macmillan 2016) 3 ; Rittberger and Wonka, supra, note 8; Kassim and Menon, supra, note 52.

54 M Egan, “Regulatory Strategies, Delegation and European Market Integration” (1998) 5(3) JEPP 485.

55 G Majone, “The Credibility Crisis of Community Regulation” (2000) 38(2) JCMS 273 at p 288; Pollack, MA, The Engines of European Integration (Oxford University Press 2003) pp 2021 .

56 Mathieu, supra, note 53, p 3.

57 Treib, supra, note 25, p 10.

58 E Thomann and F Sager, “Moving Beyond Legal Compliance: Innovative Approaches to EU Multilevel Implementation” (2017) 24(9) JEPP 1253 at p 1254.

59 M Blauberger and B Rittberger, “Conceptualizing and Theorizing EU Regulatory Networks” (2015) 9(4) Regulation & Governance 367 at p 370; cf L Hooghe and G Marks, “Types of Multi-Level Governance” (2001) 5(11) EIoP 4.

60 E Thomann and A Zhelyazkova, “Moving Beyond (Non-)compliance: the Customization of European Union Policies in 27 Countries” (2017) 24(9) JEPP 1269.

61 Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe [2008] OJ L152/1.

62 Pollack, supra, note 55, pp 20–21; Heidbreder, supra, note 23.

63 Scholten, supra, note 3, p 1352; G Majone, “The New European Agencies: Regulation by Information” (1997) 4(2) JEPP 262; M Busuioc et al, “Agency Growth between Autonomy and Accountability: the European Police Office as a ‘Living Institution’” (2011) 18(6) JEPP 848; E Versluis and E Tarr, “Improving Compliance with European Union Law via Agencies: The Case of the European Railway Agency” (2013) 51(2) JCMS 316.

64 R Dehousse, “Regulation by Networks in the European Community: the Role of European Agencies” (1997) 4(2) JEPP 246 at pp 254–275; Zinzani, M, Market Integration Through 'Network Governance': the Role of European Agencies and Network of Regulators (Intersentia 2012) p 34 .

65 Kelemen and Tarrant, supra, note 44.

66 Genschel and Jachtenfuchs, supra, note 9, p 181.

67 ibid; Treib, supra, note 25, pp 29–30.

68 Lavenex, supra, note 48, p 458.

69 Genschel and Jachtenfuchs, supra, note 9, p 181.

70 Kelemen and Tarrant, supra, note 44, p 927; M Thatcher, “The Creation of European Regulatory Agencies and its Limits: a Comparative Analysis of European Delegation” (2011) 18(6) JEPP 790.

71 Kelemen and Tarrant, supra, note 44, p 928; Thatcher, supra, note 70.

72 Kelemen and Tarrant, supra, note 44, p 930 ff.

73 ibid; Scholten, supra, note 3, p 1355.

74 M Egeberg and J Trondal, “Agencification of the European Union Administration: Connecting the Dots” (2016) TARN Working Paper 4.

75 Scholten, supra, note 3, p 1352, referring to D Levi-Faur, “Regulatory Networks and Regulatory Agencification: towards a Single European Regulatory Space” (2011) 18(6) JEPP 810.

76 Scholten and Scholten, supra, note 9.

77 eg Egeberg and Trondal, supra, note 74, p 4.

78 Mathieu, supra, note 53, pp 16 and 170.

79 CM Radaelli, “Policy Transfer in the European Union: Institutional Isomorphism as a Source of Legitimacy” (2000) 13(1) Governance 25.

80 Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests [1998] OJ L166/51.

81 CPC Regulation, Art 4.

82 ibid, Art 8.

83 ibid, Art 15.

84 ibid, Arts 6, 7 and 10.

85 Craig and De Búrca, supra, note 31, p 93.

86 Commission, “Green Paper on European Union Consumer Protection” COM(2001) 531 final (Commission Green Paper) 3.

87 Commission, “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Cooperation between National Authorities Responsible for the Enforcement of Consumer Protection Laws (‘the regulation on consumer protection cooperation’)” COM(2003) 443 final (Commission CPC Proposal) 6.

88 Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC [2002] OJ L271/16.

89 Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers [1998] OJ L80/27.

90 Commission Green Paper, supra, note 86, pp 17–18; Commission CPC Proposal, supra, note 87, p 3.

91 Commission Green Paper, supra, note 86, 17; Commission CPC Proposal, supra, note 87, p 3.

92 Commission CPC Proposal, supra, note 87, pp 8–9.

93 ibid, p 28.

94 Commission Green Paper, supra, note 86, p 18; CPC Regulation, Art 9.

95 C Poncibò, “Networks to Enforce European Law: The Case of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network” (2012) 35(2) Journal of Consumer Policy 175 at p 182.

96 Council, “2607ème session du Conseil de l’Union européenne (Transports, Telecommunications, Energie) (Addendum au Projet de Procès-verbal)” 13368/04 ADD 1 (Council Minutes) 4-5.

97 Commission Green Paper, supra, note 86, pp 17–18.

98 Groenleer, M, Autonomy of European Union Agencies. A Comparative Study of Institutional Development (Eburon 2009) p 17 .

99 The European Environmental Agency, EIONET, the Network of the Heads of Environment Protection Agencies, the Shared Environmental Information System and the European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law.

100 Commission, “Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law” COM(2007) 51 final (Commission ECD Proposal) 4.

101 Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law [2008] OJ L328/28 (the ECD) Arts 2a and 3.

102 Commission, “Commission Staff Working Document. Accompanying document to the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law. Impact Assessment” SEC(2007 160 (Commission Impact Assessment) eg 19, 21.

103 Summary of the Council minutes of the 2781th meeting on 15/02/2007; Summary of the Council minutes of the 2842nd meeting on 20/12/2007.

104 Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste [2006] OJ L190/1.

105 Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein [1997] OJ L61/1.

106 Commission Impact Assessment, supra, note 102, pp 26, 28, 30.

* The author wishes to thank the anonymous reviewer(s), Professor Dr Judith van Erp, Dr Miroslava Scholten, Professor Dr Colin Scott, Professor Dr Michiel Luchtman and Dr Sebastiaan Princen for their extensive comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Towards a Comprehensive Framework for Understanding EU Enforcement Regimes

  • Laurens VAN KREIJ

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed