Abstract
This chapter first explores the general understanding of the concept of new modes of regulatory governance in relation to the Union and its decision-making and implementation procedures as assumed here. Thereafter, three key modes of governance employed by the Union in facilitating the internal market are described: the Community Method signified by the ordinary legislative procedure, mutual recognition and the Open Method of Coordination, as being illustrative of the Union’s efforts to make progress in realising the internal market through different means of coping with different difficulties.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Mayntz 2001, see also Storskrubb 2008, p. 74.
- 2.
Pierre and Peters 2000, at p. 14.
- 3.
Rhodes 1997, p. 46.
- 4.
Mayntz 2001.
- 5.
Scott and Trubek 2002; Trubek and Mosher 2001; Scharpf 2000, 2001; Scott 2002. HĂ©rtier and Rhodes 2011.
- 6.
Scott 2002. at p. 60.
- 7.
Ibid.
- 8.
Commission White Paper on Governance COM(2001) 428 final, p. 8.
- 9.
Joerges 2007, p. 11, referring to Schepel 2005.
- 10.
Majone 2009, pp. 151–152.
- 11.
Scott 2002a, at p. 62, footnote 11.
- 12.
See, inter alia, the discussion by Joerges 2007, pp. 10–12.
- 13.
Héritier and Lehmkuhl 2011, pp. 127–128.
- 14.
The Committee of European Energy Regulators, a network of independent national regulators of electricity and gas.
- 15.
For a comprehensive discussion of the comitology-system, see Bergström 2005.
- 16.
See, e.g., Devuyst 2007–2008, p. 263, regarding the development of the Community Method and thereby the role of the Commission, the Council and also the Parliament within this process.
- 17.
In Article 289 TFEU, it is however stated that: “In the specific cases provided for by the Treaties, legislative acts may be adopted on the initiative of a group of Member States or of the European Parliament, on a recommendation from the European Central Bank or at the request of the Court of Justice or the European Investment Bank”.
- 18.
See, e.g., the discussion by Crutchfield et al. 1997, and also Weiler, discussing the specific features of the Union’s and its evolution, Weiler 1999a.
- 19.
Majone 2005, at p. 43. See Article 238 TFEU defining qualified majority and Article 294 TFEU establishing the procedure for adopting most of the legislation concerning the internal or common market within the Union. See also, Crutchfield et al. 1997, at p. 112 (referring to Russett, B. & Starr, H., World Politics: The Menu for Choice, 57 (1989)), where it is defined what constitutes a supranational entity , as having “the power to make decisions that are binding on member states and citizens in those member states even if those member states disagree”. However, the Community Method has not always been signified by the fact that Member States could be outvoted.
- 20.
See, e.g., GATT, GATS and NAFTA.
- 21.
See, e.g., Articles 19 TFEU regarding discrimination, 21 TFEU regarding social security and protection, 64 TFEU regarding financial policy, 87 TFEU regarding police cooperation, 113 TFEU regarding indirect taxation. If a representative of a Member State is absent, unanimous voting may still be performed, See Article 238(4) TFEU.
- 22.
See Article 294 TFEU.
- 23.
See the discussion by Weiler regarding “exit” and “voice”, Weiler 1999b, Chapter 2.
- 24.
See, e.g., Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare [2011] OJ L 88/45, providing for guidelines to be established by the Member States on quality and safety of treatment.
- 25.
Scott and Trubek 2002, p. 2.
- 26.
See Articles 26 and 37 of the Services Directive, discussed in Chap. 3.
- 27.
See for example Case C-341/05, Laval un Parteri Ltd v. Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avdelning 1, Byggettan and Svenska Elektrikerförbundet [2007] ECR I-11767.
- 28.
See for example the Commission Communication on smart regulation in the European Union COM(2010) 543 final. Hettne and Reichel 2012, p. 45.
- 29.
Scott and Trubek 2002, pp. 4–5.
- 30.
Weiler 1999b, p. 62.
- 31.
For discussions regarding the characteristics of new governance instruments see, e.g., Bartolini 2011, pp. 1–19 and Scott and Trubek 2002, pp. 7–8.
- 32.
Case 120/78, Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung fĂĽr Branntwein [1979] ECR 649.
- 33.
Armstrong 2002, p. 243.
- 34.
Pelkmans 2007, pp. 702–703.
- 35.
Armstrong 2002, p. 267.
- 36.
Hatzopoulos 2007b.
- 37.
Commission White Paper on Governance COM(2001) 428 final.
- 38.
Szyszczak 2006, p. 488.
- 39.
For a further discussion regarding this issue, see Devuyst 2007–2008 and http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/employment_and_social_policy/community_employment_policies/c11318en.htm.
- 40.
Trubek and Mosher 2001, at p. 95, referring to Mosher, de la Porte, Pochet and Room, Hodson and Maher.
- 41.
Trubek and Trubek 2005, pp. 83 and 91.
- 42.
Lisbon European Council, Presidency conclusions, 24 March 2000. See Bergström 2005, pp. 113–138.
- 43.
Szyszczak 2006, p. 488.
- 44.
Lisbon European Council, Presidency conclusions, 24 March 2000.
- 45.
Szyszczak 2006, p. 491.
- 46.
Ibid.
- 47.
Hatzopoulos 2012, p. 326.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wiberg, M. (2014). New and Multi-Level Governance Within the Union. In: The EU Services Directive: Law or Simply Policy?. Legal Issues of Services of General Interest. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-023-7_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-023-7_11
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-022-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-023-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)
