• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
The European Courts have maintained a restrictive approach to participation rights in EU administrative procedures. The right to be heard is primarily recognised to addressees of unfavourable administrative decisions or, at any rate, to those directly and individually concerned by them. As such, its scope is limited to procedures leading up to the adoption of individual decisions. In this book chapter, it is argued that the limits set by the European Courts, in particular the principled exclusion of participation rights from rulemaking procedures, lead to a mismatch between the powers exerted by the EU administration and the procedural guarantees that are recognised to the persons affected. Furthermore, these limits are unjustifiable in the light of the rationales of participation rights, as these have been interpreted by the European Courts. In contrast to the Courts’ stance, the author puts forward criteria that may lead to the recognition of participation rights in a way that better suits the requirements of the rule of law and a paradigm of EU administrative law that is respectful of the rights and legally protected interests of the citizens.

In addition, the restrictive legal approach to participation rights contrasts with the increased resort to participation in EU governance. This book chapter also highlights the contrast between the scope and meaning of more political forms of participation, on the one hand, and participation rights, on the other, and argues that a broader recognition of participation rights contributes to bridging the distance between the configuration of participation in the political realm, on the one hand, and in the legal realm, on the other.

This book chapter is based on the author’s PhD Thesis - Rights of participation. A rights-based approach to participation in administrative rulemaking - defended at the European University Institute on March 16th 2009.

Abstract:
The Code of Good Administrative Behaviour has passed fairly unnoticed in academic research on the principle of good administration. However, it is an important source to understand the meaning of this principle and concept in European administrative law, since it encompasses some of its dimensions that tend to be overlooked by the case law of the European Courts and also by European law scholars. Furthermore, contrary to what recent developments let believe - namely, the fact that the Commission refuses to put forth a proposal for a European regulation that would make the provisions of the Code binding - the Code remains relevant to map possible legal developments regarding good administration.

The article explains the reasons and meaning of the link between the Code and Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, analyses the complexity and uncertainty of the concept “good administration”, characterises its different legal and non-legal facets highlighting the interconnections between them. In addition, it demonstrates how these different layers are reflected in the Code, underlines the Code’s links with previous EU law developments, its added legal value and the functions it currently performs, considering also the different paths through which further legal, binding developments could derive from the Code.

Good administration, Charter of Fundamental Rights, European Ombudsman, European law