Principle of Mutual Recognition as the Cornerstone of the EU Internal Market and Its Potential for the EAEU Internal Market

2021 ◽  
pp. 140-156
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
The Eu

From Hard to Soft: Governance in the EU Internal Market

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 101-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vassilis Hatzopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
New Governance ◽  
Chronological Order ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Three Generations ◽  
Soft Governance ◽  
Delegation Of Powers ◽  
The Eu

AbstractAt least three generations of governance methods have been—and are still being—used for the regulation of the internal market: the classic EU method, leading to harmonisation and (more rarely) unification; the ‘new approach’ based on mutual recognition and the use of standards; and ‘new governance’ which does not entail any formal delegation of powers to the EU and operates through self-regulation, the creation of EU agencies and networks, administrative cooperation and other means of open coordination. It is impossible to establish either a hierarchy or a clear chronological order between these methods, while it is also quite difficult to reach a clear conclusion as to their efficiency. What is certain is that all methods of governance are under constant adjustment and that they all feed into one another in order to secure the smooth operation of the internal market. The interaction between these methods is the topic of the present chapter.

scholarly journals From Integration to Exclusion: EU Composite Administration and Gaps in Judicial Accountability in the Authorisation of Pharmaceuticals

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 393-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabrina RÖTTGER-WIRTZ ◽  
Mariolina ELIANTONIO
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Composite Structures ◽  
Marketing Authorisation ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Pharmaceutical Marketing ◽  
Commission Decision ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
The Eu

In the EU, pharmaceuticals are subject to a marketing authorisation requirement that, depending on the type of product concerned, can be obtained either centrally through a Commission decision with EU-wide effects or in the Member States, potentially subject to mutual recognition in composite authorisation procedures. These composite decision-making processes can nowadays be considered a standard way of administrative decision-making in the EU internal market. Yet, judicial supervision remains anchored in the separation of jurisdictions between the national and the EU level, and between national levels. This article explores the challenges posed to judicial review in the case of pharmaceutical marketing authorisations when European administrative composite structures are used.

From Hard to Soft: Governance in the EU Internal Market

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 101-137
Author(s):  
Vassilis Hatzopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
New Governance ◽  
Chronological Order ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Three Generations ◽  
Soft Governance ◽  
Delegation Of Powers ◽  
The Eu

AbstractAt least three generations of governance methods have been—and are still being—used for the regulation of the internal market: the classic EU method, leading to harmonisation and (more rarely) unification; the ‘new approach’ based on mutual recognition and the use of standards; and ‘new governance’ which does not entail any formal delegation of powers to the EU and operates through self-regulation, the creation of EU agencies and networks, administrative cooperation and other means of open coordination. It is impossible to establish either a hierarchy or a clear chronological order between these methods, while it is also quite difficult to reach a clear conclusion as to their efficiency. What is certain is that all methods of governance are under constant adjustment and that they all feed into one another in order to secure the smooth operation of the internal market. The interaction between these methods is the topic of the present chapter.

Mutual Recognition of Driving Licences in the EU – Current State of Integration and Perspectives

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 37-60
Author(s):  
Meinhard Schröder
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Driving Licence ◽  
Current State ◽  
Lack Of Information ◽  
Principle Of Territoriality ◽  
The Eu

A driving licence is a document and an administrative act, which is, according to the principle of territoriality, only valid in the territory of the issuing State. This is incompatible with practical needs of international traffic, and mutual recognition helps to overcome the problem. This article presents the development of mutual recognition of driving licences in the EU, from pre-existing public international law to current harmonising legislation and the relevant ECJ jurisprudence. It finds that once there was sufficient harmonisation, the ECJ promoted mutual recognition, while the EU legislator had to close the loopholes for 'driving licence tourism' by amending the directives. Unlike in other areas of the internal market, primary law never played an important role for the mutual recognition of driving licences. Determining the current state of integration, the article identifies a lack of information exchange between Member States and a lack of harmonisation of sanctions as main obstacles for full, unconditional recognition, and proposes ways leading towards an 'internal market of driving licences'.

The Interaction of Judicial and Legislative Policymaking

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne K. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
European Legislation ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Political Preferences ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Judicial Policymaking ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

Chapter 4 systematizes the different ways that judicial policymaking can have an impact on European legislation. Identifying the codification of case-law principles in secondary law contributes to research on the EU in two important ways: it shows how EU legislation is embedded in case-law development, and that the impact of case law cannot be reduced to the question of compliance with single rulings. A differentiation is made between several types of judicial ‘shadow’ over the legislative process. Then the Services Directive and the regulation on the mutual recognition of goods are analysed. The principles of case law that were motivated by the specific circumstances of individual cases constrain the design of general rules. Secondary law cannot modify constitutional principles. At best, the legislature can hope to signal its political preferences to the Court.

Epilogue

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Schütze
Keyword(s):  
Internal Market ◽  
Positive Answer ◽  
The Past ◽  
Output Legitimacy ◽  
The Eu

Can the judicial creation of the EU internal market be justified? A famous—positive—answer has, in the past, been suggested by Miguel Maduro’s We the Court; and the first section explores the credentials of his ‘majoritarian activism’ thesis. The second section surveys alternative forms of legitimacy, such as ‘output legitimacy’ and ‘messianic legitimacy’, but it also offers a new Kantian approach to the legitimacy question.

Principles and Structures of European Risk Governance, or: How (not) to Play a Trust Game

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-174
Author(s):  
Anne van Aaken
Keyword(s):  
International Organizations ◽  
Service Provision ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Trust Game ◽  
Risk Governance ◽  
Private Institutions ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Regulatory Functions ◽  
The Eu

Ever more risky service activities are carried out across borders, creating spillovers and externalities. At the same time, if freedom to provide services is legally enabled, states can cooperate in multiple ways to mitigate the potential risks accruing from crossborder activities. Global Administrative Law Scholarship distinguishes five types of administrative regulation: “administration by formal international organizations; administrations based on collective action by transnational networks of governmental officials; distributed administration conducted by national regulators under treaty regimes, mutual recognition arrangements or cooperative standards; administration by hybrid intergovernmental–private arrangements; and administration by private institutions with regulatory functions. In practice many of these layers overlap or combine […]”. In the area of risky cross–border service provision, the EU has moved from a more decentralised version of networks and mutual recognition characterised by coordination and minimum harmonization of rules and standards to a more centralized commandand–control system with European authorities and supervision.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document