To be or not to be (legally binding)? Judicial review of EU soft law after BT and Fédération Bancaire Française

2021 ◽  
pp. 981-1005
Author(s):  
Giulia Gentile
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Soft Law

El soft law de la UE es como una criatura mitológica de la gobernanza de la UE: si un sátiro es mitad hombre y mitad cabra, así la ley blanda de la UE es mitad derecho y mitad no-derecho. Su doble naturaleza irrestricta por el procedimiento legislativo ha facilitado su proliferación, pero sigue surgiendo la controversia sobre su papel en la UE y en los Estados miembros. Dos casos recientes se suman a la saga sobre los efectos del soft law de la UE: BT contra Balgarska Narodna Banka y Fédération bancaire française contra Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution. Estas dos sentencias, fruto de dos cuestiones prejudiciales, son en cierta medida extraordinarias: el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea ha analizado por primera vez la validez de las recomendaciones y directrices de la UE, medidas de soft law de la UE por excelencia, en el contexto de las solicitudes de cuestiones prejudiciales. Pero además de sus resultados, estas decisiones también han arrojado dudas sobre los efectos del soft law de la UE. Tras exponer las conclusiones de los abogados generales y las sentencias del Tribunal de Justicia, el trabajo aborda tres cuestiones: las lagunas en el concepto de «efectos jurídicamente vinculantes» en el derecho de la UE, las orientaciones (poco claras) sobre el uso del soft law de la UE en los tribunales nacionales y la evolución de la revisión de la validez del soft law de la UE. Ser o no ser (¿jurídicamente vinculante?) Esa es la cuestión del soft law de la UE.

The use and Enforcement of Soft Law by Australian Public Authorities

2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg Weeks
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Regulatory Aspects ◽  
Highly Effective ◽  
Judicial Remedies

Soft law is a pervasive phenomenon which is highly effective as a means of regulation in Australia, as it is in many other jurisdictions. This article will not focus on the regulatory aspects of soft law, but will examine the capacity of individuals to obtain remedies where public authorities fail to adhere to the terms of their published soft law. The available judicial remedies apply in very limited circumstances, both in private law actions (in tort or equity) and public law (judicial review) actions. Ultimately, the most effective ways to remedy breaches of soft law appear also to be ‘soft’, such as recommendations of the Ombudsman and discretionary schemes for ex gratia payments.

scholarly journals Enslaving the Algorithm: From a “Right to an Explanation” to a “Right to Better Decisions”?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lilian Edwards ◽  
Michael Veale
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Black Box ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Average Data ◽  
Meaningful Information ◽  
Privacy Law ◽  
Data Protection Law ◽  
Data Subject

Cite as: Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale (2018) Enslaving the Algorithm: From a “Right to an Explanation” to a “Right to Better Decisions”? IEEE Security & Privacy 16(3), 46–54, doi:10.1109/MSP.2018.2701152As concerns about unfairness and discrimination in “black box” machine learning systems rise, a legal “right to an explanation” has emerged as a compellingly attractive approach for challenge and redress. We outline recent debates on the limited provisions in European data protection law, and introduce and analyze newer explanation rights in French administrative law and the draft modernized Council of Europe Convention 108. While individual rights can be useful, in privacy law they have historically unreasonably burdened the average data subject.“Meaningful information” about algorithmic logics is more technically possible than commonly thought, but this exacerbates a new “transparency fallacy”—an illusion of remedy rather than anything substantively helpful. While rights-based approaches deserve a firm place in the toolbox, other forms of governance, such as impact assessments, “soft law,” judicial review, and model repositories deserve more attention, alongside catalyzing agencies acting for users to control algorithmic system design.

scholarly journals Too Weak to Be Controlled: Judicial Review of ACER Soft Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 525-550 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oana Stefan ◽  
Marina Petri
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Soft Law

Ensuring Effective Judicial Review of EU Soft Law via the Action for Annulment before the EU Courts: a Plea for a Liberal-Constitutional Approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 466-492
Author(s):  
Giulia Gentile
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Liberal Constitutionalism ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Constitutional Jurisprudence ◽  
The Eu

Judicial review of EU soft law – Liberal-constitutionalism – Principle of effective judicial protection – The liberal-constitutional jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice – Action for annulment – Formalistic understanding of the concept of ‘legally binding effects’ – Preliminary ruling procedure – Limitations of the preliminary ruling procedure in granting effective judicial protection in relation to EU soft law – A plea for a liberal-constitutional reading of Articles 263 and 288 TFEU in relation to direct review of EU soft law

The World Economic Forum Principles on "Climate Governance on Corporate Boards": can soft law help to face climate change around the world?

2020 ◽  
pp. 37-55
Author(s):  
Sabrina Bruno
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
South Africa ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Boards Of Directors ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Corporate Boards ◽  
World Economic Forum ◽  
Financial Factor ◽  
The World ◽  
World Economic

Climate change is a financial factor that carries with it risks and opportunities for companies. To support boards of directors of companies belonging to all jurisdictions, the World Economic Forum issued in January 2019 eight Principlescontaining both theoretical and practical provisions on: climate accountability, competence, governance, management, disclosure and dialogue. The paper analyses each Principle to understand scope and managerial consequences for boards and to evaluate whether the legal distinctions, among the various jurisdictions, may undermine the application of the Principles or, by contrast, despite the differences the Principles may be a useful and effective guidance to drive boards' of directors' conduct around the world in handling climate change challenges. Five jurisdictions are taken into consideration for this comparative analysis: Europe (and UK), US, Australia, South Africa and Canada. The conclusion is that the WEF Principles, as soft law, is the best possible instrument to address boards of directors of worldwide companies, harmonise their conduct and effectively help facing such global emergency.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document