Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (205) (remove)
Language
- English (205) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (205)
Keywords
- Europäische Union (3)
- Covid-19 (2)
- Public Administration (2)
- higher education (2)
- ACCC (1)
- Aarhus convention (1)
- Aarhus regulation (1)
- Abgeordneter (1)
- Anonymity Assessment (1)
- Artt. 290 & 291 AEUV (1)
Institute
- Lehrstuhl für vergleichende Verwaltungswissenschaft und Policy-Analyse (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Bauer) (35)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere Europarecht und Völkerrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Weiß) (27)
- Lehrstuhl für Politikwissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Stephan Grohs) (19)
- Lehrstuhl für Volkswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Wirtschafts- und Verkehrspolitik (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Andreas Knorr) (13)
- Lehrstuhl für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsmanagement (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Hölscher) (10)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere deutsches und europäisches Verwaltungsrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ulrich Stelkens) (8)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, Staatslehre und Rechtsvergleichung (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Karl-Peter Sommermann) (6)
- Lehrstuhl für Verwaltungswissenschaft, Staatsrecht, Verwaltungsrecht und Europarecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Mario Martini) (5)
- Seniorprofessur für Verwaltungswissenschaft, Politik und Recht im Bereich von Umwelt und Energie (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bohne) (5)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, Finanz- und Steuerrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Joachim Wieland) (3)
From a democratic perspective, the replacement of government or parliament by a public manager to enforce budget discipline marks a serious intervention. Transferred to the local level, the replacement of the mayor and the council in three German municipalities by a state official (a so-called state commissioner) in recent years has raised questions about the legi-timacy and adequacy of such a strong interventionist instrument. One crucial answer to be given to this legitimacy issue concerns effectiveness, in other words whether the instrument can fulfill its designated task by improving the local fiscal situation since the fiscal success of the commissioner is a basic prerequisite for legitimacy. By using a time-series approach of the synthetic control method (SCM) and constructing a synthetic comparison case to the town of Altena, an answer regarding the commissioner’s potential to reduce the short-term debt can be given. The commissioner was successful in limiting the debt increase and seems to have reversed the debt trend. This finding supports the effectiveness of rather hierarchical instruments for ensuring fiscal discipline at the local level and thereby adds to broadening the international public management literature on municipal takeovers.
Social media platforms are increasingly used in the public administration context. Against this background, this study not only derives and tests the impact of determinants that explain citizens’ intention to use social media channels of public services, but also examines to what extent their intention to use influences their intention to recommend these services to others (word of mouth). An expanded technology acceptance model (TAM) was tested based on data from a survey of 164 citizens. The model provides insight into the creation of social media applications of public authorities, for example, by providing four determinants that significantly influence citizens’ intention to use Facebook pages of public institutions as well as their intention to recommend the page to other citizens.
Problem of Fiscal Federalism
(2000)
The Union legislator has recently amended the Aarhus Regulation with the aim of bringing it more in line with the requirements the Aarhus Convention lays down. EU State aid decisions, however, remain excluded from its scope. This exclusion raises questions that form the object of this contribution. The article argues that the arguments presented to justify the continued exclusion of State aid review are not convincing. By not complying with the re-commendations of the ACCC, the EU is in clear violation of international law. Therefore, the article deliberates over the necessary changes and possible exemptions for a sound im-plementation of the Aarhus Convention against the procedural specificities of State aid review, considering also the Commission´s recently presented options, which contain a number of problematic aspects.
This introductory article makes the case for studying joint institutional frameworks (JIFs) in EU bilateral agreements and provides an overview of the remaining contributions to the sympo-sium. In doing so, it addresses contemporary policy developments and theoretical debates in political science and international institutional law. It considers the rationale, design, perfor-mance as well as legitimacy of JIFs both in general and, in particular, in the EU's contractual bilateral relations. By mapping out the variety of JIFs in distinct geographical and regulatory contexts, the article develops an overarching argument about the ‘transversal’ nature of such structural frameworks, focusing on the most prevalent structural principles and rules, joint bodies and special procedures, including those not covered in detail in the other contribu-tions to this symposium.
Considering the new focus of the European Union (EU) trade policy on strengthening the enforcement of trade rules, the article presents the proposed amendments to the EU Trade Enforcement Regulation 654/2014. It analyzes the EU Commission proposal and the amendments suggested by the European Parliament Committee on International Trade (INTA), in particular with regard to uncooperative third parties and the provision of immediate countermeasures. The amendments will be assessed in view of their legality under World Trade Organization (WTO), Free Trade Agreement (FTA), and general international law and in view of their political implications for the EU’s multilateralist stance. Finally, the opportunity to amend Regulation 654/2014 to use it for the enforcement of FTA trade and sustainable development chapters will be explored. The analysis shows that the shift towards more effective enforcement should be pursued with due care for respecting existing international legal commitments and with more caution to multilateralism.
The European Commission presented, in its White Paper on the Future of Europe, scenarios on the future of the EU in 2025, which prompt the question as to their meaning for the future of EU administrative law. This article explores the implications of the scenarios for the future of EU executive rulemaking and its constitutional consequences. As some scenarios imply a more powerful political role of the Commission, and almost all expand the scope and usage of executive rulemaking, the executive power gains induce the need for more distinct constitutional guidelines for executive rulemaking and for strengthened parliamentary control, to preserve the institutional power balance between legislative and executive rulemaking. The analysis develops proposals insofar and demands respect for constitutional barriers already enshrined in EU primary law but not sufficiently addressed yet in institutional practice.
As WTO members increasingly invoke security exceptions and the first panel report insofar was issued in Russia-Traffic in Transit, the methodical and procedural preliminaries of their adjudication must be reassessed. The preliminaries pertain to justiciability and to the proper interpretive approach for their vague terms that seemingly imply considerable discretion to WTO members, all the more as general exceptions are subject to expansive interpretation. Reading security exceptions expansively appears not viable as they miss the usual safeguard against abuse (i.e. the chapeau of Arts XX GATT/XIV GATS). This lack of safeguards rather suggests caution in conceptualising them expansively, as do the systemic consequences of recent attempts to re-politicise security exceptions which run the risk of nullifying the concept of multilateral trade regulation altogether. Furthermore, the appropriate standards of review and proof must be explored which have to strike a balance between control and deference in national security.
This article takes the proliferation of EU soft law instruments in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to analyse their effects and challenges to democracy and rule of law in the EU posed by the use of EU soft law in the implementation of EU law. A proposal will be made for a general legal framework on the adoption of administrative EU soft law in order to address them. Enhancing the legitimacy of EU governance requires a general legal framework that introduces minimum procedural, transparency and participa-tory safeguards and foresees looser rules for urgent soft measures. The article thus makes an original contribution by reconsidering the debate about EU soft law in the context of COVID-19 soft law with a view to its salience for domestic implementation of EU law and by developing core elements of a general legal framework.
Ex Officio Third Country Subsidies' Review: Similarities with and Differences to State Aid Procedure
(2022)
In May 2021 the European Commission tabled a draft Third Country Subsidies Regulation which stands between trade and competition policy. This new instrument establishes a review of third country subsidies with a view to addressing the competition distortion resulting from foreign subsidies granted to undertakings economically active in the EU internal market. As the new tool complements EU State aid scrutiny with a view to foreign subsidies, the present contribution compares the general procedures and provisions of the new regulation with EU State aid law. It will be shown that despite many similarities with State aid law, considerable differences remain which can be explained by looking at the different procedural and substantive context.
The TCA (EU-UK Trade and Copperation Agreement) establishes a very comprehensive institutional framework with Partnership Council and diverse Committees having partly substantial decision-making powers for the development of the TCA. These considerable public functions prompt legitimacy concerns as to their democratic control, which this article explores in detail. It will be shown that the exercise of public powers by TCA treaty bodies meets with a sobering legal situation regarding democratic control mechanisms over treaty body decision-making at different levels. Thus, from a constitutional perspective, the legal and legitimate transfer of powers requires additional safeguards as to their democratic legitimacy. Solutions for better control of treaty body decisions by parliaments must be developed at several levels simultaneously.
Trade relations face unprecedented challenges, which has led to an increased politicisation and contestation of trade rules. In response, the EU has changed its trade policy under the motto ‘Open Strategic Autonomy’ towards a more as-sertive policy. The EU seeks to signifi-cantly expand its room of manoeuvre and to gain more autonomy by strengthening the en-forcement of its trade rights and by ensuring more effectively, including unilaterally, a level playing field. This re-orientation engenders several new or amended trade policy instru-ments, but meets with reservations as the renewed politicisation of EU trade policy will have internal consequences and raise demands for more democratic accountability of the Euro-pean Commission. The new policy instruments will enlarge its leeway in trade policy. The future of the EU's multilateral, rule- instead of power-oriented political stance becomes unclear, which might undermine its negotiation posi-tion in WTO reform and collide with the EU's respect for international law. The tensions of the EU's new hybrid approach with its international commitments even more fuel demands for increased accountability of the Commission as a safeguard against employing the new powers for protectionism and disrespect to international law. The contribution analyses the need for increased Commis-sion accountability in the redirected trade policy.
This article outlines the his tory of several attempts to increase salaries and pensions of members of the German Bundestag in the early I990s. It shows the unethical tactics used by parliamentarians and the way in which public information was in part consciously designed to mislead. It is argued that Bundestag members tend to form a political cartel when decisions concerning their salaries and pensions are made. Similiar tendencies can be observed in all parliamentary decisions involving party finance, providing support for Katz and Mairs thesis that 'catch-all' parties are generally being replaced by 'cartel parties'. Having analysed the issues involved, the article calls for greater accountability and responsibility on the part of German politicians when their own personal advantage is at issue.
Searching for Order. Exploring the use of delegated and implementing acts in the EU customs code
(2017)
Artikel über Unterschiede in der gesetzgeberischen Ermächtigung der Kommission unter Art. 290 AEUV gegenüber Art. 291 AEUV anhand des EU Zollkode. Der Artikel findet empirische Unterschiede insofern als Art. 290 AEUV für die Ermächtigung der Festsetzung von 'Bedingungen' verwendet wird, und Art. 291 AEUV für die Ermächtigung zur Festsetzung von Verfahrensregeln.
The Council of Europe (CoE) has a long-standing record of promoting standards of good administration in the European legal space. Today, these standards encapsulate the entire range of general organisational, procedural and substantive legal institutions meant to ensure a democratically legitimised, open and transparent administration respecting the rule of law. Therefore, these standards are about the ‘limiting function’ of administrative law, that is, its function to protect individuals from arbitrary power, to legitimise administrative action and to combat corruption and nepotism and other ‘diseases’ with which even a democratic polity willing to be governed by the rule of law may be infected. These CoE standards can be described as ‘pan-European principles of good administration.
The history of German public procurement law is a history of attempts by the German legislator to implement the EU public procurement directives on judicial protection, namely Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989, as minimally as possible. Paradoxically, the history of German procurement law is also the history of an increased spreading of the model of judicial review in ‘competitive award procedures’ underlying Directive 89/665/EEC
to other administrative procedures.
Here, one can discern mutual fertilization of the discussions on the minimal standards for judicial protection foreseen in Directive 89/665/EEC, as well as a parallel discussion on mini-mal standards (directly derived from the German constitution) for judicial review in competi-tive award procedures concerning the recruitment of public officials.
On this basis, one may discern trends in German case law, administrative practice, and scho-larship towards developing judicial review systems in competitive award procedures for pub-lic procurement beyond the thresholds set by the EU directives. This is relevant for privati-zations, gambling licences, and procedures to grant the right to use public spaces, to name only a few. However, these trends encounter difficulties because the German General Administrative Court Procedure Act and other relevant legislation are not tailored to com-petitive award procedures. This article will analyse these different trends and suggest explanations for them.