Premium
Codification of EC Administrative Procedures? Fitting the Foot to the Shoe or the Shoe to the Foot
Author(s) -
Harlow Carol
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
european law journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.351
H-Index - 54
eISSN - 1468-0386
pISSN - 1351-5993
DOI - 10.1111/j.1468-0386.1996.tb00016.x
Subject(s) - jurisprudence , commission , statement (logic) , member states , law , administration (probate law) , administrative law , german , foot (prosody) , european community , european commission , political science , set (abstract data type) , process (computing) , law and economics , computer science , business , sociology , european union , geography , international trade , linguistics , philosophy , archaeology , programming language , operating system
There are two basic models of EC Administrative Process: Direct, where the procedures are carried out by the Commission and Indirect, where Member States act as agents for the Community. In the first case, the development of general principles to structure the procedures has to date been undertaken by the ECJ. The problem posed by indirect administration, governed by the National Principles of Administrative Law, is one of variable standards. For different reasons, both models raise the question whether EC administrative procedures should be codified. This article contrasts two styles of codification found in the Member States: the first, a short statement of general principles, favoured by the Council of Europe and resembling the standards set out in the jurisprudence of the ECJ; the second, a detailed codification typified by the German Administrative Procedures Code. The author concludes that the first method may be more appropriate for the EC.