1887
Volume 6, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper provides an account of the arguments advanced by the European Union (EU) legislator in the preamble of directives adopted for harmonization in the internal market, and assesses them as to their potential at convincing the Member States to implement the directive at issue. We show what directives should argue for and how they do so in practice, by focussing in particular on Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights. Furthermore, this contribution moves beyond a purely academic discussion by linking the theoretical-normative framework advanced to the Court of Justice of the European Union’s approach to assessing the preambles of EU directives in the context of the ‘check’ on the duty to state reasons under Article 296 Treaty for the of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Our analysis unveils a legislative practice in which the obligation to give reasons is not discharged adequately from an argumentative perspective, and which remains generally unsanctioned due to the rather light and flexible test used by CJEU under Article 296 TFEU.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.6.1.05and
2017-03-31
2019-12-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beck, G.
    (2012) The Legal Reasoning of the Court of Justice of the EU. Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Börzel, T.
    (2001) ‘Non-compliance in the European Union: pathology or statistical artefact?’, Journal of European Public Policy8(5): 803–824. doi: 10.1080/13501760110083527
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760110083527 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2002) ‘Pace-setting, foot-dragging, and fence-sitting: Member State responses to Europeanization’, JMCS40(2): 193–214.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Craig, P. , and de Búrca, G.
    (2015) EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (6th edn), Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/he/9780198714927.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198714927.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Dimitrakopoulos, D. G.
    (2001) ‘The Transposition of EU law: ‘post-decisional politics’ and institutional autonomy’, European Law Journal7(4): 442–458. doi: 10.1111/1468‑0386.00137
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0386.00137 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dimitrova, A. and Rhinard, M.
    (2005) ‘The power of norms in the transposition of EU directives’, European Integration Online Papers9(16): 1–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Eemeren, F.H. van
    (2010) Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2016) ‘Identifying argumentative patterns: a vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics’. Argumentation30(1): 1–23. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9377‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9377-z [Google Scholar]
  9. Eemeren, F. H. van , and Grootendorst, R.
    (1992) Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Falkner, G. , Hartlapp, M. , Leiber, S. , and Treib, O.
    (2004) ‘Non-compliance with EU Directives in the Member States: opposition through the backdoor’, West European Politics27(3): 452–473. doi: 10.1080/0140238042000228095
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0140238042000228095 [Google Scholar]
  11. Falkner, G. , Treib, O. , Hartlapp, M. and Leiber, S.
    (2005) Complying with Europe. EU Harmonization and Soft Law in the Member States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511491931
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491931 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fischer, F. , and H. Gottweis
    (2012) ‘Introduction. The Argumentative Turn Revisited’, in Fischer, F. , and Gottweis, H. (eds), The Argumentative Turn Revisited. Public Policy as Communicative Practice, Durham: Duke University Press, pp.1–30. doi: 10.1215/9780822395362‑001
    https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822395362-001 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fischer, F. and Gottweis, H.
    eds (2012) The Argumentative Turn Revisited. Public Policy as Communicative Practice, Durham: Duke University Press. doi: 10.1215/9780822395362
    https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822395362 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fischer, F. , and Forester, J.
    eds (1993) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis, Durham: Duke University Press. doi: 10.1215/9780822381815
    https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822381815 [Google Scholar]
  15. Knill, C. , and Lehmkuhl, D.
    (2002) ‘The national impact of European Union regulatory policy: three Europeanization mechanisms’, European Journal of Political Research41: 255–280. doi: 10.1111/1475‑6765.00012
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00012 [Google Scholar]
  16. Komárek, J.
    (2015) ‘Legal Reasoning in EU Law’, in Arnull, A. , and Chalmers, D. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of European Union Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.28–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Majone, G.
    (1989) Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process, New Haven: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Mastenbroek, E.
    (2005) ‘EU compliance: still a ‘black hole’?’, Journal of European Public Policy12(6): 1103–1120. doi: 10.1080/13501760500270869
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500270869 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2007) The Politics of Compliance. Explaining the Transposition of EC Directives in the Netherlands, Wageningen: Ponsen & Looijen BV.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Nicolaides, Ph. , and Oberg, H.
    (2006) ‘The compliance problem in the European Union’, EIPASCOPE1: 1–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Prechal, A.
    (2005) Directives in EC Law. (Second, completely revised edn), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Sauter, W.
    (2013) ‘Proportionality in EU Law: A balancing act?’, Nederlandse Zorgautoriteit: 1–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Scharpf, F.W.
    (1999) Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic, Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198295457.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198295457.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Shapiro, M.
    (1992) The Giving Reasons Requirement, U Chicago Legal Forum179, 179–220.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Searle, J. R. , and Vanderveken, D.
    (1985/2009) Foundations of Illocutionary Logic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Steunenberg, B. and Rhinard, M.
    (2010) ‘The transposition of European Law in EU Member States: between process and politics’, European Political Science Review2(3), 495–520. doi: 10.1017/S1755773910000196
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773910000196 [Google Scholar]
  27. Thomann, E.
    (2015) ‘Customizing Europe: transposition as bottom-up implementation’, Journal of European Public Policy22(10): 1368–1387. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2015.1008554
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1008554 [Google Scholar]
  28. Treaty on European Union (TEU)
    Treaty on European Union (TEU), available atEur-lex.europa.eu (accessed29 February 2016).
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
    Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), available atEur-lex.europa.eu. (accessed29 February 2016).
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Versluis, E.
    (2004) ‘Explaining variations in implementation of EU directives’, European Integration Online Papers8(19): 1–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhelyazkova, A.
    (2012) Compliance under Controversy. Analysis of the Transposition of European Directives and their Provisions, Zutphen: CPI Wöhrmann Print Service.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.6.1.05and
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): argumentative patterns , compliance , duty to state reasons , EU directive and harmonization
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error