Papers by R. Eljalill Tauschinsky
Case C-355/10 deals with institutional questions and with the delicate issue of intercepting migr... more Case C-355/10 deals with institutional questions and with the delicate issue of intercepting migrants at sea, and thus with fundamental rights. The European Parliament had sought the annulment of a decision of the Council, on the grounds that it exceeded the scope of the implementing power.
The Court annulled the contested decision because it considered that the provisions on interception measures and search and rescue involved important political choices, and that these provisions contain elements that call for the use of
legislation instead of an implementing act.
The ruling touches on three notable points. The most evident one is the Court’s clarification regarding limits to delegation. The question of the place and form of these limits has acquired renewed relevance after the coming into force of the
Lisbon Treaty and the introduction of delegated acts in Article 290 TFEU. A second point of interest concerns the action’s admissibility. Can Parliament challenge an act before the Court if it failed to veto its adoption? The Court answered
this question in the affirmative, but nevertheless leaves important points open on the role of the veto procedure. Thirdly, the case raised the issue of whether an implementing instrument may have a de facto impact on a legislative act
other than the act on which the implementing instrument is based (the basic act).
Public access to documents is one the European Union’s oldest and strongest policy efforts to con... more Public access to documents is one the European Union’s oldest and strongest policy efforts to connect with its citizens. Yet, the revision of Regulation 1049/01 has been stuck in the pipeline for more than seven years, becoming itself an example of the allegation that the EU is too slow and complex. The stalemate of the reform is also due to the debate evolving around similar arguments and disagreements on specific provisions losing sight of the overall goal of public access.
We pick up on the undercurrent in the debate: the reasons for the necessity of transparency and their varied relevance for the concrete legal revision. We also put forward a reason often invoked but seldom scientifically developed for transparency: public trust.
This paper focuses on ‘control’ and ‘trust’ as two primary reasons for transparency and maps their conceptual background and implications. We treat these two approaches in a stylized and typified way, so as to better comprehend the core of the matter. We point out to the differences and practical overlaps of the public access to documents regime from these perspectives. By doing so, the paper attempts to introduce more innovative thinking about the modalities of access to documents and their linkage with deeper conceptual understandings on the relation between citizens and public institutions. With this theoretical contribution we hope to provide new ground for debating proposals for reform.
Drafts by R. Eljalill Tauschinsky
This collective paper discusses the many faceted entanglements of knowledge, power and law within... more This collective paper discusses the many faceted entanglements of knowledge, power and law within, and, even more so, beyond the state. Several eminent scholars in the field offer their view on how the knowledge-power-law nexus should be framed, and what its most salient problems are. In the first chapter, we examine Performativity of Expertise to answer the question why this form of knowledge has so much power over law (Tauschinsky, Christodoulidis, Farrand, and Everson). The second chapter discusses the consequences of De-localisation of Knowledge, ultimately raising the question of the distributive consequences of the governance beyond the state (Bartl, Lixinski, and Muir-Watt). The third chapter deals with the Transformation of Law, and in particular with the question whether the new constellation of power and knowledge beyond the state requires different thinking about the concept and the role of law (Micklitz, Patterson, Gupta, and Kukovec). Some of the contributions build on each other, others are contradictory. Together, however, they represent an intriguing and comprehensive picture of the ongoing debates and practical problems of law and governance beyond the state.
Uploads
Papers by R. Eljalill Tauschinsky
The Court annulled the contested decision because it considered that the provisions on interception measures and search and rescue involved important political choices, and that these provisions contain elements that call for the use of
legislation instead of an implementing act.
The ruling touches on three notable points. The most evident one is the Court’s clarification regarding limits to delegation. The question of the place and form of these limits has acquired renewed relevance after the coming into force of the
Lisbon Treaty and the introduction of delegated acts in Article 290 TFEU. A second point of interest concerns the action’s admissibility. Can Parliament challenge an act before the Court if it failed to veto its adoption? The Court answered
this question in the affirmative, but nevertheless leaves important points open on the role of the veto procedure. Thirdly, the case raised the issue of whether an implementing instrument may have a de facto impact on a legislative act
other than the act on which the implementing instrument is based (the basic act).
We pick up on the undercurrent in the debate: the reasons for the necessity of transparency and their varied relevance for the concrete legal revision. We also put forward a reason often invoked but seldom scientifically developed for transparency: public trust.
This paper focuses on ‘control’ and ‘trust’ as two primary reasons for transparency and maps their conceptual background and implications. We treat these two approaches in a stylized and typified way, so as to better comprehend the core of the matter. We point out to the differences and practical overlaps of the public access to documents regime from these perspectives. By doing so, the paper attempts to introduce more innovative thinking about the modalities of access to documents and their linkage with deeper conceptual understandings on the relation between citizens and public institutions. With this theoretical contribution we hope to provide new ground for debating proposals for reform.
Drafts by R. Eljalill Tauschinsky
The Court annulled the contested decision because it considered that the provisions on interception measures and search and rescue involved important political choices, and that these provisions contain elements that call for the use of
legislation instead of an implementing act.
The ruling touches on three notable points. The most evident one is the Court’s clarification regarding limits to delegation. The question of the place and form of these limits has acquired renewed relevance after the coming into force of the
Lisbon Treaty and the introduction of delegated acts in Article 290 TFEU. A second point of interest concerns the action’s admissibility. Can Parliament challenge an act before the Court if it failed to veto its adoption? The Court answered
this question in the affirmative, but nevertheless leaves important points open on the role of the veto procedure. Thirdly, the case raised the issue of whether an implementing instrument may have a de facto impact on a legislative act
other than the act on which the implementing instrument is based (the basic act).
We pick up on the undercurrent in the debate: the reasons for the necessity of transparency and their varied relevance for the concrete legal revision. We also put forward a reason often invoked but seldom scientifically developed for transparency: public trust.
This paper focuses on ‘control’ and ‘trust’ as two primary reasons for transparency and maps their conceptual background and implications. We treat these two approaches in a stylized and typified way, so as to better comprehend the core of the matter. We point out to the differences and practical overlaps of the public access to documents regime from these perspectives. By doing so, the paper attempts to introduce more innovative thinking about the modalities of access to documents and their linkage with deeper conceptual understandings on the relation between citizens and public institutions. With this theoretical contribution we hope to provide new ground for debating proposals for reform.