Evolving Patterns and Change in the EU Governance and Their Consequences on Judicial Protection

Abstract

EU administrative law has some specific characters when compared with national administrative law. This is particularly so because of the weak democratic legitimacy of EU rules. EU administrative law however shares a number of developments with national legal orders, such as a general trend to strengthen the judicial review of individual measures, and this especially so when fundamental rights are at stake. When compared with some national legal orders, dialogue seems to be still in an early phase. This is a shame because the political circle linking the decision makers to the People through representative democracy is weak and benefits could had by supplementing it by more closely involving the civil society and the stakeholders. The little in terms of developments we have, however, is enough to confirm the role of law and courts in this different perspective as the tools «to police conditions of access to decision-making networks. A powerful incentive to dialogue for European institutions could however come – in sectors like competition policy – from a possible shift from a French administrative law presumption of legality pattern to a US adversarial adjudication model, the latter substantially imposing on EU institution a burden of proof where before was a duty to give reasons. Taken down from the high throne where traditional continental administrative law has placed it, it makes sense for the Commission to double its efforts to come at some sort of agreements with the undertaking concerned.