Limited Authorisations Between EU and Domestic Law: Comparative Remarks from Dutch Law

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW European Public Law Pub Date : 2019-12-01 DOI:10.54648/euro2019031
Johan Wolswinkel, F. V. Ommeren, W. D. Ouden
{"title":"Limited Authorisations Between EU and Domestic Law: Comparative Remarks from Dutch Law","authors":"Johan Wolswinkel, F. V. Ommeren, W. D. Ouden","doi":"10.54648/euro2019031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Where the number of authorizations available for grant is limited in advance to a maximum number, public authorities have to make a choice between qualified applicants through a selection procedure. EU law has played a major role in developing legal rules on the issuing of these limited authorizations, through, amongst other methods, the development of the obligation of transparency. However, the allocation regime under EU law, in particular as it arises from the internal market freedoms, has some inherent restrictions, only applying to economic activities and sometimes requiring cross-border interest in addition. Thus, in order to develop a general legal regime that applies to any process for the issuing of limited authorizations, the development of an allocation regime rooted in domestic law is necessary. This article discusses recent developments in Dutch case law, where a domestic allocation regime has been derived from the (national) principle of equal treatment. It endorses the adoption of this principle as the central basis for an allocation regime, rooted either in domestic or in EU law, since this principle does not only include the key issues inherent to an allocation context, but also allows for the development of allocation rules at the level of both individual decision-making and general rule-making.\nadministrative law, authorisations, allocation of scarce resources, equal treatment, competition, transparency, general principles of administrative law, legal comparison, EU law, internal market.","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Public Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2019031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Where the number of authorizations available for grant is limited in advance to a maximum number, public authorities have to make a choice between qualified applicants through a selection procedure. EU law has played a major role in developing legal rules on the issuing of these limited authorizations, through, amongst other methods, the development of the obligation of transparency. However, the allocation regime under EU law, in particular as it arises from the internal market freedoms, has some inherent restrictions, only applying to economic activities and sometimes requiring cross-border interest in addition. Thus, in order to develop a general legal regime that applies to any process for the issuing of limited authorizations, the development of an allocation regime rooted in domestic law is necessary. This article discusses recent developments in Dutch case law, where a domestic allocation regime has been derived from the (national) principle of equal treatment. It endorses the adoption of this principle as the central basis for an allocation regime, rooted either in domestic or in EU law, since this principle does not only include the key issues inherent to an allocation context, but also allows for the development of allocation rules at the level of both individual decision-making and general rule-making. administrative law, authorisations, allocation of scarce resources, equal treatment, competition, transparency, general principles of administrative law, legal comparison, EU law, internal market.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧盟与国内法的有限授权——荷兰法律的比较
如果可供授予的授权数量事先限制在最大数量,公共当局必须通过选拔程序在合格申请人之间做出选择。欧盟法律通过制定透明度义务等方法,在制定关于发布这些有限授权的法律规则方面发挥了重要作用。然而,欧盟法律下的分配制度,特别是由于其产生于内部市场自由,有一些固有的限制,只适用于经济活动,有时还需要跨境利益。因此,为了制定一个适用于签发有限授权的任何程序的一般法律制度,有必要制定一个植根于国内法的分配制度。本文讨论了荷兰判例法的最新发展,其中国内分配制度源自平等待遇的(国家)原则。它赞同将这一原则作为植根于国内法或欧盟法律的分配制度的核心基础,因为这一原则不仅包括分配环境固有的关键问题,而且允许在个人决策和一般规则制定层面制定分配规则,稀缺资源的分配、平等待遇、竞争、透明度、行政法通则、法律比较、欧盟法律、内部市场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
‘Respect for Religious Feelings’: As the Italian Case Shows, Fresh Paint Can’t Fix the Crumbling Wall of Blasphemy The ‘Then’ and the ‘Now’ of Forced Relocation of Indigenous Peoples: Repercussions in International Law, Torts and Beyond Subsidiarity v. Autonomy in the EU Book Review: Federalism and Constitutional Law: The Italian Contribution to Comparative Regionalism, Erika Arban, Giuseppe Martinico & Francesco Palermo (eds). London and New York: Routledge. 2021 The Tragic Choices During the Global Health Emergency: Comparative Economic Law Reflections
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1