通过上诉加强监管

W. Voermans, Y. Schuurmans
{"title":"通过上诉加强监管","authors":"W. Voermans, Y. Schuurmans","doi":"10.54648/euro2011035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper looks into the way in which appeal and judicial review by the European Union (EU) Courts are or can be (made) instrumental to Better Regulation (BR). We examine the way EU Courts review EU legislation before and after the Lisbon Treaty and try to think through the possible consequences the Treaty changes of 2009 have. On this occasion, we take a closer look at the interesting and more or less parallel development of judicial review of non-primary legislation in the United States under the Administrative Procedure Act and the way judiciary review on individual appeal has been transformed into a cornerstone for BR. Is a similar development probable, if indeed advisable, in the EU?","PeriodicalId":344388,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Better Regulation by Appeal\",\"authors\":\"W. Voermans, Y. Schuurmans\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/euro2011035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper looks into the way in which appeal and judicial review by the European Union (EU) Courts are or can be (made) instrumental to Better Regulation (BR). We examine the way EU Courts review EU legislation before and after the Lisbon Treaty and try to think through the possible consequences the Treaty changes of 2009 have. On this occasion, we take a closer look at the interesting and more or less parallel development of judicial review of non-primary legislation in the United States under the Administrative Procedure Act and the way judiciary review on individual appeal has been transformed into a cornerstone for BR. Is a similar development probable, if indeed advisable, in the EU?\",\"PeriodicalId\":344388,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal\",\"volume\":\"62 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2011035\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2011035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

本文探讨了欧盟(EU)法院的上诉和司法审查是或可以(使)有助于更好地监管(BR)的方式。我们考察了欧盟法院在《里斯本条约》之前和之后审查欧盟立法的方式,并试图思考2009年条约变更可能产生的后果。在此,我们仔细考察了美国《行政程序法》下的非初级立法司法审查的有趣的、或多或少平行的发展,以及个人上诉司法审查如何转变为BR的基石。在欧盟,类似的发展是否可能(如果确实明智的话)?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Better Regulation by Appeal
This paper looks into the way in which appeal and judicial review by the European Union (EU) Courts are or can be (made) instrumental to Better Regulation (BR). We examine the way EU Courts review EU legislation before and after the Lisbon Treaty and try to think through the possible consequences the Treaty changes of 2009 have. On this occasion, we take a closer look at the interesting and more or less parallel development of judicial review of non-primary legislation in the United States under the Administrative Procedure Act and the way judiciary review on individual appeal has been transformed into a cornerstone for BR. Is a similar development probable, if indeed advisable, in the EU?
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Observing Online Courts: Lessons from the Pandemic Discovery as Regulation Section 89 of the CPC: ADR and Business Disputes. Brief for Samuel L. Bray as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Merck & Co. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. Adversarial Persuasion with Cross-Examination
×
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