比例的联邦制维度

IF 1.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW European Law Journal Pub Date : 2021-12-23 DOI:10.1111/eulj.12387
Armin Steinbach
{"title":"比例的联邦制维度","authors":"Armin Steinbach","doi":"10.1111/eulj.12387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>EU Treaties contain an arsenal of purpose-defined and ambiguous competences that are enjoyed by EU institutions, yet devote little attention to the restraining impact of EU competences on Member States' autonomy and policies. While the focus has traditionally been on subsidiarity to deal with competence issues, the judgment of the <i>Bundesverfassungsgericht</i> in <i>Weiss</i> revitalises the discussion on the potential of proportionality to guide competence issues. This inquiry seeks to highlight both the existing traces of competence proportionality employed by the Court to allocate competences as well as the potential of the proportionality standard to temper the spillovers on Member States' autonomy accruing from the exercise of EU competences. While the Treaty restricts proportionality to reviewing the use (not existence) of EU competences, the Court has implicitly employed proportionality considerations to verify the existence of EU competences. In addition, drawing from established case law, competence proportionality assessments could rely on an effect-based substantive review in combination with procedural duties allowing a meaningful balancing of national autonomy against the dynamics of deeper integration.</p>","PeriodicalId":47166,"journal":{"name":"European Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The federalism dimension of proportionality\",\"authors\":\"Armin Steinbach\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/eulj.12387\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>EU Treaties contain an arsenal of purpose-defined and ambiguous competences that are enjoyed by EU institutions, yet devote little attention to the restraining impact of EU competences on Member States' autonomy and policies. While the focus has traditionally been on subsidiarity to deal with competence issues, the judgment of the <i>Bundesverfassungsgericht</i> in <i>Weiss</i> revitalises the discussion on the potential of proportionality to guide competence issues. This inquiry seeks to highlight both the existing traces of competence proportionality employed by the Court to allocate competences as well as the potential of the proportionality standard to temper the spillovers on Member States' autonomy accruing from the exercise of EU competences. While the Treaty restricts proportionality to reviewing the use (not existence) of EU competences, the Court has implicitly employed proportionality considerations to verify the existence of EU competences. In addition, drawing from established case law, competence proportionality assessments could rely on an effect-based substantive review in combination with procedural duties allowing a meaningful balancing of national autonomy against the dynamics of deeper integration.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eulj.12387\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eulj.12387","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧盟条约包含了欧盟机构享有的一系列目的明确和模糊的权限,但很少关注欧盟权限对成员国自主性和政策的限制性影响。虽然传统上的重点是处理权限问题的辅助性,但Weiss联邦法院的判决重新启动了对比例性指导权限问题潜力的讨论。这项调查旨在强调法院在分配权限时使用的权限相称性的现有痕迹,以及相称性标准缓和因行使欧盟权限而对成员国自主权产生的溢出效应的潜力。虽然《条约》将相称性限制为审查欧盟权限的使用(不存在),但法院含蓄地采用了相称性考虑来核实欧盟权限的存在。此外,根据既定的判例法,权限相称性评估可以依靠基于效果的实质性审查,结合程序性义务,从而在国家自治与更深层次一体化的动力之间取得有意义的平衡。
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
The federalism dimension of proportionality

EU Treaties contain an arsenal of purpose-defined and ambiguous competences that are enjoyed by EU institutions, yet devote little attention to the restraining impact of EU competences on Member States' autonomy and policies. While the focus has traditionally been on subsidiarity to deal with competence issues, the judgment of the Bundesverfassungsgericht in Weiss revitalises the discussion on the potential of proportionality to guide competence issues. This inquiry seeks to highlight both the existing traces of competence proportionality employed by the Court to allocate competences as well as the potential of the proportionality standard to temper the spillovers on Member States' autonomy accruing from the exercise of EU competences. While the Treaty restricts proportionality to reviewing the use (not existence) of EU competences, the Court has implicitly employed proportionality considerations to verify the existence of EU competences. In addition, drawing from established case law, competence proportionality assessments could rely on an effect-based substantive review in combination with procedural duties allowing a meaningful balancing of national autonomy against the dynamics of deeper integration.

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
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
21.10%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: The European Law Journal represents an authoritative new approach to the study of European Law, developed specifically to express and develop the study and understanding of European law in its social, cultural, political and economic context. It has a highly reputed board of editors. The journal fills a major gap in the current literature on all issues of European law, and is essential reading for anyone studying or practising EU law and its diverse impact on the environment, national legal systems, local government, economic organizations, and European citizens. As well as focusing on the European Union, the journal also examines the national legal systems of countries in Western, Central and Eastern Europe and relations between Europe and other parts of the world, particularly the United States, Japan, China, India, Mercosur and developing countries. The journal is published in English but is dedicated to publishing native language articles and has a dedicated translation fund available for this purpose. It is a refereed journal.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Datafication of the hotspots in the blind spot of supervisory authorities Limits to discretion and automated risk assessments in EU border control: Recognising the political in the technical Decoding Frontex's fragmented accountability mosaic and introducing systemic accountability - System Reset Rule of law backsliding within the EU: The case of informal readmissions of third-country nationals at internal borders
×
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