Network-based Governance in EC Law

Maartje de Visser took her law degree from Maastricht cum laude, and the M.Jur from Oxford University with distinction. She obtained her doctorate cum laude at Tilburg University, where she is currently working as a Post-Doctoral Fellow with the Tilburg Institute of Comparative and Transnational Law (TICOM), and an Assistant Professor with the Department of European and International Public Law.

Foreword v Acknowledgements vii List of Tables and Figures xv Abbreviations xvii Introduction xix 1 Modes of Governance in EC Law 3 I. Thinking about Governance 3 II. Governance Models, the EC and its Member States 7 A. Centralised Governance 7 B. Decentralised Governance 9 C. Decentralised Governance with a Centralised Twist 12 D. Traditional Governance Models Compared and Contrasted 14 III. The Models in Perspective 15 A. Centralised Governance 16 B. Decentralised Governance 18 C. Decentralised Governance with a Centralised Twist 22 IV. The Emergence of Networks for EC Law Enforcement 24 A. The Network in Political Science 24 B. Networks as Legal Tools: The Initial Approach 27 C. The Next Step: Lawmaking Networks 30 D. Law Administration Networks: Introducing the ECN and the ERG 32 E. New Governance Revisited 34 V. Conclusion 37 2 The Role of National Authorities in Network-Based Governance 41 I. National Enforcement Structures Compared 41 A. Germany 41 B. France 43 C. The Netherlands 44 D. The United Kingdom 44 E. Comparisons 45 II. Mandate and Function 47 A. Competition Law 47 B. Communications Law 49 III. Powers and Procedures 53 xi Columns Design Ltd / Job: DeVisser / Division: 00_Prelims /Pg. Position: 1 / Date: 17/7 JOBNAME: De Visser PAGE: 12 SESS: 6 OUTPUT: Tue Aug 11 09:27:39 2009 A. The Powers of the NCAs and NRAs 53 i. General Powers 53 ii. Specific Powers 56 iii. Sanctions 68 iv. Interim Conclusion 72 B. Procedures Applicable to NCAs and NRAs as a Matter of EC Law 73 i. Competition Law 74 ii. Communications Law 75 IV. Institutional Principles 78 A. The Definition and Designation of NCAs and NRAs 79 B. Regulatory Capacity 80 C. Independence 83 i. Some Thoughts on Independence 83 ii. Independence from Market Actors 84 iii. Institutional Independence 91 iv. Individual Independence 96 v. Financial Independence 100 vi. Interim Conclusion 102 V. Conclusion 102 3 The Role of National Courts in Network-Based Governance 107 I. National Enforcement Structures Compared 108 II. Mandate and Function 116 A. Competition Law 116 B. Communications Law 117 III. Powers and Procedures 118 A. The Powers of the National Courts 118 i. Competition Law 118 ii. Communications Law 119 B. Procedures to be Followed by National Courts as a Matter of EC Law 122 i. The Burden of Proof 122 ii. Amicus Curiae Interventions 123 iii. Locus Standi before the National Courts 126 iv. Suspensory Effect of Appeals 129 v. Appeals to Non-judicial Bodies 133 IV. Institutional Principles 133 A. The 'Appropriate Expertise' of National Courts 133 B. The Independence of National Courts 137 V. Conclusion 139 4 The Role of the Commission in Network-Based Governance 141 I. Direct Administration: Prosecuting Infringements of the Contents xii Columns Design Ltd / Job: DeVisser / Division: 00_Prelims /Pg. Position: 2 / Date: 11/8 JOBNAME: De Visser PAGE: 13 SESS: 5 OUTPUT: Fri Jul 17 12:31:57 2009 Competition Rules 141 A. Types of Decisions 142 B. The Commission's Prioritisation Policy 145 C. The Commission's Decision-Making Bureaucracy 146 II. Indirect Administration: Overseeing and Guiding National Actors 147 A. Monitoring National Actors 148 B. Influencing National Actors 150 C. The Commission's Supervisory Bureaucracy 152 III. Conclusion 153 5 Methods for Consistency across National Institutions 155 I. Consistency through Procedural Tools 158 A. Devices Applicable to the National Authorities 158 i. Notification 159 ii. Consultation 165 iii. Transversal Controls 166 iv. Judicial Review 170 v. Commission Intervention (Pre-emption and Veto) 171 vi. The European Consistency Provision 189 vii. Summary of the Procedural Tools Applicable to National Authorities 190 B. Devices Applicable to the National Courts 191 i. Notification 191 ii. Consultation 192 iii. Amicus Curiae Observations 194 iv. The European Consistency Provision 195 v. Evaluating the Status Quo 196 II. Consistency through Substantive Devices 198 A. Hard-Law Devices 198 i. Competition Law 198 ii. Communications Law 201 B. Soft-Law Devices 202 III. Conclusion 207 6 The Network: A European Administration Infrastructure 209 I. Organisation, Mandate and Function of the ECN and ERG 209 A. The European Competition Network (ECN) 209 B. The European Regulators Group (ERG) 210 C. Comparisons 215 II. Structuring Interaction between the Commission and the National Authorities 217 A. Case-Based Interactions 217 i. Shared Processes 217 Contents xiii Columns Design Ltd / Job: DeVisser / Division: 00_Prelims /Pg. Position: 3 / Date: 17/7 JOBNAME: De Visser PAGE: 14 SESS: 5 OUTPUT: Fri Jul 17 12:31:57 2009 ii. Processes Exclusive to the Competition Regime 225 iii. Processes Exclusive to the Communications Regime 230 iv. Some Broader Reflections on the Processes 231 B. Framing Enforcement Policy 232 i. Agenda-Setting 232 ii. Guiding Network Members in Decision-Making 233 III. The Network Effect: Europeanising National Authorities 240 IV. Conclusion 245 6b Summarising Network-Based Governance 248 7 Three Perspectives on Network-Based Governance 255 I. The Perspective of Firms and Consumers 258 A. Legitimacy, Accountability and Transparency 258 i. Legislative Mandate 260 ii. Accountability 262 iii. Due Process 272 iv. Expertise 280 v. Effectiveness and Efficiency 281 vi. Interim Conclusion 282 B. Effective Judicial Protection 286 i. The Constitutive Components of Effective Judicial Protection 286 ii. Controlling Case-Based Interactions 293 iii. Soft Law Revisited 327 II. The Perspective of Network Administrators 336 A. Horizontal Relationships and Institutional Balance 336 B. Vertical Relationships and the Principle of Subsidiarity 346 III. The Societal Perspective 356 A. Competition among Rules, Consistency and Legal Certainty 357 B. Upgrading the Network? 369 IV. Conclusion 382 8 Conclusions 386 Contents