File #2631: "2019_Book_JudicialReviewOfAdministrative.pdf"
Text
1|Preface|5
2|Rethinking the Constitutional Design of Administrative Law: Judicial Review in the Administrative State|5
1|Contents|13
1|Editors and Contributors|15
1|Judicial Review from a Constitutional and Comparative Perspective|17
1|1 Judicial Review in the Administrative State|18
2|Abstract|18
2|1.1 The Role of the “Administrative State”|19
2|1.2 The Role of Judicial Review as a Mechanism of Accountability|23
2|1.3 The Special Tasks of Judicial Review|27
2|1.4 Influences on Judicial Review: Braiding|30
2|1.5 What Are the Conditions for “Braiding” to Work?|38
2|1.6 Conclusion|40
2|References|40
1|2 Constitutional Genealogy of Judicial Review in the Administrative State|42
2|Abstract|42
2|2.1 The Significance of the Law of Procedure|43
2|2.2 Changes in the Constitutional Context|46
2|2.3 The Emancipation of Administrative Law from Being the Law of the Executive Function|47
2|2.4 Conclusion|50
2|References|51
1|3 The European Court of Justice and the Standard of Judicial Review|53
2|Abstract|53
2|3.1 Introduction|54
2|3.2 Procedural Autonomy and Beyond?|55
2|3.3 Unlimited Jurisdiction|58
3|3.3.1 Unlimited Jurisdiction Before the Union Courts|58
3|3.3.2 Unlimited Jurisdiction Before the National Courts?|59
2|3.4 Strict Substantive Legality Review of Interferences with Fundamental Rights|60
3|3.4.1 Strict Substantive Review in Fundamental Rights Cases|60
3|3.4.2 Process Review in Fundamental Rights Cases?|62
2|3.5 Differentiated Intensity of Judicial Review on the Basis of Article 47 CFR|63
3|3.5.1 Thorough Review of the Statement of Reasons in Samba Diouf|63
3|3.5.2 Restrained Review of the Statement of Review in Berlioz|64
3|3.5.3 Result-Driven Rather than Strict Review in Egenberger|66
2|3.6 Process Review of Margins of Appreciation and Discretion|67
3|3.6.1 Process Review Before the Union Courts|67
3|3.6.2 Process Review Before the National Courts|71
2|3.7 Some Reflections|72
3|3.7.1 National Procedural Autonomy Is Vanishing|72
3|3.7.2 On Substantive, Procedural and Semi-Procedural Review|73
2|3.8 Conclusion|74
2|References|75
1|4 Judicial Scrutiny of Regulatory Decisions at the UK’s Specialist Competition Appeal Tribunal|77
2|Abstract|77
2|4.1 The Institutional Landscape of Regulatory Appeals in a Nutshell|80
2|4.2 The Specialist/Specialist Interplay: CAT Versus Regulators|82
3|4.2.1 The Impact of the CAT’s Institutional Features on the Intensity of Review|82
3|4.2.2 The Albion Saga|84
2|4.3 ‘Regulating’ the CAT: The Court of Appeal’s Influence on the CAT’s Decision-Making Process|88
2|4.4 Conclusion|93
2|References|94
1|Judicial Review in the Administrative State and the Impact on Dutch Administrative Law|95
1|5 A Future Perspective on Judicial Review of Generally Binding Regulations in the Netherlands: Towards a Substantive Three-Step Proportionality Test?|96
2|Abstract|96
2|5.1 Introduction|97
2|5.2 Changes in the Constitutional Framework|99
2|5.3 The Role of the Courts in the Administrative State: The Courts as Regulatory Watchdogs?|100
2|5.4 Proportionality in a Legislative Context|102
3|5.4.1 The Proportionality Principle as a Standard of Conduct in Administrative Rulemaking|102
3|5.4.2 Proportionality in Dutch Legislative Practice: The Case of the Alcohol Lock|104
3|5.4.3 The Need for a Notice and Comment Procedure in Dutch Administrative Law?|105
2|5.5 Current Developments on Proportionality in Dutch Case Law|106
3|5.5.1 From Arbitrariness to Proportionality Stricto Sensu|107
3|5.5.2 Recent Developments: Towards a Process-Oriented Three-Step Proportionality Test?|108
2|5.6 Future Step: Towards a More Substantive Plausibility Test of the Proportionality Claim?|109
2|5.7 Conclusions|112
2|References|113
1|6 Judicial Review in Dutch Environmental Law: General Observations|115
2|Abstract|115
2|6.1 Introduction|116
2|6.2 The Dutch Context: The System of Legal Protection Against the Government|117
2|6.3 The Development of the Doctrine on the Basis of the Supreme Court Judgment in Doetinchem|120
2|6.4 Intermezzo: The European Court of Human Rights Demands Judicial Legal Protection Against Government Decisions in Benthem|121
2|6.5 The General Administrative Law Act as the Green Light for Further Development of the Doctrine with Harmonising Effect on Various Subareas of Administrative Law|123
2|6.6 Conclusion, with an Outlook for the Future: After Harmonisation, Moving Towards Differentiation and a Greater Focus on Proportionality, but with Limits due to the Specific Expertise of the Administration|125
3|6.6.1 Moving Towards Differentiation and a Focus on Proportionality|125
3|6.6.2 But with Limits, Due to the Necessary Expertise|128
2|References|130
1|7 Judicial Review in Dutch Environmental Law; from the Judge’s Perspective|133
2|Abstract|133
2|7.1 Introduction|134
2|7.2 The Project on Developing a More Comprehensive Form of Judicial Review|136
3|7.2.1 First Steps in Reviewing Punitive Sanctions|136
3|7.2.2 More Comprehensive Review in Other Areas|137
4|7.2.2.1 Reviewing Policy|137
4|7.2.2.2 Reviewing Legislation|138
3|7.2.3 More Comprehensive Review Demands a Different Attitude on the Part of the Courts to the Establishment of the Facts|140
3|7.2.4 Judicial Review and the Digitalisation of Government Processes|142
2|7.3 Some Conclusions|144
2|References|144
1|8 Who Guards the Guardians? Judicial Oversight of the Authority Consumer and Market’s Energy Regulations in the Netherlands|145
2|Abstract|145
2|8.1 Introduction|146
2|8.2 Energy Regulation in the Netherlands|151
2|8.3 Judicial Review by the CBB Between 2002 and 2018|152
3|8.3.1 Traditional Standard and Intensity of Review of Policy- and Discretionary Powers|152
3|8.3.2 Case Law Analysis|153
4|8.3.2.1 Starting Costs|154
4|8.3.2.2 Opening RAB|157
4|8.3.2.3 WACC|160
4|8.3.2.4 The LUP Cases|160
4|8.3.2.5 The Negative X-Factor|165
3|8.3.3 Is the CBB Heading Towards a More Intensive Judicial Scrutiny of the ACM’s Regulatory Decisions Beyond 2013?|166
4|8.3.3.1 Right to Be Connected to the Gas Grid (Gas Connection Case)|166
4|8.3.3.2 Method Decision Fourth Regulatory Period|168
4|8.3.3.3 Amount of Efficiency Parameter|169
4|8.3.3.4 Compensation for Foreign Capital in the WACC|170
2|8.4 Judicial Review in the Modern Regulatory Administrative State|171
3|8.4.1 Analysis Case Law Between 2002 and 2013 and Beyond|171
3|8.4.2 Marginal Judicial Review Criticised|172
3|8.4.3 Risks of Substantive Review|174
3|8.4.4 The Scope and Intensity of Judicial Review: Procedural-Proportionality Review?|175
2|8.5 Conclusion|179
2|References|180
1|Final Observations|184
1|9 Judicial Review in Administrative Governance: A Theoretical Framework for Comparative Analysis|185
2|Abstract|185
2|9.1 Introduction|186
2|9.2 Judicial Review as a ‘Fire Alarm’: The Perspective of Principal-Agent Theory|187
2|9.3 Complications and Complexities: Constructivism, History, and Genealogy|189
2|9.4 Reconciling Democracy, Technocracy, and Juristocracy|191
3|9.4.1 Democracy|191
3|9.4.2 Technocracy|192
3|9.4.3 Juristocracy|193
2|9.5 Elements of a Framework for Comparative Analysis|194
3|9.5.1 Five Basic Questions (and the Historical Genealogy That Might Help Answer Them)|194
3|9.5.2 Which Forum? Which Judge?|196
3|9.5.3 What Scope of Review? What Depth of Review?|197
3|9.5.4 The Dutch Context|199
2|9.6 Conclusion: Why Judicial Review?|200
2|References|202
1|10 Observations and Outlook|205
2|References|208
2|Rethinking the Constitutional Design of Administrative Law: Judicial Review in the Administrative State|5
1|Contents|13
1|Editors and Contributors|15
1|Judicial Review from a Constitutional and Comparative Perspective|17
1|1 Judicial Review in the Administrative State|18
2|Abstract|18
2|1.1 The Role of the “Administrative State”|19
2|1.2 The Role of Judicial Review as a Mechanism of Accountability|23
2|1.3 The Special Tasks of Judicial Review|27
2|1.4 Influences on Judicial Review: Braiding|30
2|1.5 What Are the Conditions for “Braiding” to Work?|38
2|1.6 Conclusion|40
2|References|40
1|2 Constitutional Genealogy of Judicial Review in the Administrative State|42
2|Abstract|42
2|2.1 The Significance of the Law of Procedure|43
2|2.2 Changes in the Constitutional Context|46
2|2.3 The Emancipation of Administrative Law from Being the Law of the Executive Function|47
2|2.4 Conclusion|50
2|References|51
1|3 The European Court of Justice and the Standard of Judicial Review|53
2|Abstract|53
2|3.1 Introduction|54
2|3.2 Procedural Autonomy and Beyond?|55
2|3.3 Unlimited Jurisdiction|58
3|3.3.1 Unlimited Jurisdiction Before the Union Courts|58
3|3.3.2 Unlimited Jurisdiction Before the National Courts?|59
2|3.4 Strict Substantive Legality Review of Interferences with Fundamental Rights|60
3|3.4.1 Strict Substantive Review in Fundamental Rights Cases|60
3|3.4.2 Process Review in Fundamental Rights Cases?|62
2|3.5 Differentiated Intensity of Judicial Review on the Basis of Article 47 CFR|63
3|3.5.1 Thorough Review of the Statement of Reasons in Samba Diouf|63
3|3.5.2 Restrained Review of the Statement of Review in Berlioz|64
3|3.5.3 Result-Driven Rather than Strict Review in Egenberger|66
2|3.6 Process Review of Margins of Appreciation and Discretion|67
3|3.6.1 Process Review Before the Union Courts|67
3|3.6.2 Process Review Before the National Courts|71
2|3.7 Some Reflections|72
3|3.7.1 National Procedural Autonomy Is Vanishing|72
3|3.7.2 On Substantive, Procedural and Semi-Procedural Review|73
2|3.8 Conclusion|74
2|References|75
1|4 Judicial Scrutiny of Regulatory Decisions at the UK’s Specialist Competition Appeal Tribunal|77
2|Abstract|77
2|4.1 The Institutional Landscape of Regulatory Appeals in a Nutshell|80
2|4.2 The Specialist/Specialist Interplay: CAT Versus Regulators|82
3|4.2.1 The Impact of the CAT’s Institutional Features on the Intensity of Review|82
3|4.2.2 The Albion Saga|84
2|4.3 ‘Regulating’ the CAT: The Court of Appeal’s Influence on the CAT’s Decision-Making Process|88
2|4.4 Conclusion|93
2|References|94
1|Judicial Review in the Administrative State and the Impact on Dutch Administrative Law|95
1|5 A Future Perspective on Judicial Review of Generally Binding Regulations in the Netherlands: Towards a Substantive Three-Step Proportionality Test?|96
2|Abstract|96
2|5.1 Introduction|97
2|5.2 Changes in the Constitutional Framework|99
2|5.3 The Role of the Courts in the Administrative State: The Courts as Regulatory Watchdogs?|100
2|5.4 Proportionality in a Legislative Context|102
3|5.4.1 The Proportionality Principle as a Standard of Conduct in Administrative Rulemaking|102
3|5.4.2 Proportionality in Dutch Legislative Practice: The Case of the Alcohol Lock|104
3|5.4.3 The Need for a Notice and Comment Procedure in Dutch Administrative Law?|105
2|5.5 Current Developments on Proportionality in Dutch Case Law|106
3|5.5.1 From Arbitrariness to Proportionality Stricto Sensu|107
3|5.5.2 Recent Developments: Towards a Process-Oriented Three-Step Proportionality Test?|108
2|5.6 Future Step: Towards a More Substantive Plausibility Test of the Proportionality Claim?|109
2|5.7 Conclusions|112
2|References|113
1|6 Judicial Review in Dutch Environmental Law: General Observations|115
2|Abstract|115
2|6.1 Introduction|116
2|6.2 The Dutch Context: The System of Legal Protection Against the Government|117
2|6.3 The Development of the Doctrine on the Basis of the Supreme Court Judgment in Doetinchem|120
2|6.4 Intermezzo: The European Court of Human Rights Demands Judicial Legal Protection Against Government Decisions in Benthem|121
2|6.5 The General Administrative Law Act as the Green Light for Further Development of the Doctrine with Harmonising Effect on Various Subareas of Administrative Law|123
2|6.6 Conclusion, with an Outlook for the Future: After Harmonisation, Moving Towards Differentiation and a Greater Focus on Proportionality, but with Limits due to the Specific Expertise of the Administration|125
3|6.6.1 Moving Towards Differentiation and a Focus on Proportionality|125
3|6.6.2 But with Limits, Due to the Necessary Expertise|128
2|References|130
1|7 Judicial Review in Dutch Environmental Law; from the Judge’s Perspective|133
2|Abstract|133
2|7.1 Introduction|134
2|7.2 The Project on Developing a More Comprehensive Form of Judicial Review|136
3|7.2.1 First Steps in Reviewing Punitive Sanctions|136
3|7.2.2 More Comprehensive Review in Other Areas|137
4|7.2.2.1 Reviewing Policy|137
4|7.2.2.2 Reviewing Legislation|138
3|7.2.3 More Comprehensive Review Demands a Different Attitude on the Part of the Courts to the Establishment of the Facts|140
3|7.2.4 Judicial Review and the Digitalisation of Government Processes|142
2|7.3 Some Conclusions|144
2|References|144
1|8 Who Guards the Guardians? Judicial Oversight of the Authority Consumer and Market’s Energy Regulations in the Netherlands|145
2|Abstract|145
2|8.1 Introduction|146
2|8.2 Energy Regulation in the Netherlands|151
2|8.3 Judicial Review by the CBB Between 2002 and 2018|152
3|8.3.1 Traditional Standard and Intensity of Review of Policy- and Discretionary Powers|152
3|8.3.2 Case Law Analysis|153
4|8.3.2.1 Starting Costs|154
4|8.3.2.2 Opening RAB|157
4|8.3.2.3 WACC|160
4|8.3.2.4 The LUP Cases|160
4|8.3.2.5 The Negative X-Factor|165
3|8.3.3 Is the CBB Heading Towards a More Intensive Judicial Scrutiny of the ACM’s Regulatory Decisions Beyond 2013?|166
4|8.3.3.1 Right to Be Connected to the Gas Grid (Gas Connection Case)|166
4|8.3.3.2 Method Decision Fourth Regulatory Period|168
4|8.3.3.3 Amount of Efficiency Parameter|169
4|8.3.3.4 Compensation for Foreign Capital in the WACC|170
2|8.4 Judicial Review in the Modern Regulatory Administrative State|171
3|8.4.1 Analysis Case Law Between 2002 and 2013 and Beyond|171
3|8.4.2 Marginal Judicial Review Criticised|172
3|8.4.3 Risks of Substantive Review|174
3|8.4.4 The Scope and Intensity of Judicial Review: Procedural-Proportionality Review?|175
2|8.5 Conclusion|179
2|References|180
1|Final Observations|184
1|9 Judicial Review in Administrative Governance: A Theoretical Framework for Comparative Analysis|185
2|Abstract|185
2|9.1 Introduction|186
2|9.2 Judicial Review as a ‘Fire Alarm’: The Perspective of Principal-Agent Theory|187
2|9.3 Complications and Complexities: Constructivism, History, and Genealogy|189
2|9.4 Reconciling Democracy, Technocracy, and Juristocracy|191
3|9.4.1 Democracy|191
3|9.4.2 Technocracy|192
3|9.4.3 Juristocracy|193
2|9.5 Elements of a Framework for Comparative Analysis|194
3|9.5.1 Five Basic Questions (and the Historical Genealogy That Might Help Answer Them)|194
3|9.5.2 Which Forum? Which Judge?|196
3|9.5.3 What Scope of Review? What Depth of Review?|197
3|9.5.4 The Dutch Context|199
2|9.6 Conclusion: Why Judicial Review?|200
2|References|202
1|10 Observations and Outlook|205
2|References|208