Moving the Pawns of the EU Administrative Law System, on the way to Sound Administration

The aim of this research gravitates on the complexity of the multidimensional network characterizing the polynomy of the EU space. EU institutions, agencies, bodies, offices, Member States and EU citizens are all actors of the same play, interacting outside hierarchical considerations, contributing to forge the multipolarity of this sui generis legal system.
Eminent thinkers bolstered that "Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan", indeed EU teleology points to a pragmatic adaptation to ever-changing reality. How adaptation is sought is then a sensitive issue which has to be duly assessed by public, administrative and constitutional cross-examination. Those actors dress with the masks of graduality and incrementalism, with the view of feeding Europeanisation and the overarching values underpinned thereto. This theses aims at diving into the industriousness percolating from the EU edifice, zooming into surgical procedures operated in the room of Institutional Balance, highlighting recurrent critical junctures linked with institutional degree of latitude, integration of fundamental values and permeability of fundamental rights and general principles.
For this reason, the first chapter illuminates the institutional configuration, glimpsing at the historical premises, rapidly leaving the floor to the hearth of EU policy making, its citizens. The special, original and independent source(s) of law, purport the constitutional validity of the sui generis legal order, allowing its unique and unifying “center of gravity” to amalgamate general principles of law stemming from the constitutional traditions of its Member States. Along this line, multipolarity is tackled by the means of a reflection on the non-subsistence of fixed or predetermined understanding of the EU Administrative machinery. Although national administrative heritage is certainly recognizable, those instrument légers of the EU premises gradually left the floor to far intricate connections skating on the thin ice of repartition of competences. The EU “bicep” administration plunges into fluctuant margins of discretion, whereby the judiciary provide, even too far sometimes, appropriate surveillance upon such a legal public “space”, so that the supranational paradigm is always reconciled. The concept of Verfassungsberbund clearly refers to the features of authority and policymaking commingled into the multi-level constitutional establishment of the EU order, which breath, inter alia, primacy, unity, effectiveness, subsidiarity, sincere cooperation, mutual trust and proportionality. “Variable geometry” is an appropriate caption to elicit the concomitant presence of horizontal coordination and imperio verticality within the multifaceted reality of the EU Administrative realm. Heterogeneity helps to spot the “institutional hybrids” marking the traditional categories of EU law, disclosing at times “asymmetrical constitutional architecture(s)” contaminating the EU “constitutional constellation”. The role of the guardian of the Treaties will be zoomed in, paying heed to the phenomenon of “agencification” along with the evolutionary intensification of its competences. The “Open Method of Coordination” stands as an example to assist the understanding of the interplay between centralized, hard law policy-delivery method and more lenient soft-law instruments, shedding light on the panoplia of legal-political solutions the EU administration is equipped with, accorded to scout the most appropriate remedy in a given matter of discussion. Blends of politics and law float with regular cadence along the flux of the EU acquis. Criticism dives into “judicial activism”, “judicial usurpation of the legislative prerogatives”, “Regulation through litigation”, but those caveats do not convey disruption, rather temporary perturbation that will stimulate the sunlight of the EU teleological tenet to break out again, once properly reasoned. Dialogue, stimulus, harmoniousness, convergence are blended into the receipt of the EU legal order. The “genuine constitutional custom” of trilogues, along with its progenitors, transparency, accountability and efficiency, help to address interconnectedness through the mean of such a “standard and constitutional practice” set outside the Treaties, which reflects “the mutual sincere cooperation that institutions are to practice in the exercise of their powers”. Further investigation is devised to the latitude of the executive in the realm of delegating and implementing powers, for which no simple straightforward dichotomy has ever been disciplined, leaving on the contrary a modest pre-determined frame to canvas the Commission proactiveness. Going on, the preventing and corrective arm of the Economic Governance, both represent two other down streaming elements portraying the institutional interplay. The EU acumen procreated compositeness through marvelous prototypes buttressing the unique institutional equilibrium governing the European Monetary Union (EMU), the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and the Euro Group are two examples, as gimmicks functional to political preparedness and harmony.
The second chapter then focuses on the arena of administrative process of the EU constitutional matrix, starting with a brief taxonomy of the relevant Treaty provisions, then emphasizing the foundational and almost ubiquitous judicial review. Theoretical digressions are pinpointed by legal scholars within the margins of “commonality” and “derogation”, to hallmark polysemous and diverse legal doctrines upon national- supranational administrative legal debate, that unescapably play at the same roundtable, revealing their cards under the label “nationale Unionsrecthe”. The EU judges deviate from predetermined formal distinctions of reviewable acts, refraining from possible clashes or restricting argumentations on the broad margin of appreciation they are empowered with, changing the course in favor of a case-by-case analysis heeded by substantial considerations. Decisiveness of acts is the lighthouse illuminating the judicial hermeneutics, besides juxtaposition of possible commixtures of executive-administrative and judicial prerogatives. The judicial power of intervention gravitates around overarching legal guidance, full and partial annulment, and revocation, but above all, "in the light of the overriding requirement that the most suitable legal protection be provided" on harmonization of Institutional Balance, disciplined by separation of functions, not separation des pouvoirs. The discussion then proceeds gauging more closely the relevance of the apex of the EU law edifice, namely general principles of law, recalling the rugged influence of effectiveness, which permeates the EU legal discipline hand in hand with primacy, unity, sincere cooperation, mutual trust, proportionality and subsidiarity. Further luminance is bestowed to the “Janus-faced” right-principle of good administration. Although upheld as “subsidiary” principle, the coalescence operated by the EU judges to commingle the increasing diversity of the Union administrative action, along with the political input thereto, steered the course of EU policymaking towards high standards of good governance and accountability, permeating horizontally all areas of Community action, while reaffirming unity and convergence. For this reason, this research thoroughly dives into the analysis of the constituting elements of good administration, sharpening the precepts of impartiality, fairness, timeliness, due diligence and care, presumption of innocence, right of defence and sound rationale at the base of administrative action. Colorful and controversial quarrels portrayed the daunting conundrum of enforcement of fundamental rights and general principles. The ambitious reconciliatory function towards EU law-compliant trajectories, pushed the EU judiciary to sinusoidally uphold expansive and restrictive hermeneutics both.
Finally, the last chapter meagerly overview reflections stemming by the comparison with a global perspective of administrative law, underlying the greater complexity it embeds, elevating polynomy to global regulators, acting as “deuteragonists” of a richly heterogeneous and outspread play. The few insights provided in Global Administrative Law are meant to be integrated with additional and nuanced research on the theme.
In conclusion, the research proved the sophistication of the EU Administrative architecture, whereby multifaceted composite connections are dynamically molding the sui generis legal order. Such granularity tackles subtle legal conundrums but, with proper guidance, the right trailway to keep abreast of EU law might always be retrieved. One formula is particularly useful to pinpoint the proper mindset: "the European Union is far more integrated in the Member States than the Member States are in the European Union" (K. LENAERTS, 2018).