Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sanctions Against Individuals and the Rule of Law: Can the Member States Let the EU Decide?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The European Union and the Return of the Nation State

  • 567 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter takes the question of how to guarantee the rule of law within the scope of application of Union law. The rule of law in this context requires, according to the author, that the exercise of public power is constrained and possible to hold accountable through principles of legality and legal certainty, as well as constitutional guarantees for the protection of fundamental rights. The overarching question addressed in the chapter is this: who is it—the Union or the member states—that ultimately guarantees the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights when sanctions against individuals are decided within the ambit of European Union (EU) law? Can the member states actually rely on the EU to guarantee that decisions which may subject individuals to sanctions are made on a secure basis?

The author would like to express her gratitude to Gustaf Sjöberg and Antonina Bakardjieva Engelbrekt of the Faculty of Law, Stockholm University, and to Aron Szugalski Verständig, Finansinspektionen, for valuable input on this chapter. Many thanks also to Peter Mayers for translation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Harlow (2006: 212) refers to ‘the twin ideals of democracy and rule of law’ as the legitimating principles of any Western system of administrative law. See also The European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission) (2011: 41).

  2. 2.

    Compare the ECHR and the EU Charter, which both require exceptions to the rights they lay down. In the case of the ECHR, this is done in each exemptible article, as in Article 8.2. In the case of EU Charter, it is done in Article 52.1.

  3. 3.

    See, for example, Article 6 ECHR and Article 41 and 47 EU Charter.

  4. 4.

    When member states act within the scope of Union law. See, for example, the cases Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, Hauer, and Cipriani (CJEU 1970, 1979, 2002).

  5. 5.

    Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA.

  6. 6.

    See, for example, Article 26 Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on the internal market and Article 16 TFEU on data protection.

  7. 7.

    Articles 2–6 TFEU.

  8. 8.

    See Article 7(2) TEU (Recital 10 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA).

  9. 9.

    De Hert (2017: 160) compares GDPR with the writings of Haruki Murakami’s in ‘riddles are left unsolved, story lines and plots are not always fully developed and some of the strange imaginary lacks clear, rational or empirical coherent meaning’.

  10. 10.

    See Articles 20, 21 and 36 Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.

  11. 11.

    See Article 23 a, 23 b, 23 c Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.

  12. 12.

    Council, Note from the Presidency, Amended proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), etc. Brussels, 29 March 2019 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2017/0230(COD), http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7940-2019-ADD-1/en/pdf.

References

  • Bernitz, U. (2012). Europarättens genomslag. Stockholm: Norstedts Juridik.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovend’Eerdt, K. (2016). The Joined Cases Aranyosi and Căldăraru: A New Limit to the Mutual Trust Presumption in the Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice? Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, 32(83), 112–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiti, E. (2005). The Relationship Between National Administrative Law and European Administrative Law in Administrative Procedures. What’s New in European Administrative Law, EUI Working Paper Law, 10, 7–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council, Note from the Presidency, Amended proposal for a a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), etc. Brussels, 29 March 2019 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2017/0230(COD), http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7940-2019-ADD-1/en/pdf.

  • Court of Justice of the European Union. (1957). Algera v. Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community, C-7/56 and C-3/57 to 7/57. ECLI:EU:C:1957:7. 

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the European Union. (1970). Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, C-11/70. ECLI:EU:C:1970:114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the European Union. (1979). Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz, C-44/79. ECLI:EU:C:1979:290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the European Union. (1989). Wachauf v Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft, C-5/88. ECLI:EU:C:1989:321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the European Union. (1991). Elliniki Radiophonia Tiléorassi (ERT) v Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis, C-260/89. ECLI:EU:C:1991:254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the European Union. (1996). The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd, C-5/94. ECLI:EU:C:1996:205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the European Union. (2002). Cipriani v Ministero delle Finanze, C-395/00. ECLI:EU:C:2002:751.

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the European Union. (2004). Kühne & Heitz NV v. Produktschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren, C-453/00. ECLI:EU:C:2004:17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the European Union. (2008). Vereniging Nationaal Overlegorgaan Sociale Werkvoorziening, C-383/06–385/06. ECLI:EU:C:2008:165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the European Union. (2011). N. S. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, C-411/10 and C-493/10. ECLI:EU:C:2011:865.

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the European Union. (2013a). Åkerberg Fransson, C-617/10. ECLI:EU:C:2013:105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the European Union. (2013b). Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal, C-399/11. ECLI:EU:C:2013:107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the European Union. (2013c). Agroferm A/S v. Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, C-568/11. ECLI:EU:C:2013:407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the European Union. (2016). Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru, C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU. ECLI:EU:C:2016:198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the European Union. (2017). C. K. et al. v. Republika Slovenija, C-578/16 PPU. ECLI:EU:C:2017:127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the European Union. (2018). LM, C-216/18 PPU. ECLI:EU:C:2018:586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Data Protection Working Party. (2017, October 3). Guidelines on the Application and Setting of Administrative Fines for the Purposes of the Regulation 2016/679 (WP 253). Retrieved July 4, 2019, from ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?doc_id=47889.

  • De Hert, P. (2017). Data Protection as Bundles of Principles, General Rights, Concrete Subjective Rights and Rules: Piercing the Veil of Stability Surrounding the Principles of Data Protection. European Data Protection Law Review, 3, 160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Lucia, L. (2012). Conflict and Cooperation Within European Composite Administration (Between Philia and Eris). Review of European Administrative Law, 5(1), 49–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougan, M. (2015). Judicial Review of Member State Action Under the General Principles and the Charter: Defining the “Scope of Union Law”. Common Market Law Review, 52(5), 1201–1245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eeckhout, P. (2002). The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Federal Question. Common Market Law Review, 39(5), 945–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efrat, A. (2019). Assessing Mutual Trust Among EU Members: Evidence from the European Arrest Warrant. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(5), 656–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2017). Commission Proposal, 2017/0230 (COD), 20 September 2017. COM(2017) 536 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Court of Human Rights. (2011). M. S. S. v. Belgium and Greece, No 30696/09. ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0121JUD003069609.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Court of Human Rights. (2015). Varga and Others v. Hungary, Nos 14097/12, 45135/12, 73712/12, 34001/13, 44055/13 and 64586/13. ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0310JUD001409712.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fast, K. (2014). Tusen skäl att förekomma istället för att förekommas-en kommentar till dubbelbestraffningsfallen i EU-domstolen och Högsta domstolen 2013. Juridisk Tidskrift, 1, 24–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galetta, D.-U., Hofmann, H. C. H., Puigpelat, O. M., & Ziller, J. (2015). The General Principals of EU Administrative Procedural Law. An In-Depth Analysis (RIDPC 2015/5). Rivista Italiano di Diritto Pubblico Comunitario, Anno XXV, Fasc 5–2105, 25, 1421–1437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giurgiu, A., & A Larsen, T. (2016). Roles and Powers of National Data Protection Authorities. European Data Protection Law Review, 2(3), 342–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halila, L., Lankinen, V., & Nilsson, A. (2018). Administrativa sanktionsavgifter: En nordisk komparativ studie. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harlow, C. (2006). Global Administrative Law: The Quest for Principles and Values. European Journal of International Law, 17(1), 187–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlow, C. (2011). Three Phases in the Evolution of EU Administrative Law. In P. Craig & G. de Burca (Eds.), The Evolution of EU Law (pp. 439–464). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hijmans, H. (2016). The DPAs and Their Cooperation: How Far Are We in Making Enforcement of Data Protection Law More European. European Data Protection Law Review, 2, 362–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, H. (2015). Current Debates in European Administrative Law–Background and Perspectives. In J.-B. Auby & T. Perroud (Eds.), Droit de Procedure Administratif. Brussels: Bruylandt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, H. C., Rowe, G. C., & Türk, A. H. (2011). Administrative Law and Policy of the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts, K. (2000). Respect for Fundamental Rights as a Constitutional Principle of the European Union. Columbia Journal of European Law, 6(1), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macchia, M. (2016). 12. The Rule of Law and Transparency in the Global Space. In S. Cassesse (Ed.), Research Handbook on Global Administrative Law (pp. 261–281). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Marguery, T. P. (2018). Towards the End of Mutual Trust? Prison Conditions in the Context of the European Arrest Warrant and the Transfer of Prisoners Framework Decisions. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 25(6), 704–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberlandesgericht for the State of Schleswig-Holstein. (2018). Matter Carles Puigdemont: The Extradition for the Accusation of Embezzlement of Public Funds Is Admissible; An Extradition for the Accusation of Rebellion Is Inadmissible. Carles Puigdemont Remains Free. Retrieved July 4, 2019, from https://www.schleswig-holstein.de/DE/Justiz/OLG/Presse/PI/201806Puigdemontenglisch.html.

  • Reichel, J. (2014). Communicating with the European Composite Administration. German Law Journal, 15(5), 883–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichel, J. (2019). The rule of law in the twilight zone: administrative sanctions within the European composite administration. In R. L. Weaver, D. Fairgrieve, & S. I. Friedland (Eds.), Administrative Law, Administrative Structures, and Administrative Decisionmaking, Comparative Perspectives (The Global Papers Series, Volume IX) (pp. 73–89). Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichel, J., & Chamberlain, J. (2019, September 1). The Relationship Between Damages and Administrative Fines in the EU General Data Protection Regulation. Faculty of Law, Stockholm University Research Paper No. 72 (2019); Mississippi Law Journal, 2020. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3447854 or http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3447854.

  • Suominen, A. (2011). The Principle of Mutual Recognition in Cooperation in Criminal Matters: A Study of the Principle in Four Framework Decisions and in the Implementation Legislation in the Nordic Member States. Cambridge: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden (2016). HFD 2016 ref. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • The European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission) (2011). Report on the Rule of Law, Study No. 512/2009 CDL-AD(2011)003rev.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Guardian. (2018, 19 July). Spanish Court Drops International Warrant for Carles Puigdemont. Retrieved July 4, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/19/spanish-court-drops-international-warrant-puigdemont-catalan.

  • Von Bogdandy, A. (2008). Pluralism, Direct Effect, and the Ultimate Say: On the Relationship Between International and Domestic Constitutional Law. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 6(3–4), 397–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wall, G. (2014). Rättskraft och korrektiv: en förvaltningsrättslig studie. Doctoral dissertation, Uppsala University: Department of Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenander, H. (2017). Skydd för berättigade förväntningar i svensk förvaltningsrätt?– Negativ rättskraft, EU-rätt och styrning av förvaltningen. Förvaltningsrättslig tidskrift, 2017(4), 637–649.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Jane Reichel

Authors
  1. Jane Reichel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jane Reichel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Antonina Bakardjieva Engelbrekt

  2. Department of Government, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Karin Leijon

  3. Department of Government, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Anna Michalski

  4. University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

    Lars Oxelheim

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Reichel, J. (2020). Sanctions Against Individuals and the Rule of Law: Can the Member States Let the EU Decide?. In: Bakardjieva Engelbrekt, A., Leijon, K., Michalski, A., Oxelheim, L. (eds) The European Union and the Return of the Nation State. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35005-5_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation