Suchergebnisse

Several scholars and policy-makers have proposed a "Neo-Brandeisian" reform of U.S. antitrust law, aimed at reviving "republican" antitrust. Republicanism conceives of domination as inherently detrimental to freedom. Republican antitrust considers antitrust law as an "institution of antipower," aimed at dispersing economic power. This paper sets out two key challenges to the Neo-Brandeisian reform agenda and argues for legal formalism to address them. First, republicanism would alter the normative justification, but not necessarily the content of antitrust law. Neoclassical antitrust law does not broadly reflect a Schumpeterian endorsement of dominance. Rather, its epistemological priors and methodology entail skepticism about the mere presence of economic power. Thus, mainstream antitrust law and policy remain unfazed by the Neo-Brandeisian claim that antitrust should target domination instead of consumer welfare. Second, Neo-Brandeisian reform proposals are inherently polycentric. How Neo-Brandeisians aim to balance distinct values including the competitive process, the harm of concentrated power, and the protection of democracy and egalitarianism has remained unclear. This paper argues that both challenges demand for a formalistic approach to Neo-Brandeisian antitrust. Compared to a case-by-case approach, adopting general rules through legislative or administrative decision-making may legitimately overturn current precedent, incorporate alternate methods of measuring power and competitive harm, and pursue a variety of republican goals. Neo-Brandeisian formalism would essentially reinvigorate the Harvard school's insight that multiple purposes—including both efficiency and republican liberty—can be attained by formalistic rules.

In Thelen Technopark (ECLI:EU:C:2022:33), the Court of Justice held that art. 15 of the Services Directive cannot be invoked against a conflicting national law in a horizontal dispute, even though the Court had already definitively established the incompatibility of this national law with the Services Directive in an earlier judgment. In view of the purely internal nature of the dispute – making art. 49 TFEU itself inapplicable – the individual harmed by the violation of the Services Directive could only recover his losses through a separate action for damages against the Member State. This Insight analyses Thelen Technopark in light of the logic and extent of the prohibition of horizontal direct effect of directives, the central role and limits of the doctrine of consistent interpretation, and the direct effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It argues that the Court rightly did not extend the Mangold case law on directives giving concrete expression to a general principle or fundamental right to directives giving concrete expression to a fundamental freedom. This Insight also elaborates on the two proposals of AG Szpunar to allow for horizontal direct effect of the Services Directive either as a specification of art. 49 TFEU, or as a legislative harmonisation of the proportionality of an interference with art. 16 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR). While thought-provoking and worthy of critical analysis, the Court in my view rightly did not follow AG Szpunar's opinion, which likely would have resulted in a doctrinal minefield.

First published online: 09 June 2021 ; This article aims to reconstruct and theorise the autonomy of the European Union (EU) legal system by drawing on Hartian legal theory. It comprises four claims. First, the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) 'foundational case law' on autonomy – and direct effect and supremacy as its corollaries – is conceptualised as a second-order thesis about the genus to which EU law belongs (the 'autonomy thesis'). Second, the ECJ's reliance on the full effectiveness of EU law as a justification for the autonomy thesis alludes to the deep connection between legality and effectiveness, but this connection cannot rationally explain the normativity of the autonomy thesis as an internal statement of law. Third, in order to provide such an explanation, the autonomy thesis is reconceptualised as an 'internal recognitional statement' by which the ECJ asserts a normative formulation of an autonomous EU rule of recognition. Fourth, within this Hartian analysis of the EU legal system, the doctrines of direct effect and supremacy lack self-standing analytical value. This article finishes with some very preliminary observations on a well-known objection against the autonomy of EU law based on the attitudes and perspectivism of national courts.

This article aims to reconstruct and theorise the autonomy of the European Union (EU) legal system by drawing on Hartian legal theory. It comprises four claims. First, the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) 'foundational case law' on autonomy – and direct effect and supremacy as its corollaries – is conceptualised as a second-order thesis about the genus to which EU law belongs (the 'autonomy thesis'). Second, the ECJ's reliance on the full effectiveness of EU law as a justification for the autonomy thesis alludes to the deep connection between legality and effectiveness, but this connection cannot rationally explain the normativity of the autonomy thesis as an internal statement of law. Third, in order to provide such an explanation, the autonomy thesis is reconceptualised as an 'internal recognitional statement' by which the ECJ asserts a normative formulation of an autonomous EU rule of recognition. Fourth, within this Hartian analysis of the EU legal system, the doctrines of direct effect and supremacy lack self-standing analytical value. This article finishes with some very preliminary observations on a well-known objection against the autonomy of EU law based on the attitudes and perspectivism of national courts.

This dissertation comprises eight articles about the role of autonomy, legality and pluralism in European law, in particular the law of the European Union (EU). The first two chapters are about the foundations of the EU legal system. Chapter 2 analyses the doctrine of the supremacy of EU law over conflicting national law. Chapter 3 focuses more generally on the creation and development of the EU legal system by reference to H.L.A. Hart's theory of law. This chapter aims to show how the case-law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) about autonomy, direct effect and supremacy can be understood as a normative formulation of a "rule of recognition". Chapter 4 concerns the EU internal market case-law of the ECJ. The autonomy of EU law entails that the interpretation and meaning of EU internal market law can only be known on the basis of ECJ decisions, which only clarify the law with respect to concrete cases. Chapter 5 focuses on the role of legality in the case-law on direct effect of directives. This chapter introduces a new theory which is capable of explaining the horizontal and inverse vertical direct effect jurisprudence. Chapters 6, 7 and 8, finally, focus on the role of pluralism and autonomy in the interaction between (EU) law and morality. The concluding chapter closes with some final observations about the usefulness of abstract legal theory for the study of European law and the functioning of the EU legal system.