Financing Services of General Interest in the EU: How do Public Procurement and State Aids Interact to Demarcate between Market Forces and Protection?

Abstract:  The present article reveals the interplay between public procurement and state financing of public services within the regulatory régime of state aids. The symbiotic flexibility embedded in the regime of regulating the award of public contracts which permits the introduction of public policy considerations in dispersing public services is established. This finding removes the often-misunderstood justification of public procurement as an economic exercise, and places its regulation in the centre of an ordo-liberal interpretation of the European integration process. The significance of public procurement for the financing of services of general interest is verified through an asymmetric geometry analysis. The article concludes that the public procurement framework will be relied upon for two main purposes: first to insert competitiveness within the public sector and market forces in the provision of services of general interest and secondly, to be used by the European judiciary and the European Commission as a system to verify conceptual links, create compatibility safeguards and authenticate established principles applicable in state aid regulation.     

The inverted postnational constellation: Identitarian populism in context

As exemplified by the pan‐European ‘Identitarian movement’ (IM), contemporary far‐right populism defies the habitual matrix within which right‐wing radicalism has been criticised as a negation of liberal cosmopolitanism. The IM's political stance amalgamates features of cultural liberalism and racialist xenophobia into a defence of ‘European way of life.’ We offer an alternative decoding of the phenomenon by drawing on Jürgen Habermas's ‘postnational constellation.’ It casts the IM's protectionist qua chauvinistic populism as ‘inverted’ postnationalism, engendered through territorial and ethnic appropriation of universal political values. As such, inclusionary ideals of cosmopolitan liberalism and democracy purporting humanistic postnationalism have been transformed by Identitarians into elements of a privileged civilisational life‐style to be protected from ‘intruders.’ Remaining within the remit of the grammar of the postnational constellation, trans‐European chauvinism, we contend, is susceptible to inclusive articulation. Foregrounding radical emancipatory social transformation would however require not more democracy, but a principled critique of capitalism.     

公益行政诉讼及其在我国的构建

本文主张在本次修订《行政诉讼法》中引入公益行政诉讼制度,与以保护公民、法人和其他组织合法权益为宗旨的现行制度并行设置,划分为针对规范性行政规则和针对客观性行政决定两大类。我国现行《行政诉讼法》受到民事诉讼的极大影响,本文认为作为公法制度的行政诉讼需要独立的公法诉讼理论。参考大陆法系国家的主观诉讼和客观诉讼及其诉权理论,本文对行政公益诉讼及其嵌入式制度进行了分析。     

Gender ‘Hostility’, Rape,and the Hate Crime Paradigm

This article examines whether crimes motivated by, or which demonstrate, gender ‘hostility’ should be included within the current framework of hate crime legislation in England and Wales. The article uses the example of rape to explore the parallels (both conceptual and evidential) between gender‐motivated violence and other ‘archetypal’ forms of hate crime. It is asserted that where there is clear evidence of gender hostility during the commission of an offence, a defendant should be pursued in law additionally as a hate crime offender. In particular it is argued that by focusing on the hate‐motivation of many sexual violence offenders, the criminal justice system can begin to move away from its current focus on the ‘sexual’ motivations of offenders and begin to more effectively challenge the gendered prejudices that are frequently causal to such crimes.     

Democracy in Europe: Why the Development of the EU into a Transnational Democracy Is Necessary and How It Is Possible

Can the process of European unification lead to a form of democracy that is at once supranational and situated above the organisational level of a state? The supranational federation should be constructed in such a way that the heterarchical relationship between the Member States and the federation remains intact. The author finds the basis for such an order in the idea of the EU constituted by a ‘doubled’ sovereign—the European citizens and the European peoples (the States). In order to sustain such an order, reforms of the existing European treaties are needed. It is necessary to eliminate the legitimation deficits of the EU in a future Euro‐Union—that is, a more closely integrated core Europe. The European Parliament would have to gain the right to take legislative initiatives, and the so‐called ‘ordinary legislative procedure’, which requires the approval of both chambers, would have to be extended to all policy fields.     

Public Services and the Internal Market: Building Blocks or Persistent Irritant?

Critics such as Fritz Scharpf maintain that in the EU, negative integration (abolishing national rules) by definition wins out over positive integration (adopting new EU rules). This claim is examined here regarding public services—both utilities and welfare services. In EU law, the (partly overlapping) relevant categories are as follows: (1) services of general interest (SGI) and (2) services of general economic interest (SGEI). The latter are provided by undertakings. SGI that are not also SGEI are subject only to non‐discrimination requirements: this covers most welfare services. SGEI must comply with the EU competition and state aid rules, which promotes liberalisation. However, a proportional exception is allowed in so far as necessary for SGEI to carry out their public tasks. Moreover, alongside liberalisation, EU regimes for public services have emerged that benefit citizens/consumers. In sum, public services can now arguably be seen as building blocks of the internal market.     

Citizen Redress in Public Contracting for Human Services

This article examines from a regulatory perspective the legal position of citizens in respect of contracted out human services. It argues that the inadequate protection of individual interests and the public interest here is a reflection of increasingly complex relationships between the state and independent sectors, expressed in the essentially hybrid character of contemporary public service organisation. Accordingly a hybrid reform strategy, rather than one that attempts to extend or develop private or public law in any particular direction, is most likely to be successful in addressing associated legal governance problems. The attainment of improved redress for service recipients, and increased accountability of contractors and other parties engaged in human services networks, requires the careful tailoring of remedies to the conditions prevailing in particular sectors. The goal of responsive law should be to foster qualities of good administration and respect for fundamental public interest values within the whole range of regulated agencies and bodies performing public service functions.     

民事调解书的检察监督

对民事调解书进行检察监督是2012年民事诉讼法的新规定,也是我国检察机关的新任务。对调解书的监督与对判决、裁定的监督存在多方面的差异,只有充分认知和把握两者的区别,对民事调解书的检察监督才能顺利进行。民事诉讼法第208条中的"调解书",解释上应包括调解笔录、司法确认裁定书,但不包括仲裁调解书。对调解书的监督,应当采用依职权监督的方式。授权检察机关对损害国家利益、社会公共利益的调解书进行监督的规定属于法律中的一般性条款,检察机关正确实施监督的关键在于恰当界定调解书是否损害这两种利益。对国家利益、社会公共利益应当采用目的性扩张的解释方法,调解书违反法律的禁止性规定、严重违背社会公德、损害集体经济组织利益、损害社会弱势群体利益的,也应当视为损害国家利益、社会公共利益。损害案外人利益的虚假诉讼的调解书,也应成为监督的对象。适用民事诉讼法第208条时,还应注意国家利益与社会公共利益在一些情况下难以精确地界定和区分。     

Strict Compliance versus Commercial Reality: The Practical Application of EC Public Procurement Law to the UK's Private Finance Initiative

Abstract: The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) has been described as the largest cultural change for decades in the way the public sector operates in the United Kingdom. Most of these projects have to be delivered within the framework of public procurement law. This article investigates whether the divergence between the legal framework and the commercial requirements of PFI has resulted in the development of a ‘PFI procurement practice’. If so, it is aimed to examine the reasons for developing the practice and whether it deviated from procurement law. The results of the qualitative empirical study, on which the article is based, are not limited to PFI procurement, but have wider implications for EC procurement law and the general debate over whether it is suitable for modern procurement practice. The findings are also of interest to legal sociologists and European Union lawyers as they describe circumstances under which addressees of the law deviate from supra‐national rules.     

Social Insurance Monopolies in Community Competition Law and the Italian Constitution: 'Practical' Convergences and 'Theoretical' Conflicts

An Italian judge, following earlier suggestions of the national antitrust Authority, has referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC Treaty two questions on the interpretation of Articles 81 and 86 of the EC Treaty. With those questions, raised in an action brought by a self‐employee against the Istituto Nazionale per l'Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro (INAIL) concerning the actor's refusal to pay for social insurance contributions, the Tribunale di Vicenza has in summary asked the Court of Justice whether the public entity concerned, managing a general scheme for the social insurance of accidents at work and professional diseases, can be qualified as an enterprise under Article 81 EC Treaty and, if so, whether its dominant position can be considered in contrast with EC competition rules. This article takes this preliminary reference as a starting point to consider in more general terms the complex constitutional issues raised by what Ge´rard Lyon‐Caen has evocatively called the progressive ‘infiltration’ of EC competition rules into the national systems of labour and social security law. The analysis is particularly focused on the significant risks of ‘constitutional collision’, between the ‘solidaristic’ principles enshrined in the Italian constitution and the fundamental market freedoms protected by the EC competition rules, which are implied by the questions raised in the preliminary reference. It considers first the evolution of ECJ case law—from Poucet and Pistre to Albany International BV—about the limits Member States have in granting exclusive rights to social security institutions under EC competition rules. It then considers specularly, from the Italian constitutional law perspective, the most recent case law of the Italian Constitutional Court on the same issues. The ‘contextual’ reading of the ECJ's and the Italian Constitutional Court's case law with specific regard to the case referred to by the Tribunale di Vicenza leads to the conclusion that there will probably be a ‘practical convergence’in casu between the ‘European’ and the ‘national’ approach. Following the arguments put forward by the Court of Justice in Albany, the INAIL should not be considered as an enterprise, in line also with a recent decision of the Italian Constitutional Court. And even when it was to be qualified as an enterprise, the INAIL should in any case be able to escape the ‘accuse’ of abuse of dominant position and be allowed to retain its exclusive rights, pursuant to Article 86 of the EC Treaty. This ‘practical convergence’in casu does not, however, remove the latent ‘theoretical conflict’ between the two approaches and the risk of ‘constitutional collision’ that it implies. A risk of a ‘conflict’ of that kind could be obviously detrimental for the European integration process. The Italian Constitutional Court claims for herself the control over the fundamental principles of the national constitutional order, assigning them the role of ‘counter‐limits’ to the supremacy of European law and to European integration. At the same time, and more generally, the pervasive spill over of the EC market and competition law virtually into every area of national regulation runs the risk of undermining the social and democratic values enshrined in the national labour law traditions without compensating the potential de‐regulatory effects through measures of positive integration at the supranational level. This also may contribute to undermine and threaten, in the long run, the (already weak) democratic legitimacy of the European integration process. The search for a more suitable and less elusive and unilateral balance between social rights and economic freedoms at the supranational level should therefore become one of the most relevant tasks of what Joseph Weiler has called the ‘European neo‐constitutionalism’. In this perspective, the article, always looking at the specific questions referred to the Court of Justice by the Tribunale di Vicenza, deals with the issue of the ‘rebalance’ between social rights and economic and market freedoms along three distinct but connected lines of reasoning. The first has to do with the need of a more open and respectful dialogue between the ECJ and the national constitutional courts. The second is linked to the ongoing discussion about the ‘constitutionalization’ of the fundamental social rights at the EC level. The third finally considers the same issues from the specific point of view of the division of competences between the European Community and the Member States in the area of social (protection) policies.     

The Government’s Regulatory Obligations to Public Utilities Franchise

Under the public utilities franchise system, the executive branch may transfer the task of providing public utilities services for the common good to a private party. It should undertake to regulate and prevent the private party from pursuing its own interests to the detriment of public interest while discharging its duty under the public utilities franchise. Since any public interest must be enjoyed by all individuals, we can say that the obligations owed under administrative regulations aim at the ultimate goal of increasing individual welfare. In the public utilities franchise system, regulations of this kind can be divided into six different categories: maintaining and promoting necessary market competition, ensuring the continuity of public utilities services, ensuring non-discriminatory provision of public utilities services, ensuring the quality of public utilities services, ensuring reasonable charges for public utilities services, and ensuring the conservation of energy and protection of the environment while providing public utilities services. The absence of governmental regulation of the provision of public utilities and of reforms in such services in China has harmed both public interest and the rights and interests of consumers. Some of the problems caused include chaotic market access for public utilities, no guarantee of the sustainability of public utilities, the failure of the universality of public utilities, declining quality of public utilities, sharp rise in the prices of public utilities, insufficient regulations on the conservation of energy and environmental protection, and so on. In order to achieve the effective implementation of the administrative regulations and obligations therein with respect to public utilities and the maximization of public interest, the Chinese government should enhance its consciousness of regulating public utilities, improve the legal system to regulate public utilities, perfect the regulatory system for public utilities, and establish a system of liability to compensate for failures in regulation.     

Still in Deficit: Rights,Regulation, and Democracy in the EU1

Abstract: Critics of the EU's democratic deficit standardly attribute the problem to either sociocultural reasons, principally the lack of a demos and public sphere, or institutional factors, notably the lack of electoral accountability because of the limited ability of the European Parliament to legislate and control the executive powers of the Commission and the Council of Ministers. Recently two groups of theorists have argued neither deficit need prove problematic. The first group adopts a rights‐based view of democracy and claims that a European consensus on rights, as represented by the Charter of Fundamental European Rights, can offer the basis of citizen allegiance to EU wide democracy, thereby overcoming the demos deficit. The second group adopts a public‐interest view of democracy and argues that so long as delegated authorities enact policies that are ‘for’ the people, then the absence of institutional forms that facilitate democracy ‘by’ the people are likewise unnecessary—indeed, in certain areas they may be positively harmful. This article argues that both views are normatively and empirically flawed. This is because there is no consensus on rights or the public interest apart from the majority view of a demos secured through parliamentary institutions. To the extent that these remain absent at the EU level, a democratic deficit continues to exist.     

Beyond Constitutionalism: The Search for a European Political Imagination

Two recent books, Joseph Weiler's The Constitution of Europe and Larry Siedentop's Democracy in Europe, seek to address one of the defining issues in contemporary European legal studies; the search for a European public philosophy. Both site their critiques within a particular jurisprudential tradition, the modernist; one that is bound up with anxieties about legitimacy and constitutionalism. This review article suggests that the ‘new’ Europe has been too easily distracted by the lures of constitutionalism, and more particularly by the temptations of Treaties. Public philosophies are not found in Treaty articles. Rather, a public philosophy is a state of mind, a product of the political imagination. And it is the absence of such an imagination which lies at the root of contemporary concerns regarding constitutionalism and legitimacy; the concerns which underpin Weiler's and Siedentop's books. A discussion of these books, in the first two parts of this article, is followed by a discussion of Godfried Wilhelm Leibniz's ‘universal’ jurisprudence. It is suggested that such a jurisprudence is better able to furnish a public philosophy for the ‘new’ Europe; just as, indeed, it was for the ‘old’ Europe. Moreover, such a jurisprudence is far more than a mere theory of laws and constitutions. Leibniz's jurisprudence requires that we think, not merely ‘beyond’ sovereignty, or even beyond democracy, but beyond constitutionalism.     

Governing digital societies: Private platforms,public values

Online digital platforms have deeply penetrated every sector in society, disrupting markets, labor relations and institutions, while transforming social and civic practices. Moreover, platform dynamics have affected the very core of democratic processes and political communication. After a decade of platform euphoria, in which tech companies were celebrated for empowering ordinary users, problems have been mounting over the past three years. Disinformation, fake news, and hate speech spread via YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook poisoned public discourse and influenced elections. The Facebook—Cambridge Analytica scandal epitomized the many privacy breaches and security leaks dogging social media networks. Further compounded by charges of tax evasion and the undermining of fair labor laws, big tech companies are facing a serious ‘techlash’. As some argued, the promotion of longstanding public values such as tolerance, democracy, and transparency are increasingly compromised by the global ‘exports’ of American tech companies which dominate the online infrastructure for the distribution of online cultural goods: news, video, social talk, and private communication (Geltzer & Gosh, 2018). As extensively discussed in our book ‘The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connected World’, the digitization and ‘platformization’ of societies involve several intense struggles between competing ideological systems and their contesting actors, prompting important questions: Who should be responsible for anchoring public values in platform societies that are driven by algorithms and fueled by data? What kind of public values should be negotiated? And how can European citizens and governments guard certain social and cultural values while being dependent on a platform ecosystem which architecture is based on commercial values and is rooted in a neolibertarian world view?     

Testing Times Ahead: Non‐Invasive Prenatal Testing and the Kind of Community We Want to Be

This article reviews the Nuffield Council on Bioethics’ report on Non‐Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT); and introduces two general questions provoked by the report – concerning, respectively, the nature and extent of the informational interests that are to be recognised in today's ‘information societies’ and the membership of today's ‘genetic societies’. The article also considers the role and nature of the Nuffield Council. While the Council's report identifies a range of individual and collective interests that are relevant to determining the legitimate uses of NIPT, we argue that it should put these interests into an order of importance; we sketch how this might be done; and we suggest that, failing such a prioritisation of interests, the Council should present its reflections in a way that engages public debate around a number of options rather than making firm recommendations.     

Civil Society and the Re-imagination of European Constitutionalism

Abstract: The twin concepts of constitutionalism and democracy, which offer a complex template for the structural organisation of a polity, can be understood in terms of a dialectic of complementary but competing values, values represented by responsiveness to an existing order and innovation towards a potentially new order. Recognising this necessarily dynamic relationship, an essentialist reading of a constitutionalisation of the demos is abandoned, and an examination of the extent to which the dialectic can credibly or legitimately be played out in a supranational ‘community’ and in the context of an emerging transnational civil society can be undertaken. Rather than seeking credibility or legitimacy through the rationalisation of a community by an ethical consensus as in some forms of republicanism and communitarianism, the dialectic opens up the norms and boundaries of the polity and leads to an understanding of the ‘community’ in less rigid and more diffuse, even plural, terms. Once understood in this way the possibility emerges for legitimacy to be pursued through a public sphere enlarged by a context‐transcending constitutional discourse mediated by transnational civil society. Alternatively the normative ‘openness’ of the polity might be prioritised and with it the uncertainty/fluidity of the constitutional arrangement itself; in this way the legitimate pursuit of constitutionalism is understood in terms of a never‐ending agonistic struggle or experimental practice.     

The Territorial Scope of Employment Legislation and Choice of Law

Traditionally, the determination of the territorial scope of the statutory rights conferred by employment legislation forming part of English law has been regarded as an issue entirely disconnected from the choice‐of‐law process. Indeed, this view formed the basis of the key decision addressing the problem of territoriality, Lawson v Serco, decided by the House of Lords in 2006. After presenting the current state of the law with regard to the territorial scope of employment legislation, this article takes a critical look at Lawson v Serco. It is argued that the ‘European’ choice‐of‐law rules must have a greater importance for determining the territorial scope of employment legislation and, consequently, that the approach pursued in Lawson v Serco is no longer correct, if it ever was, and should not be followed in the future.     

关于“公共利益”的界定模式

宪法关于“公共利益”的规定,需要在国家权力运行活动中具体化。如何将“公共利益”具体化呢?学界和实务界提出了三种基本模式。第一种是人大以“一事一议”方式界定“公共利益”,第二种是由司法承担对“公共利益”的最终界定,第三种是人大以列举式立法模式将“公共利益”具体化、固置化。第一种模式正确认识到界定“公共利益”属于权力机关的权限,但具体方式却不可行;第二种司法决定模式既缺乏实质合法性,又没有技术可行性;第三种模式在立法上虽有一定困难,但也有其他国家和地区成功经验可资,是实现宪法“公共利益”规定对公民权利保护和对国家权力制约的惟一现实可行之路。要在国家权力运行上界定“公共利益”,还必须解决目前我国“公共利益”泛化掩盖下的许多具体矛盾。     

European Civil Society: Shaped by Discourses and Institutional Interests

Abstract: During recent years, the concept of European civil society has gained increasing popularity. The European Institutions themselves have developed a discourse on civil society and civil dialogue. Institutional interests have shaped this discourse. Reframing the normative context for EU democracy, this discourse suits some institutions better than others. In particular, the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Commission have made recourse to it; the former to redefine its proper role and combat the risk of marginalisation within the European institutional set‐up; the latter first to build support for policy initiatives in the social sphere and subsequently to respond to the legitimacy crisis of the Brussels’ bureaucracy. These institutional interests have inspired a conceptualisation of civil society as ‘functional participation’ and ‘functional representation’ rather than as ‘politicisation’ or ‘decentralisation’. However, while the Commission and the ESC have had some success in selling their discourse, to be successful in the longer run some problematic assumptions of the discourse should be tackled and both the different rationales for civil society involvement as well as the multi‐level character of European civil society and European policymaking should be taken into account.     

Commons as possessions: The path to protection of the commons in the ECHR system

The ‘commons’ is not mentioned in the texts of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P‐1). This essay argues that ‘possessions’ — which does appear in the latter — should be interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to protect commons against national governments' undue interferences. The argument comprises two parts. First, we analyse the polysemic term ‘possessions’ to show how the current understanding of this category is marred by flawed assumptions and by false dichotomies. Then, we propose an ‘ecological’ construction of legal relationships between subjects and objects. We find support in the ECtHR case law on Article 8. We argue this approach should be extended to Article 1 P‐1: once disentangled from possessive individualism and market paradigms, ‘possessions’ encompass the commons and the category offers a solid legal basis toward the justiciability in Strasbourg of privatisations.