References of "Mendes, Joana 50022901"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailEU Law and Global Regulatory Regimes: Hollowing Out Procedural Standards?
Mendes, Joana UL

in International Journal of Constitutional Law (2012), 10(4), 988-1022

This article examines the effects that the reception of decisions of international organizations and bodies in EU law may have in procedural standards followed in EU law and practice, in particular ... [more ▼]

This article examines the effects that the reception of decisions of international organizations and bodies in EU law may have in procedural standards followed in EU law and practice, in particular participation. Illustrative examples shed light on the practical interactions between EU and global regulatory systems and their likely negative impact on procedural standards. The author argues that the current EU rules of reception of such decisions are limited in two respects. First, issues of procedural protection are decided by the system of origin, the procedural rules of which may not be as developed as those in force in the EU. Second, rules of reception do not capture the effects of the varied interconnections developed between regulatory regimes at the global and at the EU level. The possible depletion of procedural standards in the segments of EU law that result from the reception of decisions of international bodies has relevant legitimacy implications. Procedural standards that may be bypassed have become accepted standards of legitimacy of the exercise of public power within the EU. Some give effect to norms of EU law and governance now enshrined in the Treaties. To the extent that they may be weakened by effect of the reception of decisions of international organizations and bodies, the exercise of public authority is potentially unleashed in the areas of intersection of legal systems. The article finally sketches the constitutional, procedural and theoretical paths that could lead to preserving procedural standards in the areas of intersection between EU and global regulatory regimes. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 118 (2 UL)
Full Text
See detailCitizens and EU Administration: Direct and Indirect Links
Mendes, Joana UL; Curtin, Deirdre

Report (2011)

This briefing note focuses on the legal and non-legal avenues by which transparency and participation have been ensured in EU law and practice. Transparency and participation have produced the main recent ... [more ▼]

This briefing note focuses on the legal and non-legal avenues by which transparency and participation have been ensured in EU law and practice. Transparency and participation have produced the main recent changes in the way the EU administration relates to its citizens. We provide an overview of the current law and practice and their strengths and weaknesses post-Lisbon. In addition, reference is made to the European Ombudsman and the right to petition the European Parliament. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 61 (2 UL)
Full Text
See detailParticipation in EU Rulemaking. A Rights-based Approach
Mendes, Joana UL

Book published by Oxford University Press - 1st edition (2011)

The book is a critical legal analysis of the current scope of participation rights in EU law, embedded in the political and institutional contexts of European integration. Participation has featured ... [more ▼]

The book is a critical legal analysis of the current scope of participation rights in EU law, embedded in the political and institutional contexts of European integration. Participation has featured prominently in recent institutional and political developments that have been shaping the EU's constitutional framework — most intensely in the follow up of the Commission's White Paper on Governance. Yet, little attention has been paid to participation rights as a means of ensuring the procedural protection of persons affected by EU regulation in its diverse forms. Both the EU legislator and the EU Courts have largely ignored this dimension of the rule of law. This book shows why the current judicial and legislative conceptions are inadequate to ensure the legal protection of rights and interests affected by EU regulation. It defends that current conceptions reflect an excessively formalistic approach to participation rights — premised on the right to be heard in individual procedures — as well as a restrictive view regarding the relationships between the citizens and the administration. The book combines a conceptual analysis with an empirical scrutiny of three EU policy fields — food, state aid and financial services — and assesses the scope of participation rights in EU law against their rationales and underlying legal values. It makes a case for the extension of participation rights to new situations and new types of procedures, in particular those that would generally fall within the category of rulemaking. It thereby brings distinct normative insights into a crucial theme of EU administrative law. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 104 (6 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailParticipation and the Role of Law after Lisbon: a Legal View on Article 11 TEU
Mendes, Joana UL

in Common Market Law Review (2011), 48(6), 1849-1878

Participation in EU governance has been largely kept outside the realm of law. Article 11 TEU has the potential to change this status quo, despite the fact that, with the exception of the European ... [more ▼]

Participation in EU governance has been largely kept outside the realm of law. Article 11 TEU has the potential to change this status quo, despite the fact that, with the exception of the European citizens' initiative, it represents more the recognition of previous institutional practices than an innovation proper. This contribution presents a normative interpretation of Article 11 TEU and analyses the implications of the distinct transformation this Treaty article postulates: the transition from participation based on a logic of participatory governance to participation that concretizes democracy as a "value" or a founding principle of the Union, and that responds to the respective normative yardsticks, such as equality and transparency. This is the main challenge posed by Article 11 TEU. While acknowledging that law is not the only way of giving effect to the prescriptions of this Treaty article, this contribution discusses the role of law in operating the normative shift mentioned. It analyses why different EU institutions may be urged to reconsider the role of law with regard to participation, in view not only of Article 11 TEU - as law may be needed to guarantee the conditions that ensure participation as a source of democratic legitimacy in the EU - but also of other Treaty provisions. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 80 (2 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailEU Law and Global Regulatory Regimes: Hollowing Out Procedural Standards
Mendes, Joana UL

E-print/Working paper (2011)

This paper examines the effects that the reception of decisions of international organizations and bodies in EU law may have in procedural standards followed in EU law and practice, such as participation ... [more ▼]

This paper examines the effects that the reception of decisions of international organizations and bodies in EU law may have in procedural standards followed in EU law and practice, such as participation and transparency. Illustrative examples shed light on the practical interactions between EU and global regulatory systems and their likely negative impact on procedural standards. The current EU rules of reception of such decisions are limited in two respects. First, issues of procedural protection are decided by the system of origin, the procedural rules of which may not be as developed as those in force in the EU. Second, rules of reception do not capture the effects of the varied interconnections developed between regulatory regimes at the global and at the EU level. The paper argues that the possible depletion of procedural standards in the segments of EU law that result from the reception of decisions of international bodies has relevant legitimacy implications. Procedural standards that may be bypassed have become accepted standards of legitimacy of the exercise of public power within the EU. Some give effect to norms of EU law and governance now enshrined in the Treaties. To the extent that they may be weakened by effect of reception of decisions of international organizations and bodies, the exercise of public authority is potentially unleashed in those areas of intersection of legal systems. The paper further lays down the premises of a normative conception of the relationships between legal orders that would allow preserving procedural standards in the areas of interaction between EU and global regulatory regimes. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 91 (1 UL)
Full Text
See detailThe Right to Be Heard in Composite Administrative Procedures: Lost in Between Protection?
Mendes, Joana UL

in European Law Review (2011), 36(5), 651-670

In this article, the authors examine and question the rule developed by the judiciary according to which, in composite EU administrative procedures, the right to be heard must in the first place be ... [more ▼]

In this article, the authors examine and question the rule developed by the judiciary according to which, in composite EU administrative procedures, the right to be heard must in the first place be ensured in the relationships between the affected person and the competent national administrative authority. Ensuring the possibility to be heard at the national level might be logically coherent with the institutional principles of EU law, namely with the principles of procedural autonomy and of loyal co-operation. However, the authors will argue that such principles ensure neither the procedural protection of the legal sphere of the persons affected nor the due consideration of the public interests voiced by the participants. The rule mentioned cannot be a general rule applicable irrespective of the concrete division of procedural competences between the national and EU authorities. They will further argue that, despite the fundamental nature of the right to be heard, the EU legislator has taken insufficient account of the consequences of the divided nature of composite administrative procedures for participation rights. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 78 (3 UL)
See detailAdministrative Law Beyond the State: Participation at the Intersection of Legal Systems
Mendes, Joana UL

in Mattarella, Bernardo; Chiti, Edoardo (Eds.) The Relationships Between Global Administrative Law and European Administrative Law (2011)

This chapter assesses, on a first approach, the impact that the reception of international or global norms by European Union (EU) law may have on participation opportunities and guarantees that would ... [more ▼]

This chapter assesses, on a first approach, the impact that the reception of international or global norms by European Union (EU) law may have on participation opportunities and guarantees that would otherwise be granted to private persons at the EU level. The analysis is premised, inter alia, on the assumption that the varied forms of interaction between the European and international or global regulatory regimes intertwine procedures developed at different regulatory levels and may lead to unitary outcomes. This may require a unitary conception of the procedure when procedural guarantees – in this case participation – are at stake. The difficulties in securing participation in the realm of, in fact, intertwined procedures are explained. Three different types of interaction between international regulatory regimes and the EU legal order – direct reception, reception filtered by EU procedures specifically created for this purpose, reception following existing EU procedures – elucidate how the possible impacts of this interaction between legal systems on EU participation rules and practices may operate. This chapter concludes that the impact interactions between legal systems may have on participation is not sufficiently accounted for in EU law. The reception of rules and decisions adopted by international bodies in EU law entails risks to the very purpose of EU participation procedures. It may devoid them of sense or, at least, hinder their effectiveness. As a result, and given that procedural standards may be less developed in the international and global arena, the values and rationales of participation as endorsed in EU procedures may be compromised. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 87 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailTransparence et Participation: des Principes Démocratiques pour l'Administration de l'Union Européenne
Mendes, Joana UL

in Revue Française d'Administration Publique (2011), 1-2(137-138), 101-121

Le présent article vise à déterminer si et dans quelle mesure les règles et pratiques juridiques actuelles de l’Union européenne en matière de transparence et de participation encouragent les principes ... [more ▼]

Le présent article vise à déterminer si et dans quelle mesure les règles et pratiques juridiques actuelles de l’Union européenne en matière de transparence et de participation encouragent les principes démocratiques récemment ancrés dans le traité sur l’Union européenne. Il se concentre essentiellement sur la façon dont les principes de transparence et de participation ont été formulés et surtout mis en œuvre dans la pratique, afin d’examiner leur éventuelle signification démocratique. Il pose la question de savoir s’il existe vraiment un panorama des principes démocratiques de l’administration européenne. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 110 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailGood Administration in EU Law and the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour
Mendes, Joana UL

E-print/Working paper (2009)

The Code of Good Administrative Behaviour has passed fairly unnoticed in academic research on the principle of good administration. However, it is an important source to understand the meaning of this ... [more ▼]

The Code of Good Administrative Behaviour has passed fairly unnoticed in academic research on the principle of good administration. However, it is an important source to understand the meaning of this principle and concept in European administrative law, since it encompasses some of its dimensions that tend to be overlooked by the case law of the European Courts and also by European law scholars. Furthermore, contrary to what recent developments let believe – namely, the fact that the Commission refuses to put forth a proposal for a European regulation that would make the provisions of the Code binding – the Code remains relevant to map possible legal developments regarding good administration. The article1 explains the reasons and meaning of the link between the Code and Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, analyses the complexity and uncertainty of the concept “good administration”, characterises its different legal and non-legal facets highlighting the interconnections between them. In addition, it demonstrates how these different layers are reflected in the Code, underlines the Code’s links with previous EU law developments, its added legal value and the functions it currently performs, considering also the different paths through which further legal, binding developments could derive from the Code. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 146 (8 UL)
Full Text
See detailParticipation and Participation Rights in EU Law and Governance
Mendes, Joana UL

in Hofmann, Herwig; Türk, Alexander (Eds.) Legal Challenges in EU Administrative Law. Towards an Integrated Administration (2009)

The European Courts have maintained a restrictive approach to participation rights in EU administrative procedures. The right to be heard is primarily recognised to addressees of unfavourable ... [more ▼]

The European Courts have maintained a restrictive approach to participation rights in EU administrative procedures. The right to be heard is primarily recognised to addressees of unfavourable administrative decisions or, at any rate, to those directly and individually concerned by them. As such, its scope is limited to procedures leading up to the adoption of individual decisions. In this book chapter, it is argued that the limits set by the European Courts, in particular the principled exclusion of participation rights from rulemaking procedures, lead to a mismatch between the powers exerted by the EU administration and the procedural guarantees that are recognised to the persons affected. Furthermore, these limits are unjustifiable in the light of the rationales of participation rights, as these have been interpreted by the European Courts. In contrast to the Courts’ stance, the author puts forward criteria that may lead to the recognition of participation rights in a way that better suits the requirements of the rule of law and a paradigm of EU administrative law that is respectful of the rights and legally protected interests of the citizens. In addition, the restrictive legal approach to participation rights contrasts with the increased resort to participation in EU governance. This book chapter also highlights the contrast between the scope and meaning of more political forms of participation, on the one hand, and participation rights, on the other, and argues that a broader recognition of participation rights contributes to bridging the distance between the configuration of participation in the political realm, on the one hand, and in the legal realm, on the other. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 111 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailLa Bonne Administration en Droit Communautaire et le Code Européen de Bonne Conduite Administrative
Mendes, Joana UL

in Revue Française d'Administration Publique (2009), 3(131), 555-571

Le code de bonne conduite administrative constitue une source importante pour comprendre lesens du principe et concept de bonne administration en droit administratif européen. Il englobeen effet certains ... [more ▼]

Le code de bonne conduite administrative constitue une source importante pour comprendre lesens du principe et concept de bonne administration en droit administratif européen. Il englobeen effet certains aspects qui ont tendance à être négligés dans la jurisprudence des juridictionseuropéennes ainsi que par les chercheurs en droit européen. De plus, contrairement à ce que lesrécents développements ont laissé présager – c’est-à-dire le fait que la Commission refuse deprésenter une proposition de règlement européen qui donnerait une force obligatoire auxdispositions du code – celui-ci demeure pertinent pour envisager les évolutions juridiquespossibles de la bonne administration. Le présent article met en avant les raisons et le sens du lienentre le code et l’article 41 de la Charte des droits fondamentaux, analyse la complexité et lesincertitudes entourant le concept de « bonne administration », souligne les interconnexions entreses aspects juridiques et extra-juridiques. Il aborde également les rapports du code avec desdéveloppements antérieurs du droit communautaire. Il met en lumière sa valeur ajoutée juridiqueet les fonctions qu’il exerce à l’heure actuelle tout en considérant les évolutions juridiques quipourraient en découler. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 143 (1 UL)
See detailLegislação do Ambiente – Sistematizada e Comentada
Mendes, Joana UL; Eduardo, José; Dias, Figueiredo

Book published by Coimbra Editora - 5th edition (2006)

Detailed reference viewed: 38 (1 UL)
See detail[Book review] Carole Evrard, "Les Agences de l’Eau. Entre Recentralisation et Décentralisation"
Mendes, Joana UL

in Revue Française d'Administration Publique (2006), 2007/1-2(121-122), 266-268

Detailed reference viewed: 37 (1 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailLa Réforme du Système Administratif Portugais: New Public Management ou Etat néowébèrien?
Mendes, Joana UL

in Revue Française d'Administration Publique (2006), 3(119), 533-555

The recent process of reform undergone by the Portuguese public administration, begun in 2004 under the Social Democrats and continued in 2006 under the Socialists, introduced aspects of managerialism ... [more ▼]

The recent process of reform undergone by the Portuguese public administration, begun in 2004 under the Social Democrats and continued in 2006 under the Socialists, introduced aspects of managerialism. However, the concept of the neo-Weberian state developed by Pollitt and Bouckaert more adequately describes the features of the Portuguese administration as shaped by this reform, which is situated in a context of financial pressure resulting from the need to comply with the requirements of the Growth and Stability Pact and European monetary integration—although some of its measures can only be fully understood in the framework of Portuguese public administration, since they are directed at tackling specific dysfunctions that resulted from changes over three preceding decades. Some of the problems that the current reform of the public administration sought to alleviate persist and are briefly noted. An account of the measures adopted, the influence of managerialism (and of contractualism, less influential in this reform), and the Weberian traits that persist are presented, demonstrating that the reforms of 2004–2006 have not inscribed characteristics that could be fully captured by the concept of new public management (NPM). The author underlines the bias of the reform program of 2006 toward reducing the number of administrative structures and addresses the question of whether this organic restructuring implies a reduction of the welfare functions performed by the state. This is a complex question and a possible answer on the basis of the analysis is a limited one. Nevertheless, the reform is directed mainly at the redesign and reallocation of formal functions within the structure of the administration (executive functions, consultative functions, management of resources), not resulting necessarily in a substantial reduction of welfare state functions. This acknowledges the normative concept of the state underlying the reform and the possible need to review this conclusion in light of further developments. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 110 (3 UL)