This article provides a comparative framework for understanding processes of decentralized law enforcement in the European Union (EU). In particular, the analysis proposes how decentralized EU law enforcement mechanisms can increase opportunities for participation of citizens and firms, but only if they possess domestic courts access and sufficient resources to use it. The article undertakes a systematic analysis of noncompliance with EU environmental law to examine this dynamic. The findings reveal a major paradox for the enforcement of EU law: the empowerment of the already powerful. This paradox has major implications for the potential of expanding judicial power in the EU and at the international level to bring more democracy to international politics.
Alter, Karen. (2000). The European Union’s legal system and domestic policy: Spillover or backlash?International Organization, 54(3), 519-547.
2.
Alter, Karen. (2006). Private litigants and the new international courts. Comparative Political Studies, 39(1), 22-49.
3.
Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the European Union. (2005). JuriFast. Database for case law. Retrieved April 8, 2005, from http://193.191.217.21/en/home_en.html
4.
Audiencia Nacional. (1993, June 30). Sentencia 106/91.
5.
Baumgartner, Frank, & Jones, Barry. (1991). Agenda dynamics and instability in American politics. Journal of Politics, 53(4), 1044-1073.
6.
Börzel, Tanja A. (2000). Improving compliance through domestic mobilisation? New instruments and the effectiveness of implementation in Spain. In C. Knill & A. Lenschow (Eds.), Implementing EU environmental policy: New approaches to an old problem (pp. 221-250). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
7.
Börzel, Tanja A. (2001). Non-compliance in the European Union. Pathology or statistical artifact?Journal of European Public Policy, 8(5), 803-824.
8.
Börzel, Tanja A. (2003a). Guarding the treaty: The compliance strategies of the European Commission. In T. A. Börzel & R. Cichowski (Eds.), The state of the European Union VI: Law, politics, and society (pp. 197-220). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
9.
Börzel, Tanja A. (2003b). Environmental leaders and laggards in the European Union. Why there is (not) a southern problem. London: Ashgate.
10.
Bundesverwaltungsgericht. (1994, May 18). Case 4 NB 15/74.
11.
Caporaso, James A., & Jupille, Joseph. (2001). The Europeanization of gender equality policy and domestic structural change. In M. Green Cowles, J. A. Caporaso, & T. Risse (Eds.), Transforming Europe. Europeanization and domestic change (pp. 21-43). Ithaca. NY: Cornell University Press.
12.
Cichowski, Rachel A. (1998). Integrating the environment: The European Court and the construction of supranational policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(3), 387-405.
13.
Cichowski, Rachel A. (2001). Judicial rulemaking and the institutionalization of EU sex equality policy. In A. Stone Sweet, W. Sandholtz, & N. Fliegstein (Eds.), The institutionalization of Europe (pp. 113-136). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
14.
Cichowski, Rachel A. (2004). Women’s right, the European Court, and supranational constitutionalism. Law & Society Review, 38(3), 489-512.
15.
Cichowski, Rachel A. (2006). Litigation, mobilization and governance: The European Court and transnational activism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Cichowski, Rachel A., & Stone Sweet, Alec. (2003). Participation, representative democracy and the courts. In B. E. Cain, R. J. Dalton, S. E. Scarrow (Eds.), Democracy transformed? Expanding political opportunities in advanced industrial democracies (pp. 192-220). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
17.
Commission of the European Communities. (1996). Thirteenth annual report on monitoring the application of community law (1995) (COM [96] 600 final). Brussels, Belgium: Author.
18.
Commission of the European Communities. (2000). Seventeenth annual report on monitoring the application of community law (1999) (COM [2000]92 final). Brussels, Belgium: Author.
19.
Commission of the European Communities. (2001). 18th Report on monitoring the application of Community Law (2000). (COM[2001]309 final). Retrieved April 8, 2005, from http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/infringements/18report_2000_en.htm
20.
Conant, Lisa J. (2002). Justice contained. Law and politics in the European Union. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
21.
Council Directive 85/337. (1985, June 27). On the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJL 175, 40-48.
22.
Council Directive 90/313. (1990, June 7). On the freedom of access to information on the environment, OJL 158, 56-58.
23.
Craig, P. P. (1993). Francovitch. Remedies and the scope for damages liability. Law Quarterly Review, 109, 595-621.
24.
Craig, P. P. (1997). Once more unto the breach: The community, the state and damages liability. Law Quarterly Review, 113, 67-94.
25.
Epp, Charles. (1998). The rights revolution: Lawyers, activists, and supreme courts in comparative perspective. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
26.
European Court of Justice. (1962). Van Gend en Loos, Case C-26/62, 1962; ECR 001.
27.
European Court of Justice. (1964). Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L., Case C-6/64, 1964: ECR 614.
28.
European Court of Justice. (1994). Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V. and Richard Stahnsdorf and others v Freistaat Bayern, Case C-396/92, 1994: ECR I-03717.
29.
European Court of Justice. (2002). Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain, Case C-474/99, 2002: ECR I-05293.
30.
European Court of Justice. (2003). Annual report 2003. Retrieved April 8, 2005, from http://www.curia.eu.int
31.
European Court of Justice. (2004). Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain, Case C-227/01, 2004: ECR 0000.
32.
European University Institute. (2005) Database on EU member state compliance with community law. Retrieved April 8, 2005, from http://www.iue.it/RSCAS/Research/Tools/ComplianceDB/Index.shtml
33.
Galanter, Marc. (1974). Why the ‘haves’ come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change. Law and Society Review, 9, 95-160.
34.
Givens, Terri, & Luedtke, Adam. (2003). EU immigration policy: From intergovernmentalism to reluctant harmonization. In T. A. Börzel & R. A. Cichowski (Eds.), The state of the European Union Vol. 6: Law politics, and society (pp.291-310). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
35.
Hamburgisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (1992, June 16). Case Bs II 103/91 P.
36.
Harlow, Carol, & Rawlings, Richard. (1992). Pressure through law. New York: Routledge.
37.
Héritier, Adrienne. (1996). The accommodation of diversity in European policy-making and its outcomes: Regulatory policy as a patchwork. Journal of European Public Policy, 3(2), 149-167.
38.
Imig, Doug, & Tarrow, Sideney. (2000). Political contention in a Europeanizing polity [Special issue]. West European Politics, 23(4), 73-93.
39.
Keleman, R. Daniel. (2001). The limits of judicial power: Trade-environmental disputes in the GATT/WTO and the EU. Comparative Political Studies, 34(6), 622-655.
40.
Kitschelt, Herbert P. (1986). Political opportunity structures and political protest: Anti-nuclear movements in four democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 16, 57-85.
41.
Koutalakis, Charalampos. (2004). Environmental compliance in Italy and Greece: The role of non-state actors. Environmental Politics, 13(4), 754-774.
42.
Kriesi, Hanspeter, Koopmans, Ruud, Duyvendak, Jan Willem, & Giugni, Marco G. (1992). New social movements and political opportunities in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 22, 219-244.
43.
Marks, Gary, & McAdam, Doug. (1996). Social movements and the changing structure of political opportunity in the European Union. In G. Marks, F., W. Scharpf, P. C. Schmitter, & W. Streeck (Eds.), Governance in the European Union (pp. 95-120). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
Rosenberg, Gerald. (1991). Can courts bring about social change?Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45.
Stein, Eric. (1981). Lawyers, judges, and the making of a transnational constitution. American Journal of International Law, 75, 1-27.
46.
Tallberg, Jonas. (2003). European governance and supranational institutions. Making states comply. New York: Routledge.
47.
Tarrow, Sidney. (1998). Power in movement. Social movements and contentious politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48.
Tribunal Superiorde Justicia de Madrid. (1997, June 30). Coordinadorade Itoiz/Dirección General de Ordenacción y Coordinación Ambiental (Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Urbanismo). Retrieved April 8, 2005, from http://193.191.217.21/en/jurisprudence/jurisprudence_en.lasso?page=detail&doc=E..19970630/01
49.
Tribunal Supremo. (1998, November 17). Administración General del Estado y Comunidad Foral de Navarra/Asociación Legal Coordinadora de Itoiz. Retrieved April 8, 2005, from http://193.191.217.21/en/jurisprudence/jurisprudence_en.lasso?page=detail&doc=E.19981117/01
50.
Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (1992, August 7). Case 5 S 2378/91.
51.
Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (1993, June 11). Case 8 S 1995/92.
52.
Verwaltungsgerichtshof Bayern. (1990, August 24). Case 8 A 89/40037.
53.
Verwaltungsgerichtshof Bayern. (1992, November 5). Cases 8 A 92.40017, 8 A 92.40019, 8 A 92.40061, 8 A 92.40062, 8 A 92.40066, 8 A 92.0068.
54.
Verwaltungsgericht Stade, Chamber 7 Lüneburg. (1993, April 21). Case 7 A 79/92.
55.
Voigt, Rüdiger (Ed.). (1995). Der kooperative Staat. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.
56.
Weale, Albert, Pridham, Geoffrey, Cini, Michelle, Konstadakopulos, Dimitrios, Porter, Martin, & Flynn, Brendan. (2000). Environmental governance in Europe. An ever closer ecological union?Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
