Michael Blauberger

Of 'Good' and 'Bad' Subsidies: European State Aid Control Through Soft and Hard Law

European state aid control, a part of competition policy, typically follows the logic of negative integration. It constrains the potential for member states to distort competition by reducing their ability to subsidise industry. In addition, this paper argues, ambiguous Treaty rules and heterogeneous member state preferences have enabled the European Commission to act as a supranational entrepreneur, not only enforcing the prohibition of distortive state aid, but also developing its own vision of ‘good’ state aid policy. In order to prevent or to settle political conflict about individual decisions, the Commission has sought to establish more general criteria for the state aid that it still deems admissible. These criteria have been codified into a complex system of soft law and, more recently, hard state aid law. The Commission has thus created positive integration ‘from above’ and increasingly influences the objectives of national state aid policies.

National Responses to European Court Jurisprudence

The power of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to promote European integration through law has been broadly acknowledged, but the court’s domestic impact has received less attention and remains contested. In particular, the ambiguity of many ECJ judgments is said to have two opposed effects: According to one logic, legal ambiguity enables national policy-makers to contain the impact of court rulings, i.e. to ignore potentially broader policy implications. According to another logic, ambiguous case law provides opportunities for interested litigants to pressure national policy-makers into (anticipatory) adjustments. Which of these two logics prevails, it is argued, depends on the distribution of legal uncertainty costs between supporters and challengers of the regulatory status quo. The argument is supported by two in-depth case studies on the domestic responses to series of ECJ rulings concerning the free movement of capital (golden shares) and services (posted workers).

Welfare migration? Free movement of EU citizens and access to social benefits:

This article analyzes the political impact of the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) case law concerning the free movement of EU citizens and their cross-border access to social benefits. Public debates about ‘welfare migration’ or ‘social tourism’ often fluctuate between populist hysteria and outright denial, but they obscure the real political and legal issues at stake: that ECJ jurisprudence incrementally broadens EU citizens’ opportunities to claim social benefits abroad while narrowing member states’ scope to regulate and restrict access to national welfare systems. We argue that legal uncertainty challenges national administrations in terms of workload and rule-of-law standards, while domestic legislative reforms increasingly shift the burden of legal uncertainty to EU migrants by raising evidentiary requirements and threatening economically inactive EU citizens with expulsion. We illustrate this argument first with a brief overview of the EU’s legal framework, highlighting the ambiguity of core concepts from the Court’s case law, and then with empirical evidence from the UK, Germany and Austria, analyzing similar domestic responses to the ECJ’s jurisprudence. We conclude that EU citizenship law, while promising to build the union from below on the basis of equal legal entitlements, may, in fact, risk rousing further nationalism and decrease solidarity across the union.

Can courts rescue national democracy? Judicial safeguards against democratic backsliding in the EU

ABSTRACT This article explores the potential efficacy and limitations of judicial mechanisms as tools to combat democratic backsliding in European Union (EU) member states. The article argues that more can be done to maximize the effectiveness of existing judicial tools, such as infringement proceedings brought to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) by the Commission and private enforcement litigation in national courts. At the same time, we highlight risks inherent in many proposals for novel judicial tools to defend national democracy. We conclude that despite their importance, judicial safeguards alone – whether existing ones or novel proposals – will not suffice to stop democratic backsliding by a determined national government: if the Union is to rein in such attacks on its core values, heads of government and other EU leaders will have to intervene politically as well.

Introducing the debate: European Union safeguards against member states’ democratic backsliding

ABSTRACT Today, the European Union (EU) is confronting a new democratic deficit at the national level. A number of EU member states have experienced an erosion of democracy and the rule of law in recent years, most severely in Hungary and Poland. Drawing on different strands of political science research, the contributions to this section debate the strengths and weaknesses of the various safeguards and tactics the EU has deployed or might deploy to resist democratic backsliding by member governments. This brief introduction raises the main questions of the debate: how politically feasible is the application of existing and proposed EU safeguards, and what are the likely consequences, intended as well as unintended, of various judicial and political approaches?

Jenseits von Implementierung und Compliance — Die Europäisierung der Mitgliedstaaten

Die Verlagerung der Europaforschung von Fragen der Integration starker hin zu Fragen des politischen Systems der EU und dessen Auswirkungen auf die nationale Politik (policies, politics und polities) zeigt sich besonders deutlich am Wachstum der Europaisierungsliteratur (Green Cowles et al. 2001; Featherstone/Radaelli 2003). Trotz der Vielfalt europaischer Steuerungsmodi und der Breite der von europaischer Integration beeinflussten Politikfelder wurde unter dem Oberbegriff „Europaisierung“ die Entwicklung eines einheitlichen Forschungsprogramms unternommen. Verschiedene Autoren haben Typologien von Europaisierungsmechanismen aufgestellt und dabei unter anderem nach den zugrunde liegenden Formen der Integration, den vorherrschenden Steuerungsmodi und nach jeweils typischen Politikfeldern differenziert (Knill/Lehmkuhl 2002; Bulmer/Radaelli 2005).

ECJ Judges read the morning papers. Explaining the turnaround of European citizenship jurisprudence

ABSTRACT Recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) marks a striking shift towards a more restrictive interpretation of EU citizens’ rights. The Courts turnaround is not only highly relevant for practical debates about ‘Social Europe’ or ‘welfare migration’, but also enlightening from a more general, theoretical viewpoint. Several recent studies on the ECJ have argued that the Court is largely constrained by member state governments’ threats of legislative override and non-compliance. We show that an additional mechanism is necessary to explain the Courts turnaround on citizenship. While the ECJ extended EU citizens’ rights even against strong opposition by member state governments, its recent shift reflects changes in the broader political context, i.e., the politicization of free movement in the European Union (EU). The article theorises Court responsiveness to politicization and demonstrates empirically, how the Courts jurisprudence corresponds with changing public debates about EU citizenship.

Enter at your own risk: free movement of EU citizens in practice

Abstract The citizenship jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice has raised hopes for a more social Europe and triggered fierce debates about ‘social tourism’. The article analyses how this case law is applied by EU member state administrations and argues that they are actively containing the Court’s influence. As a result, rather than reconciling the logics of ‘opening’ and ‘closure’, they are heading towards an uneasy coexistence between free movement and exclusive welfare states. The argument here is illustrated with empirical evidence from Austria and Germany. Although both countries have taken different approaches to EU migrants’ residency and social rights, they produce similar effects in practice: increasingly, EU migrants are being tolerated as residents with precarious status without access to minimum subsistence benefits. Ironically, attempts to restrict residency rights have resulted in a temporary extension of EU migrants’ access to welfare in some instances.

European Competition vs. Global Competitiveness Transferring EU Rules on State Aid and Public Procurement Beyond Europe

As long as there is no effective state aid control outside the EU, the European Commission faces a dilemma: either European firms will be disadvantaged in global competition by strict EU rules, or the Commission will come under pressure to relax the rules, thereby running the risk that fair competition within the EU will be undermined. As a consequence, the Commission attempts to promote EU rules on state aid and public procurement beyond EU borders – in non-member countries as well as at the WTO level. This article analyses the Commission’s channels of regulatory transfer and the factors accounting for its varying success. Bilateral cooperation provides many opportunities to spread European state aid rules, but decentralised enforcement at the national level remains ultimately deficient. Moreover, the transfer of European rules to the multilateral WTO depends heavily on the EU’s ability to reach prior consensus with its most powerful partner and rival, the US Government.

Free movement and equal treatment in an unequal union

ABSTRACT The European Union’s (EU) fundamental principles of free movement of persons and non-discrimination have long challenged the traditional closure of the welfare state. Whereas the relationship between the EU and the welfare state appeared largely reconciled before the grand enlargement of 2004, economic downturn and politicisation question the nexus anew. This collection explores the current dynamics, scope and limits of free movement and welfare equal treatment for EU citizens on the move. The different contributions bring together the normative, legal and political developments and about-turns which dynamically square the circle of pan-European social solidarity. The collection covers the new politics of EU cross-border welfare but also the structuring role of the European Court of Justice. It includes the political economy of free movement as well as its outputs and outcomes in selected member states. Finally, it analyses the mechanisms that activate attitudinal polarisation on intra-EU migration and welfare.