The article aims to investigate the roots and role of the principle of, and then right to, good administration in the European Union. Article 41 of the Charter of Nice for the first time includes a procedural right, like the right to have a good admnistration, in an international catalogue of human rights. Nevertheless, as stressed by European jurisprudence, it is more than a procedural right, because it belongs to the constitutional tradition of the Member States: it is based on the principles of the rule of law, democracy and legality. Furthermore, the contribution will explain the meanings of “good administration” and “maladministration”, the ground of the complaints received by the Ombudsman. The article defends the complementary and not opposite relationship between the two concepts. Moreover, whereas the European Ombudsman strived to give a positive definition of maladministration, the formation of the right to good administration has been developed by the European judges, especially in the cases involving competition regulation, according to the exclusive European process competence in the antitrust field. For this purpose, the contribution analyses the most significant European jurisprudence in competition law related to this principle, considering that the first steps to the definition of “good administration” in the European Union developed from competition proceedings. In conclusion, the reported antitrust case law shows that the right to good admnistration has already furthered the defence of the European citizen, in spite of the uncertain destiny of the role of the Charter of Nice, linked to the Treaty of Lisbon for its binding implementation.
The right to good administration in the European Union. Roots, rationes and enforcement in antitrust case-law
LANZA, Elisabetta
2008
Abstract
The article aims to investigate the roots and role of the principle of, and then right to, good administration in the European Union. Article 41 of the Charter of Nice for the first time includes a procedural right, like the right to have a good admnistration, in an international catalogue of human rights. Nevertheless, as stressed by European jurisprudence, it is more than a procedural right, because it belongs to the constitutional tradition of the Member States: it is based on the principles of the rule of law, democracy and legality. Furthermore, the contribution will explain the meanings of “good administration” and “maladministration”, the ground of the complaints received by the Ombudsman. The article defends the complementary and not opposite relationship between the two concepts. Moreover, whereas the European Ombudsman strived to give a positive definition of maladministration, the formation of the right to good administration has been developed by the European judges, especially in the cases involving competition regulation, according to the exclusive European process competence in the antitrust field. For this purpose, the contribution analyses the most significant European jurisprudence in competition law related to this principle, considering that the first steps to the definition of “good administration” in the European Union developed from competition proceedings. In conclusion, the reported antitrust case law shows that the right to good admnistration has already furthered the defence of the European citizen, in spite of the uncertain destiny of the role of the Charter of Nice, linked to the Treaty of Lisbon for its binding implementation.I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
