Judicial and Extra-Judicial Review: The Quest for Epistemic Certainty
Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Book chapter › Research › peer-review
Standard
Judicial and Extra-Judicial Review : The Quest for Epistemic Certainty. / Krajewski, Michal.
Boards of Appeal of EU Agencies: Towards Judicialization of Administrative Review?. ed. / Merijn Chamon; Annalisa Volpato; Mariolina Eliantonio. Oxford University Press, 2022.Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Book chapter › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - CHAP
T1 - Judicial and Extra-Judicial Review
T2 - The Quest for Epistemic Certainty
AU - Krajewski, Michal
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Boards of appeal have been set up in some EU agencies to offer legal protection attuned to regulatory fields requiring specialist knowledge. They also moderate the number of technically or scientifically complex cases reaching the generalist EU Courts. However, litigants have recently called in question the limited extent to which boards of appeal delve into contentious empirical appraisals adopted by EU agencies. Do the boards of appeal fulfil the hopes placed in them by exceeding EU judicial review capacities? This paper explores the review technique of the EU Courts and several boards of appeal employed in empirically complex cases decided between 2014 and 2018. It argues that neither the EU Courts nor the boards of appeals can perform a fully autonomous and exhaustive check of the contested empirical appraisals. Due to their institutional and procedural features, they struggle with epistemic uncertainty in regulatory fields in which decisions must be made despite persisting data gaps or the lack of rigorous scientific or technical methodologies. The judicial or extra-judicial review reaches only as far as the applicants themselves can prove the certainty of their scientific or technical assertions against those of the challenged EU institutions or agencies. This conclusion leads to fundamental questions regarding the rule of law’s requirements in relation to the contentious and uncertain empirical basis of a growing number of EU legal acts and the normative functions of EU judicial and extra-judicial review.
AB - Boards of appeal have been set up in some EU agencies to offer legal protection attuned to regulatory fields requiring specialist knowledge. They also moderate the number of technically or scientifically complex cases reaching the generalist EU Courts. However, litigants have recently called in question the limited extent to which boards of appeal delve into contentious empirical appraisals adopted by EU agencies. Do the boards of appeal fulfil the hopes placed in them by exceeding EU judicial review capacities? This paper explores the review technique of the EU Courts and several boards of appeal employed in empirically complex cases decided between 2014 and 2018. It argues that neither the EU Courts nor the boards of appeals can perform a fully autonomous and exhaustive check of the contested empirical appraisals. Due to their institutional and procedural features, they struggle with epistemic uncertainty in regulatory fields in which decisions must be made despite persisting data gaps or the lack of rigorous scientific or technical methodologies. The judicial or extra-judicial review reaches only as far as the applicants themselves can prove the certainty of their scientific or technical assertions against those of the challenged EU institutions or agencies. This conclusion leads to fundamental questions regarding the rule of law’s requirements in relation to the contentious and uncertain empirical basis of a growing number of EU legal acts and the normative functions of EU judicial and extra-judicial review.
KW - Faculty of Law
KW - Court of Justice of the European Union
KW - General Court
KW - board of appeal
KW - Judicial review
KW - administrative review
KW - extra-judicial review
KW - alternative dispute resolution
KW - empirical uncertainty
KW - administrative discretion
KW - technical discretion
KW - action for annulment
KW - administrative appeal
KW - Rule of Law
KW - inquisitorial and adversarial trial
U2 - 10.1093/oso/9780192849298.003.0013
DO - 10.1093/oso/9780192849298.003.0013
M3 - Book chapter
SN - 9780192849298
BT - Boards of Appeal of EU Agencies
A2 - Chamon, Merijn
A2 - Volpato, Annalisa
A2 - Eliantonio, Mariolina
PB - Oxford University Press
ER -
ID: 252982064