The increase in the European Union's executive powers in the areas of economic and financial governance has thrown into sharp relief the challenges of EU law in constituting, framing, and constraining the decision-making processes and political choices that have hitherto supported European integration. The constitutional implications of crisis-induced transformations have been much debated but have largely overlooked the tension between law and discretion that the post-2010 reforms have brought to the fore. This book focuses on this tension and explores the ways in which legal norms may (or may not) constrain and structure the discretion of the EU executive. The developments in the EU's post-crisis financial and economic governance act as a reference point from which to analyze the normative problems pertaining to the law's relationship to the exercise of discretion. Structured in three parts, the book starts by analyzing the challenges to the maxim that the law both grounds and constrains EU executive and administrative discretion, setting out the concepts, problems and approaches to the relation between law and discretion both in general public law and in EU law. It progresses to analyze how these problems and approaches have unfolded in EU's financial, economic and monetary governance. Finally, it moves on from these specific developments to assess how existing legal principles and means of judicial review contribute to ensuring the rationality and legality of EU's discretionary powers.

The limited scope of participation in the making of EU law remains a continued source of controversy, featuring 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. This is a dimension of the rule of law that has been largely ignored by EU legislative and judicial bodies. Not only the legislator, but also the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance tend to adhere to excessively formal conceptions of participation rights that are premised on the right to be heard in individual procedures, as well as to a restrictive view regarding the relationships between the citizens and the administration. This book shows why, in the face of new regulatory developments, these conceptions are currently inadequate to ensure the legal protection of rights and interests affected by EU regulation. Combining a conceptual analysis with thorough empirical scrutiny, this book 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 brings distinct normative insights into a crucial theme of EU administrative law, and makes a topical and timely contribution to the increasingly notable theme of public participation in EU regulation. Joanna Mendes' 2009 thesis upon which Participation in EU Rule-Making is based was awarded the the European University Institute (Florence) Mauro Cappelletti Prize for the best doctoral thesis using a methodology of comparative law

The question of which European or international institution should exercise public authority is a highly contested one. This new collection offers an innovative approach to answering this vexed question. It argues that by viewing public authority as relative, it allows for greater understanding of both its allocation and its legitimacy. Furthermore, it argues that relations between actors should reflect the comparative analysis of the legitimacy assets that each actor can bring into governance processes. Put succinctly, the volume illustrates that public authority is relative between actors and relative to specific legitimacy assets. Drawing on the expertise of leading scholars in the field, it offers a thought-provoking and rigorous analysis of the long debated question of who should do what in European and international law.

The question of which European or international institution should exercise public authority is a highly contested one. This new collection offers an innovative approach to answering this vexed question. It argues that by viewing public authority as relative, it allows for greater understanding of both its allocation and its legitimacy. Furthermore, it argues that relations between actors should reflect the comparative analysis of the legitimacy assets that each actor can bring into governance processes. Put succinctly, the volume illustrates that public authority is relative between actors and relative to specific legitimacy assets. Drawing on the expertise of leading scholars in the field, it offers a thought-provoking and rigorous analysis of the long debated question of who should do what in European and international law.