IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/fubipe/202014.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Bahnliberalisierung in der Europäischen Union: Die Rolle des EuGH als politischer und politisch restringierter Akteur bei der Transformation staatsnaher Sektoren

Author

Listed:
  • Dederke, Julian

Abstract

Ehemals staatliche oder staatsnahe Sektoren wie der Schienenverkehr sind im Zuge der Europäischen Integration und des Binnenmarktprojekts einem markt- und wettbewerbsorientierten Liberalisierungsprozess ausgesetzt. Diesen treibt die Europäische Kommission (KOM) auf verschiedenen Wegen voran. Die vorliegende Arbeit untersucht eine Reihe von Vertragsverletzungsklagen der KOM gegen Mitgliedstaaten (MS), die keine ausreichenden Umsetzungsschritte bei der Eisenbahnliberalisierung ergriffen hätten. Mit dieser Klagewelle erhielt der EuGH erstmals die Möglichkeit zur Rechtsauslegung im Schienenverkehrssektor und fällte unterschiedliche Urteile. Die Arbeit fragt nach den Gründen für die Differenzierung im Angesicht der Rolle des EuGH als politischer und politisch restringierter Akteur. Diese wird in der wissenschaftlichen Debatte unterschiedlich bewertet: integrationsorientierter „Liberalisierungsmotor“ einerseits, politisch restringiert innerhalb des politischen Umfelds andererseits. Anknüpfend an eine Debatte im American Political Science Review werden konkurrierende Hypothesen zur politischen Autonomie des EuGH generiert. In den Verfahren kam es zu zahlreichen Interventionen durch MS, die als Streithelfer aufseiten der Verklagten auftraten. Die Befunde der Arbeit weisen den Streithelfern in der untersuchten Klagewelle jedoch keinen zentralen Einfluss zu. Dagegen folgten die RichterInnen fast ausnahmslos den Empfehlungen des EuGH-Generalanwalts, der als unabhängiger Sachverständiger sachlich differenziert einzelne Rügen in Klageverfahren bestätigt oder zurückweist. Dies traf sowohl bei Empfehlungen zugunsten der Klägerin (KOM) als auch zugunsten der Verklagten (MS) zu. Das Urteilsmuster des EuGH zeigt außerdem, dass er Bahn-Holdingmodelle – als vertikal integrierte Unternehmensstrukturen einer der stärksten Konfliktpunkte zwischen KOM und MS – toleriert. Eine grundsätzlich liberalisierende und KOM-freundliche Positionierung des EuGH ist nicht erkennbar.

Suggested Citation

  • Dederke, Julian, 2014. "Bahnliberalisierung in der Europäischen Union: Die Rolle des EuGH als politischer und politisch restringierter Akteur bei der Transformation staatsnaher Sektoren," PIPE - Papers on International Political Economy 20/2014, Free University Berlin, Center for International Political Economy, revised 2014.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:fubipe:202014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/184663/1/PIPE-WP-20-14_updated.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Garrett, Geoffrey, 1995. "The politics of legal integration in the European Union," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(01), pages 171-181, December.
    2. Beria, Paolo & Quinet, Emile & de Rus, Gines & Schulz, Carola, 2012. "A comparison of rail liberalisation levels across four European countries," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 110-120.
    3. Nash, Chris, 2008. "Passenger railway reform in the last 20 years - European experience reconsidered," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 61-70, January.
    4. Tsebelis, George & Garrett, Geoffrey, 2001. "The Institutional Foundations of Intergovernmentalism and Supranationalism in the European Union," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(2), pages 357-390, April.
    5. Pollack, Mark A., 2003. "The Engines of European Integration: Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the EU," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199251179.
    6. Knill, Christoph & Lehmkuhl, Dirk, 1999. "How Europe Matters. Different Mechanisms of Europeanization," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 3, June.
    7. Pedro Cantos & José Manuel Pastor & Lorenzo Serrano, 2010. "Vertical and Horizontal Separation in the European Railway Sector and its Effects on Productivity," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 44(2), pages 139-160, May.
    8. Garrett, Geoffrey & Kelemen, R. Daniel & Schulz, Heiner, 1998. "The European Court of Justice, National Governments, and Legal Integration in the European Union," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(1), pages 149-176, January.
    9. Eising, Rainer, 2002. "Policy Learning in Embedded Negotiations: Explaining EU Electricity Liberalization," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(1), pages 85-120, January.
    10. Mattli, Walter & Slaughter, Anne-Marie, 1998. "Revisiting the European Court of Justice," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(1), pages 177-209, January.
    11. Lisa Conant, 2007. "Review Article: The Politics of Legal Integration," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45, pages 45-66, September.
    12. Mattli, Walter & Slaughter, Anne-Marie, 1995. "Law and politics in the European Union: a reply to Garrett," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(01), pages 183-190, December.
    13. Andrew Moravcsik, 1993. "Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 473-524, December.
    14. Carrubba, Clifford J. & Gabel, Matthew & Hankla, Charles, 2008. "Judicial Behavior under Political Constraints: Evidence from the European Court of Justice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(4), pages 435-452, November.
    15. Robert Thomson, 2010. "Opposition through the back door in the transposition of EU directives," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(4), pages 577-596, December.
    16. Garrett, Geoffrey, 1992. "International cooperation and institutional choice: the European Community's internal market," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 533-560, April.
    17. Carruba, Clifford J. & Gabel, Matthew & Hankla, Charles, 2012. "Understanding the Role of the European Court of Justice in European Integration," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 106(1), pages 214-223, February.
    18. Alexander Eisenkopf & Christian Kirchner & Georg Jarzembowski* & Johannes Ludewig & Werner Rothengatter & Gerard McCullough**, 2006. "The Liberalisation of Rail Transport in the EU," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 41(6), pages 292-313, November.
    19. Lisa Conant, 2007. "Review Article: The Politics of Legal Integration," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(s1), pages 45-66, September.
    20. Stone Sweet, Alec, 2004. "The Judicial Construction of Europe," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199275533.
    21. Leonor Moral Soriano, 2005. "Public Services: The Role of the European Court of Justice in Correcting the Market," Chapters, in: David Coen & Adrienne Héritier (ed.), Refining Regulatory Regimes, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    22. Stone Sweet, Alec & Brunell, Thomas, 2012. "The European Court of Justice, State Noncompliance, and the Politics of Override," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 106(1), pages 204-213, February.
    23. Burley, Anne-Marie & Mattli, Walter, 1993. "Europe Before the Court: A Political Theory of Legal Integration," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(1), pages 41-76, January.
    24. Nash, Chris, 2010. "European rail reform and passenger services - the next steps," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 204-211.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. José Luis Castro-Montero & Edwin Alblas & Arthur Dyevre & Nicolas Lampach, 2018. "The Court of Justice and treaty revision: A case of strategic leniency?," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(4), pages 570-596, December.
    2. Andreas Grimmel, 2011. "Integration and the Context of Law: Why the European Court of Justice is not a Political Actor," Les Cahiers européens de Sciences Po 3, Centre d'études européennes (CEE) at Sciences Po, Paris.
    3. Grimmel, Andreas, 2011. "Politics in robes? The European Court of Justice and the myth of judicial activism," Discussion Papers 2/11, Europa-Kolleg Hamburg, Institute for European Integration.
    4. Carsten Hefeker & Michael Neugart, 2016. "Policy deviations, uncertainty, and the European Court of Justice," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 547-567, December.
    5. Mark A. Pollack, 2007. "The New Institutionalisms and European Integration," The Constitutionalism Web-Papers p0031, University of Hamburg, Faculty for Economics and Social Sciences, Department of Social Sciences, Institute of Political Science.
    6. Tridimas, George & Tridimas, Takis, 2004. "National courts and the European Court of Justice: a public choice analysis of the preliminary reference procedure," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 125-145, June.
    7. Michal Ovádek, 2021. "Supranationalism, constrained? Locating the Court of Justice on the EU integration dimension," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(1), pages 46-69, March.
    8. Jean-Yves Pitarakis & George Tridimas, 2003. "Joint Dynamics of Legal and Economic Integration in the European Union," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 357-368, November.
    9. Susanne K. Schmidt, 2000. "Only an Agenda Setter?," European Union Politics, , vol. 1(1), pages 37-61, February.
    10. Darren Hawkins & Wade Jacoby, 2008. "Agent permeability, principal delegation and the European Court of Human Rights," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-28, March.
    11. Clifford J. Carrubba, 2003. "The European Court of Justice, Democracy, and Enlargement," European Union Politics, , vol. 4(1), pages 75-100, March.
    12. George Tridimas, 2004. "A Political Economy Perspective of Judicial Review in the European Union: Judicial Appointments Rule, Accessibility and Jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 99-116, July.
    13. Lauren Peritz, 2018. "Obstructing integration: Domestic politics and the European Court of Justice," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(3), pages 427-457, September.
    14. Nicole Lindstrom, 2010. "Service Liberalization in the Enlarged EU: A Race to the Bottom or the Emergence of Transnational Political Conflict?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(5), pages 1307-1327, November.
    15. Keith Dowding, 2000. "Institutionalist Research on the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 1(1), pages 125-144, February.
    16. Denise Carolin Hübner, 2016. "The ‘National Decisions’ database (Dec.Nat): Introducing a database on national courts’ interactions with European Law," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(2), pages 324-339, June.
    17. Wolf, Sebastian, 2011. "Euratom Before the Court: A Political Theory of Legal Non-Integration," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 15, December.
    18. Nicole Lindstrom, 2010. "Service Liberalization in the Enlarged EU: A Race to the Bottom or the Emergence of Transnational Political Conflict?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48, pages 1307-1327, November.
    19. Höpner, Martin & Schäfer, Armin, 2012. "Integration among unequals: How the heterogeneity of European varieties of capitalism shapes the social and democratic potential of the EU," MPIfG Discussion Paper 12/5, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    20. Nikolaos Zahariadis, 2013. "Winners and Losers in EU State Aid Policy," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 143-158, March.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:fubipe:202014. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.polsoz.fu-berlin.de/polwiss/forschung/oekonomie/ipoe/index.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.