Argumentative patterns in the European Union’s directives
An effective tool to foster compliance by the Member States?
This paper provides an account of the arguments advanced by the European Union (EU) legislator in the preamble of directives adopted for harmonization in the internal market, and assesses them as to their potential at convincing the Member States to implement the directive at issue. We show what directives should argue for and how they do so in practice, by focussing in particular on Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights. Furthermore, this contribution moves beyond a purely academic discussion by linking the theoretical-normative framework advanced to the Court of Justice of the European Union’s approach to assessing the preambles of EU directives in the context of the ‘check’ on the duty to state reasons under Article 296 Treaty for the of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Our analysis unveils a legislative practice in which the obligation to give reasons is not discharged adequately from an argumentative perspective, and which remains generally unsanctioned due to the rather light and flexible test used by CJEU under Article 296 TFEU.
Article outline
- 1.Background, motivation and aim
- 2.EU directives: What should they argue for?
- 3.EU directives in the internal market area: What do they argue for?
- 3.1Arguing for harmonization in Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights
- 4.Assessment of the reasons in the preamble of the EU Directives by the CJEU
- 5.Results and challenges
- Notes
-
References
References (31)
Beck, G.
(
2012)
The Legal Reasoning of the Court of Justice of the EU. Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Börzel, T.
(
2001) ‘
Non-compliance in the European Union: pathology or statistical artefact?’,
Journal of European Public Policy 8(5): 803–824.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Börzel, T.
(
2002) ‘
Pace-setting, foot-dragging, and fence-sitting: Member State responses to Europeanization’,
JMCS 40(2): 193–214.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Craig, P., and de Búrca, G.
(
2015)
EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (6th edn), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dimitrakopoulos, D. G.
(
2001) ‘
The Transposition of EU law: ‘post-decisional politics’ and institutional autonomy’,
European Law Journal 7(4): 442–458.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dimitrova, A. and Rhinard, M.
(
2005) ‘
The power of norms in the transposition of EU directives’,
European Integration Online Papers 9(16): 1–22.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eemeren, F.H. van
(
2016) ‘
Identifying argumentative patterns: a vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics’.
Argumentation 30(1): 1–23.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eemeren, F. H. van, and Grootendorst, R.
(
1992)
Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Falkner, G., Hartlapp, M., Leiber, S., and Treib, O.
(
2004) ‘
Non-compliance with EU Directives in the Member States: opposition through the backdoor’,
West European Politics 27(3): 452–473.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Falkner, G., Treib, O., Hartlapp, M. and Leiber, S.
(
2005)
Complying with Europe. EU Harmonization and Soft Law in the Member States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fischer, F., and H. Gottweis
(
2012) ‘
Introduction. The Argumentative Turn Revisited’, in
Fischer, F., and
Gottweis, H. (eds),
The Argumentative Turn Revisited. Public Policy as Communicative Practice, Durham: Duke University Press, pp.1–30.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fischer, F. and Gottweis, H.
eds (
2012)
The Argumentative Turn Revisited. Public Policy as Communicative Practice, Durham: Duke University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fischer, F., and Forester, J.
eds (
1993)
The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis, Durham: Duke University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Knill, C., and Lehmkuhl, D.
(
2002) ‘
The national impact of European Union regulatory policy: three Europeanization mechanisms’,
European Journal of Political Research 411: 255–280.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Komárek, J.
(
2015) ‘
Legal Reasoning in EU Law’, in
Arnull, A., and
Chalmers, D. (eds),
The Oxford Handbook of European Union Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 28–51.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Majone, G.
(
1989)
Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process, New Haven: Yale University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mastenbroek, E.
(
2005) ‘
EU compliance: still a ‘black hole’?’,
Journal of European Public Policy 12(6): 1103–1120.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mastenbroek, E.
(
2007)
The Politics of Compliance. Explaining the Transposition of EC Directives in the Netherlands, Wageningen: Ponsen & Looijen BV.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nicolaides, Ph., and Oberg, H.
(
2006) ‘
The compliance problem in the European Union’,
EIPASCOPE 11: 1–7.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Prechal, A.
(
2005)
Directives in EC Law. (Second, completely revised edn), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sauter, W.
(
2013) ‘
Proportionality in EU Law: A balancing act?’,
Nederlandse Zorgautoriteit: 1–31.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Scharpf, F.W.
(
1999)
Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Shapiro, M.
(
1992)
The Giving Reasons Requirement, U Chicago Legal Forum 1791, 179–220.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Searle, J. R., and Vanderveken, D.
(
1985/2009)
Foundations of Illocutionary Logic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Steunenberg, B. and Rhinard, M.
(
2010) ‘
The transposition of European Law in EU Member States: between process and politics’,
European Political Science Review 2(3), 495–520.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thomann, E.
(
2015) ‘
Customizing Europe: transposition as bottom-up implementation’,
Journal of European Public Policy 22(10): 1368–1387.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Treaty on European Union (TEU)
available at
Eur-lex.europa.eu (accessed 29 February 2016).
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
available at
Eur-lex.europa.eu. (accessed 29 February 2016).
Versluis, E.
(
2004) ‘
Explaining variations in implementation of EU directives’,
European Integration Online Papers 8(19): 1–21.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zhelyazkova, A.
(
2012)
Compliance under Controversy. Analysis of the Transposition of European Directives and their Provisions, Zutphen: CPI Wöhrmann Print Service.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by 2 other publications
Puppo, Federico, Silvia Corradi & Lorenzo Zoppellari
2022.
Rhetoric and Argumentation in the Pandemic Legislation: The Italian Case. In
The Pandemic of Argumentation [
Argumentation Library, 43],
► pp. 165 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Andone, Corina & Sara Greco
2018.
Evading the Burden of Proof in European Union Soft Law Instruments: The Case of Commission Recommendations.
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 31:1
► pp. 79 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.