ΩԸƽˮʹ罭ϣ
et revelabitur quasi aqua iudicium et iustitia quasi torrens fortis

 


Խҡ򷨵ŷ޻ȫ*

ߣ[] ɣС** *** ****


ժ Ҫ: ͳԷʵ֤塢Ȩۺ͹ΪΪֲһصκᴫͳ֮УӶԡǣΪΪѧоĺģΪѧӡǿŷһ廯;ȫ򻯽̶սŷ޹ͬŷ㷺ȨһΪԱ򷨴ͳһı׼ŷ޹ͬ˾ơŷȨϻƺó֯˽ͨչ򷨵ĻԭЩԭ͹ԴڸԱķ򣬵ȴձԣܹԼйصĹ֯һܹԼԱˣµĿ򷨣ͳĵһȨȨԡͬĹعۻ

ؼʣ ŷ ó֯

һֱΪǹġءenclaveȻŷһ廯̵Ӱ죬Ѿ˱仯ŷ»ᣨthe Council of EuropeǡŷȨԼthe European Convention on Human Rights, ECHRڶԳԱ͹ԽԽӰ졣ŷ޹ͬ壨the European Community ECӰ˳ԱijΣprocedural autonomyһı仯Դó֯WTOרСԭ֤Ȩ˵ɵҪЩԭֹΪ컯ΪĺͲӡɴ˱һ⣬һ仯ۺʵʲôӰ죿ΪµĿҪһǡۻһۻӦǴͳĹҹ

һϵֹ

ڡŷ޷ʷۡһУʷѧҰ¡M˹ˣAntonio M. HespanhażɽָʷУŷ޵ķһֱһŷ޷еһЩطصͬȴһϵձԵĹͬˣڵҵķΧŷ޷ɵʷDzʵʵġ[1] һ۶ϱԽԽоŷ޷ϵʷ֤ʵЩѧɹһ񷨷ϵͨϵ֮ġ족great divideԻһҲǿŷ޹ͬڲǿķһ廯Ӱͬʱthe age of jus communeķɶԪ壨legal pluralismΪơ[2] ۺʵ⣬Щ仯˽ҲԹر̶ܹȵӰ졣

ʵϣǹƶȶΪ壨nationalismءthe last enclavesҺѧñȽϵķ֮зDZڵĹǣֱȽǺġȷȻͬƶȺԭѱΪͬһϵfamily[3] һ㲻ͬ˽ϵƶȺԭÿҵĹƶȶֲϵκᴫͳ֮С[4]

ǣоɹѾ۵սЩоɹʾԴģʽthe Napoleonic model[5]ʼŷ޴½ƹƶȵġborrowingsimportationsֲ͡transplantsڹҲܹǣʮʮĩѧһֱǿͬϵ֮໥ãرŷ޹ͬӰ죬Թ֯⡣[6] йŷ»͡ŷȨԼŷ֯õоɹΪټѾһ˸ʶ[7]

ͱĶԣΪЩоɹӦij̶ֳϱǹѧǼǻ۵Ľᾧˣصע⡣һֱ仯ڶ̶ŷ̨ķΧڲܵеij֯Ӱ졣ͨó֯WTOרСµԭҽ򵥵طһ⡣һǡطЩ֯͹֯ع淢˶ãһӦ˶عۺʵкӰ졣ͳۻǽڴҪλһЩƶԵı仯ĸ¡

Ϊ塰ء

ͱĶԣչѷȼҪؽϵĴͳֹΪǹġءprovinceһʶԴķ˼ʵ֤壨legal positivismȨۣthe separation of powers͹ۣthe supremacy of public administration

ʵ֤Ǵ½ĻһȻһ˼ڹȴ˼ΪҪĶӰ졣ʵ֤岻ΪĽһΪԴڹҡǣѧоϰ취ϰһֱڷչرڣڣܷСңٴƵķҲûбϵͳоַһԭͻڷ

¹ķѧѧ˵ڹҵĹ֤[رǰءҮOtto MayerҮڿˣJellinek˼]ΪȨ͹ṩ˼ʵۻʵϣءҮϸȨԭΪѧϵġˣ˾һҲľãΪVerwaltungsakt㱻ھĸнͷɵĹܡ[8] ڵ¹һΪܣbecame jus receptumйĻ򷨡Verwaltungsverfahrengesetz35Դ˹涨ͬķѧѧ˵ҲʶЩġùͳȨƹȨɵ߹ܣdcisions administratives, provvedimenti amministrativi簢ءVAlbert Venn Dicey۷French droit administrativeʱָ˽֯ԣΪǰΪȷ˷ɹ򣬶DZͬķɹ֮¡[9]

ڶʮǰҶĵ¹һһֱûܵսҪӰ졣һǷѧѧ˵ͷԺձעΪadministrative acts磬оĵһΪǰһϵлѧϽԺʵҪȷΪжЩӦܵ顣[10] ʮΪatto amministrativoȻǷĻĺġ[11] ˣԿɭKelsenķɹƶñ˴˶Ϊָµ1925ͨ˹ڳĻ1946Ҳͨͬ򷨡the Federal Administrative Procedures ActAPA1958[12] ¹1976ꡢ1990ҲͨƵ

ڶӰŷŸΪеϵʮĹѧߡķSᣨMassimo Severo GianniniΪŷ޹ͬ巨УܵԱƶӰĹ͸Թ߱ȱȽǣǻɣŷ޹ͬIJϲܴڶһŷ޹ͬľԣŷ޹ͬ岻ͬڹңΪһձԵĹȨ塣һʵ˲ȫŷ巨塣[13] ǿΪҪIJڶرǵڶɣһЩѾõȷϵʵǿͳĹҹȻǵó۵ۻ

ͬһʱڣЭĪڣJean Monnetŷúֹͬ壨the European Coal and Steel Community, ECSC֯ܵķʷѧ߱ޡ£Paul Reuterָŷ޹ͬôݱŷ޹ͬڲdroit de la fonction publiqueŷ޹ͬ忪֧ڲdroit financier[14]

ͺ¶ȷʶŷ޹ͬڲѾ¶ߵͬڴ½ϵرǣûһھΪVerwaltungsaktĹͬΪҲûЩܹҲձЧľǣǶһЩʵŷúֹͬ߻the High AuthorityѾԳԱҵʵʩƲõȨˣΪŷ޷Ժthe European Court of Justice, ECJ˾顣󣬡ŷ޾ùͬԼthe EEC Treaty˾еֱ1962Ļ[15] ũҵ渳ŷίԱᣨthe Commissionְܡ

˺ı仯Ϊһ¢֯ŷίԱᱻ˺ܶµȨرڼ沢չ棨4064/1989ʵʩֳ飨on Cthe Cspot checksȨ1/2003ũҵ߷棬зɿܽճְ˳ԱйزźͻŷίԱලȨΥŷ޹ͬΪᵼصľúǣ󣨻˵dzɹʩѹţѹ£ǿ⿼ǣŷѾͲƸٷ䷽еµְܡͬʱһЩרҵҲѾͨռϢչνġϢܡregulation by information[16] ǣijЩ£̱귽棬Ҳֱҵ

Ϊ˾ҲѾ˱仯һµijԺcourt of first instance, CFIѾҪΪңŷ޷ԺѾ𽥲ȹ̵ǿԳԱԭ͹Ӱ졣·չֵйע

ŷ޹ͬ򷨣 Automec max.mobil Telekommunikation

Ȼǰйŷоعעŷ޷ԺԺܹؽʾѾı仯о塣һо1990 Automec йءڸðУԺŷίԱ¢Ͼʱˡ(administrative procedures)ܳԺδڴ˻ϵóκξĽۡ[17]

ʮԺ󣬳Ժ max.mobil Telekommunikation [18] еóȷĽۡһЧ֮ߣŷίԱݡŷ޹ͬԼ863ڣԭΪ903ڣIJ԰µϵľǿðҪһʵԺΪþͨģ[19] óĽۡ

ȣںʱһϣŷίԱй㷺ɲȨǣɲȨӦѭԭthe principle of good administrationԭdzԱͳйͬġιҡRechtsStaatԭһ档[20] ŷίԱ㸺͹Ϊ񣬰ȷ˽֯еijȨ[21]

⣬˽֯ԣŷίԱỹмලŷ޹ͬ巨ȷõһζţŷίԱʵ͹ؿ˽֯ϢⲢȻһ߷һָʣΪʵ֡interests of a good administration of justiceѭԱͳйͬķιңRechtsStaatԭŷίԱΪӦ˾顣һѾ2000˹NiceׯͨġȨ¡the Charter of Fundamental Rights47ȷ[ǣΪ¹ķιңRechtsStaatͷķɹңEtat de droitԹŶڵκͷ˼ΪģʹáΡthe Rule of lawһʸΪǡ][22]

һжŷ޹ͬԼEC Treaty226涨ij[23] Ҫչһ仯Ҳԭ[24] ŸΪ㷺ı仯Ȼѧʹadministrative procedureһʱϽ[25] ԺԳȴԵģdescriptiveǹ涨Եģprescriptive[26] һϰвƲpropertyĸһ漰Ȩηһϵзɺ Ӹ㷺Ͻԭپڵŷ޹ͬԱձŷ޹ͬ塣ңҪͳĸ¡

ġŷ޷

ŷ޹ͬŷ֯԰ڵijԱӰ죬Ǵͳٷʵһԭ

1977꣬ŷ»ͨһڡȨΪֺProtection of the individual in relation to the acts of administrative authoritiesľ飬ȷȨΡǷֱǣ֤ȨȡҪʵȨԼȡɽȨ˵ɵκṩ˾ƵΡ󣬲ίԱᣨthe Committee of MinistersһڡɲȨáĽ飬رȷ˹ƽimpartialityԭ򡢱proportionalityԭͺʱޣreasonable time-limitsԭ򡣡ŷȨԼԳԱijŸӰ죬ΪȷϵȨһָΪʵĺϷԱ׼ңȷ˸ˮƽģҾͷֹȨûߴʹԣǸΪЧ˾顣磬ءaccessione invertitaһʵϵûղƲʵΪʵʩǰûκݻ߳Աϣܵõ߷Ժthe Corte di cassazioneͨԺϿɣѾŷȨԼΪǷ[27] Գй滮⣬ŷȨԼΪδ˽ҵκξòijڹ滮ƻƣupset뱣˻Ȩ֮ĺƽ⡣[28]

Ȼŷ޹ͬӰ󡣾ŷ޹ͬûзһȨ[29] ŷ޷ԺȴչĻԭ򣬲ЩԭԳԱԺֶԼ֪ŷ޷ԺѾӳԱķһЩԭصĸԹߣ[30] ǼʱҲ滻[31] ŷ޷Ժһԭ˵ɵȷΪ˾ΪƳԱεֶΡ[32] ζţٵȨ˹㷺ĺͿԵšŲ˷ԭҲԵӰ졣ˣЩעŷ޷Ժ˾ܶԣactivismѧУ˶ѭձԭ͹η棩[33]

ͬʱŷ޹ͬԽԽͻҪҲݺӡҪԶ׼Ϊŷ޹ָͬdirectivesΪijЩɹһȫµķɿܣҲΪЩָҪôֵظijЩйػӰ۵İУҪôΪԱһձԵı׼رǣ89/665Źڹɹָ涨Աȷ˽˵˿Ծܵȫʧ/𺦻þòһ֡ͬľȼ÷common law of remediesɴγɡ[34] 磬ѾȨsubjective rightsϷ棨legitimate interests֮ĽޣΪ߲뾭òԵ

ŷ޹ͬڵŵָ˸ķչһָȷһЩԭ򣨱ԭ򡢿͹ԭͷԭ򣩣һĺ͸׼֤ڶָȷ˹ƻЩΪ¢ϻŷίԱṩѯϢĻļβ˳Ȩȣԡָ涨˸֪ã2002/20ָ6Σָ涨Թƻľṩ˾Ի׼˾Եľȼã4ָҪصϢ빫5[35]

仯˳Աijԭ򣬾ڶʮͰʮ˾ܶʱڣthe new activist period֮ǰŷ޷ԺѾʶ˳εҪԡ Saarland Уŷ޷ԺΪ1.ڹͬûһع涨ʱÿԱĹڷȷйϽȨķԺԹڹͬ巨ֱЧеȨ豣2. ǣԹӦЩƹΪĹΪҲӦʹŷ޹ͬȨܻ߹ѵʹ[36] һݹŷ޹ͬεоУŷ޷ԺΪûйͬõĹ򣬳ԱֱøóԱ򡣵ǣǰǣӦʹԭڵŷ޹ͬ巨Чܵв[37] ʵϣԺ󰸼 Peterbroeck оУŷ޷ԺΪ˾ȨҪԱΪӦԣ൱ԭthe principle of equivalenceɴ˱˳ԱijΡ[38]

ŷ޷Ժֳεس̶Ⱥ½һʵЧԣeffectivenessԣlegitimacy⡣ǰ߶ԣйسԭ͹ķĻĶԪԿֶҸΪЧķЩܹ鲢Ļĵһȴ谭Щкֲͺ߶ԣɲһʱͿռתĹߣֲԷչ֮С֮һӦάֵһѾŷܷϿɣŷԼTEU6.3ǰΪF涨ԱĹҵλңȨ¡ the Charter of Fundamental Rights23ҲĻĶԪԡĻһĶԲӦһ廯ϰӦһӦصͷɼֵ

塢WTOγɡȫԡijԭ

ѾָԽԽԵŷ޻ơȻµĹ֯Ӱ£µȫ򻯡һֵע֤ó֯WTOУһЩķԭѾԱ֮׵רС飨panels߻the Appellate Body, ABϿɺִСңЩԭ򲻽ܹԼWTO׼˾ܹԼԼ

ͻķԭԣйصļУ߻ΪרСĽ۱뾭[39] һԭڹڡϺͺꡱϵаеõʾ⼸Уŷ޹ͬڵԼˡ߻þΪ߻רСȨȡЩΪ밸йصϢǣDzԴӵԼҲԴӷ֯Ѱ߽ļܴӼϽЩԼͷ֯WTO˽ض˵ĵ·[40]

ͬһݲþУ߻һµġWTOۡtheory of the interests protected by the WTOԴΪһЩԼԱԭרСΪͷóWTOģܲΨһּζţΪȷϵĹͬ棬绷ֻɸС෴߻ȴΪضҲWTOȷóֱϵΪ񺣹ڵġýȻԴexhaustible natural resourcesΡ[41] ˣ߻ΪʲԼthe Marrakech TreatyʹЩWTOЭȷʾĿɳչĿ겢ּڱȻԴĹΪϷֻҪЩΪڱϲĻ߲ģҲھͬĹ֮ӡ[42]

ңҪǣ߻þΪԼȨܵơһ棬DzõزȡʩرΥGATTĹ涨⽫WTOóơDZͨ񻷾˫߻߶ЭЭ໥֮ϵ[43] δԼʽ̸УԴЭ߻ΪDzϷģһӡʲԼƳһԭ򣬼еԼá̸еƻᡱsimilar opportunities to negotiateһԭΪһԾʹȨĴͳȻͬ[44]

һ棬ԱĹƶͲþ䷢֤飩򶼱ѭdue processԭijΥһԭҪԭǣڰ䷢֤ijУûл֤ʽᡣңҲûʽġĺͺľ[45]

ҪٴǿǣĹؼΪܲʵϵȷĺͲӡǿDZڵԭҲͬҪġЩԭ1. С֤ʽᡱformal opportunity to be heard2. Աֱѭԣreasonablenessԭ򡢱proportionalityԭ[46] ⣨good faithԭ[47]3. ԱֱֵɣԱ˾顣[48] ֮ܶ߻Ҫ˾ңҲǻЩԵɣЩּڱĴʩȻڱϼȷDzϷҲDzʵȴ߻ΪڳԱ֮ĺͲӡ

ǣйЩԭԨԴӦ˶˿ܻΪ߻ڱΪʵʩԭΪݵġǣ߻оһûʵݵġЩԭԴȻjus nature߲WTO׼˾quasi-judicial bodiesĿҲͬųˡʵϣ߻һؽʵ֤巽positivistic approachڷԭ򣬼ȿǹʷҲ˼ԱĹڷǣ߻ӸԱķһЩģgeneralߡȫԵġglobalԭЩԭǿWTOȷԭõѭʵ

ԴζǣЩԭѾҪԴڰ³ѷϵAnglo-Saxon legal ordersԱһ־ȫΧڣʹǿĹҲ¡ǣУҲԵóһۣͨWTOеijԭѾķɺơѾ˽̷Уڷɷ֧λhegemonyɴ˱õǿ[49]

ΣͷɵγɶԣþӳȻͬơʵϣƶķWTOĻʯͬͨ׼˾ƵķΪͺ߶ԣDZڵĻԭǴйɳģǸĹС [50] ˣڷɴƵĹУɵĻеľԵλabsolute preeminenceܵʴһЩԱѾ˷Ӧ[51]һ㲻Ϊˡ

ǣΪƸ漯ţ绷壩˾ΪЩּԼִȨԭõһķչڶ£ҲֵĻʵ򷨲ĹԴڡѸٷչproliferateĹ֯ͻ[52]

ĸ

ڶʮͣѾ˺ܶ仯εĹѾִзɺűϸķչҲһɲˡı仯Ѿ෴ķչͨṩƷͷ[ְcontracting outίУoutsourcing][53]

ͳΪΪΪһȨԣͬ˽֯ľǣı仯һìܡЩ仯ҲûʴDZڵƶȺĻرԲ㼶ƣhierarchyԼchecksƺ⣨balanceΪȨԼ֮صֹۡΪڱϲͬйͬ߸ʵ档Щ仯ֻ˴ͳЧǡǡ෴תѾʼڹΪ۵ۺ͹Ѿڶŷ޷ļգܷʽ졣򹹳һԱ׼ͬԭеЩѾõձϿɵԱ׼һҲѾ֡Ժͷѧձܡ[54]

һתԴŷһ廯ȫ򻯡ŷ޹ͬ巨ŷһͬʱӰ͹ͬľǰ򡣶ңŷίԱԳԱʵʩŷ޹ͬ巨мලʱΪְܷԺ˾顣ǣΪιƷһ֡ģʽinterest representation modelγɡ[55] ŷ޹ͬ巨ҪԲڳԱеԽԣҲЧּЧʹøԱ֮ĺ;Ϊܡǣµķһ֮֡ϵ򡱣order of ordersⲻӳͷԺĶԪҲӳ˷ԨԴĶԪң£ͬķ໥Ӱ죬ûбֳִеIJ㼶ơ

һΪƵı仯WTOڷΪ߻ҪԱֲ˾ҲҲþ͹Ƴ[56] ǣȨһһĶѭЩɸùȷģһ׼˾ԭ

Щ仯DzӦԹΪĴͳһȨȨʶ򷨡 [57] ෴ǡʶҪЩʵʷ̵ģ͡ʵ֤͹ڹʶ˲ͬǷһΪӵ硣УǡǡDzڲطԷɣرйصĵȨҲⲿرŷ޹ͬ͡ŷȨԼڵڶ๫֮֯һǣ빲ͬΪơִͬҲ֮ǰԷѧҺͷöĹͬlex alius loci[58] Ϊ

ij̶ֳϣЩ仯˻ҡ߸ȷеؽЩ仯һɲļֵۺϵˡȷļֵۺϵУǰ޷ʵһ̶ȵֻڳ֣ܾͺԣЩԻֲͬĽͬɲҪѧµŬΣlegal accountabilityҲ֮磬WTOרС鹤ĹԶ⡣

ǣѧDZԹΪĴͳ۹ߣͬ衢ӦͷԨԴIJ㼶Լ뼯Ȩȣ޷Щ⡣dzϣѾɷչʷ̲ģprogressiveʱпԽԵģdiscontinuityôǾͱȻóۣͱ﷽ʽԡģʽЩӦòеؽܣ͹ͨߣѧɹͿϵԣѧҲٱµĿҪһǡۻһӦǴͳĹҹ

[Abstract] This article examines the influences that the European integration and globalization have on procedural administrative law and the need for a change of paradigm. The traditional concept of administrative law, which was founded on legal positivism, the separation of powers and the supremacy of public administration held that procedural administrative law, was rooted in the political and social traditions of its own legal system, and thus denied the existence of transnational administrative law. Consequently, administrative act had long been the focus of administrative law studies, while little attention was paid to procedures and judge-making law. Recently, such a concept went challenged by the growing European integration and globalization. The EC legislations have entrusted the European administration many functions and provided uniform standards for national administrative procedures. General principles of administrative law have also been developed in practice by the EC judicature, the ECHR and the quasi-judicial bodies of the WTO. Those principles are subsumed from national legal orders, but they are so common that they are not only binding on the international organizations but also on their member states. Therefore, the theoretical foundation of new transnational procedural administrative law should be built with the concept of jus commune, but not the traditional paradigm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


* ijΪύ׽조ŷ޹ֻᡱAlmagro, 28 June 2002޸ĺ󷢱200312³ġŷ޹־European Public Lawھžڡĵ޸ĵSabino CasseseCarol Harlowۣ߼ɣСᣨGiacinto della CananeaڶԼŷ޹־л

** ŷ޴ѧEuropean University InstituteѧʿPh. DΰŵѧUniversity of UrbinoѧԺϵΣѧȫְڡ

*** 人ѧѧԺڣʿоʦ

**** 人ѧѧԺʷרҵʿо

ڴˣ߸лԼŷ޹־༭BirkinshawڶԱķĻ׼֧֡⣬߻Ҫл˹̹ѧ J. H. MerrymanڡӢţѧP. BrandڡдѧUniversity of Trento D. Quaglioniڡ¡ɴѧBologna University P. ProdiԼŵѧ M. L. NapolitanoʿM. Gnes ʿΪĵķṩмֵϺͽ顣

[1] A.M. Hespanha, Panorama historico da cultura juridica europea (1999), 뱾Ϊ Introduzione alla storia del diritto europeo, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1999, p. 4Ӣ뱾߷롣ŷ޴½еĹͬjus communeӢеͨcommon law֮𣬲μ chapter 5 of J.M. Kelly, A Short History of Western Legal Thought, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1992.

[2] M. Ascheri, Istituzioni medievali: una introduzione, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1994; P. Grossi, Lordine giuridico medieovale, Bari, Laterza, 1995; R.C. van Caenegem, European Law in the Past and the Future, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001. ͬǰμ Judges, Legislators and Professors. Chapters in European Legal History (1987). J.P. Dawson Ѿָˡƫ롱French deviation󣬲μThe Oracles of the Law, Westport, Greenwood Press, 1985.ʲ׼ԭеŷ޹ͬͳȫµʲ׼ϵһ󱻳Ϊƫ롱ϵ˹ȷ˼ҹȨһƫ롱˼µķ˼άҶڷ˾֯˾ʵ巨ͳ򷨶شӰ졣μ J. H. Merryman, The French Deviation, in: Am. J. of Com. L. (44), 1995, p. 109. ע

[3] һμ R. David, Les grands systmes de droit , Paris, Dalloz, 1985. ڹרμ M. Fromont, Grands systmes de droit trangers, Paris, Dalloz, 1998, 3th ed.

[4] μ A. Plantey, Prospective de lEtat, Paris, Pedone, 1975.

[5] һ۹ԺΪ˹ʲ׼ʤɹٽʱ徭õķչֶսƵɵķɼͳһֱ׫һϵҪ䡣ɴˣ˱Ƚ걸Ľʲ׼ϵģʽָԡط䡷񷨵䡷ΪԳķΪʽģʽע

[6] μ R. Caranta, Judicial Protection Against Member States: A New Jus Commune Takes Shape (1995) 32 CML Rev 703.

[7] S. Cassese, Toward a European Model of Public Administration, in: D.S. Clark (ed.), Comparative and Private International Law. Essays in Honor of John Henry Merryman on his Seventienth Birthday, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1990, p. 151; L. Torchia, Developments in Italian Administrative Law through Cross-fertilization, in: J. Beatson and T. Tridimas (eds.), New Directions in European Public Law, Oxford, Hart Publ., 1998, p. 137; S. Kadelbach, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht unter europaischem Einfluss, Tubingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1999.

[8] O. Mayer, Deutsches Verwaltungsrecht, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1895.

[9] A.V. Dicey, Introduction to the study of the Law of the Constitution (1885), London, MacMillan, 1959, 10th ed. 뷨ĻıȽϣμ S. Flogaitis, Administrative law et Droit administratif, Paris, L.G.D.J., 1986.

[10] A.M. Sandulli, Il procedimento amministrativo, Milano, Giuffr, 1940.

[11] M.S. Giannini, Atto amministrativo, in Enciclopedia del diritto, IV, Milano, Giuffr, 1958.

[12] S. Cassese, Legislative regulation of adjudicative procedures, in Eur. Rev. of Publ. Law (special number), 1993, p. 15. μ P. Craig, Procedures and Administrative decisionmaking: a common law perspective, ibidem, p. 55; D.J. Galligan, Due Process and Fair Procedures, Oxford, Clarendon, 1997.

[13] M.S. Giannini, Profili di un diritto amministrativo delle Comunit europee, mimeo, Rome, 14 April 1967.

[14] P. Reuter, Organisations europennes, Paris, L.G.D.J., 1968, p. 253.

[15] EEC: Council Decision of 4 December 1962 on the Co-ordination of Policies on the Structure of Agriculture. ע

[16] G. Majone, La Communaut europenne: un Etat rgulateur?, Paris, Montchrestien, 1996; E. Chiti, Le agenzie europee, Padua, Cedam, 2002.

[17] CFI, Case T-64/89, Automec [1990] ECR, II, p. 367. ԺΪںͷҲԵġ

[18] CFI, Case T-54/99, max.mobil Telekommunikation Service Gmbh v. Commission, δڶŷίԱְܵķμ A.J. Gil Ibanez, A Comparative Study of the Roles of the Commission and National Administrations in the Supervision and Enforcement of EC Law, Oxford, Hart, 1999.

[19] Case T-54/99, paras. 19 and 54.

[20] Case T-54/99, para. 48.

[21] Case T-54/99, paras. 49 and 51.

[22] Case T-54/99, paras. 56-57. һչԴڵ¹ιңRechtsStaat˼Ĺ۵㣬 A.Weber ģμIl diritto amministrativo procedimentale nellordinamento della Comunit europea, in Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario, 1992, p. 393. C. Starck ͬĹ۵㣬μDroits fondamentaux, Etat de droit et principe dmocratique en tant que fondements de la procdure administrative non contentieuse, in: Eur. R. Publ. L., 1993, p. 31.

[23]ŷ޹ͬԼ226涨ŷίԱΪһԱδбԼ涨ôӦԴɳֵľDZйسԱĻᡣйسԱδŷίԱָиþŷίԱԽύŷ޷Ժþע

[24] R. Rawlings Դ˽˷μCitizen Action and Institutional Attitudes in Commission Enforcement, in: Eur. L. J (5), 2000, p. 4 ss.

[25] H.P. NehlPrinciples of Administrative Procedure in EC Law, Oxford, Hart Publ., 1999 һ鲢δdzĸ

[26] ɭΪɴȨƶķɹ淶ǹ涨ԵģprescriptiveɿѧķɹȴԵģdescriptive[] ɭ룬ҵһۡйٿȫ1996棬49ҳڴˣּǿԺԭзɹ淶ʡע

[27] 30 May, Belvedere v. Italy and Carbonara v. Italy, in: Foro italiano, 2001, IV, p. 14.

[28] Judgment of 2 August 2001, Etia s.r.l. v. Italy, in: Giornale di diritto amministrativo, 2002, p. 631.

[29] S. Kadelbach, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht unter Europaschem Einfluss, cit.

[30] P. Reuter, Le recours de la Cour de Justice des Commanuts des principes gnraux de droit, in Mlanges Rolin, Paris, Pedone, 1964, p. 263 ss.; J.A. Usher, The influence of national concepts on decisions of the European Court, in: Eur. L. Rev. (1), 1976, p. 359 ss.

[31] H.J. Blanke, Vertrauenschutz im deutschen und europaischen Verwaltungsrecht, Tubingen, Mohr, 2000, Ϊŷ޹ͬԺϷڴlegitimate expectationıһ֡Ϊingerenz

[32] ECJ, case 222/86, Unectef, ECR 1987, 4097; J. Schwarze (ed.), Administrative Law under European influence, London, Sweet and Maxwell, 1996; F. Hervouet, Politique jurisprudentielle de la Cour de Justice et des juridictions nationales: rcepetion du droit communautaire par le droit interne des Etats, in: Revue de Droit Public, 1992, p. 1257 et seq.

[33] C. Harlow һ, μFrancovich and the Problem of the Disobedient State, in: Eur. L. J. (2), 1996, p. 199 ss. μ A. Stone Sweet, Integration and the Europeanization of the Law, unpublished manuscript, 2002.

[34] C. Harlow, A Common European Law of Remedies?, in: C. Kilpatrick, T. Novitz and P. Stidmore (eds.), The Future of Remedies in Europe, Oxford, Hart, 2000, p. 73.

[35] S. Cassese, Il concerto regolamentare europeo delle telecomunicazioni, in: S. Cassese, Lo spazio giuridico globale, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 2003, p. 105.

[36] ECJ, case 33/76, Rewe v. Landwirtschaftskammer Saarland [1976] ECR 1989, 1997. W. Van Gerven רŶԴ μThe invader invaded or the need to uncover general principles common to the laws of the member states, in: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias (ed.), Mlanges en hommage Fernand Schockweiler, Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1999, p. 593. йһۣμJ. Schwarze, Judicial Review in EC Law C Some Reflections on the Origins and the Actual Legal Situation, in Int. Comp. L. Quart. (51), 2002, p. 17.

[37] ECJ, joined cases C-80, 81 and 82/99, Flemmer and Christoffel / EU Council and Commission,Leitensdorfer v. Bundesanstalt fr Landswirschaft und Ernahrung, δ

[38] ECJ, case C-312/93, Peterbroeck [1995] ECR I C 4599; joined cases C-430/93 and 431/93, van Schijndel [1995] ECR I C 4075. ڶԴ˵μ C. Harlow, Voices of Difference in a Plural Community, EUI Jean Monnet working paper no. 3/2000. G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias ˲ͬĿμSui limiti dellautonomia procedimentale e processuale degli stati membri nellapplicazione del diritto comunitario, in: Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario, 2001, p. 5 et seq.

[39] WT/DS46/AB/R Brazil C Export Financing Programme for Aircraft, decision of 2 August 1999, para. 160.

[40] ݾ 1.רС鱨棬WT/DS58R, 15 May 1998; 2.߻棬WT/DS58/AB/R 12 October 1998; 3.߻棬WT/DS58/AB/RW, 22 October 2001. ֱ𱻼Ϊ Shrimp IShrimp II Shrimp III. Щоμ A. von Bogdandy, Law and Politics in the WTO, in: Max Planck Yearbook of International Law, 2000, p. 613; J. Scott, On Kith and Kine (and Crustaceans): Trade and Environment in the EU and WTO, in: J.H.H. Weiler (ed), The EU, the WTO and the NAFTA. Towards A Common Law of International Trade, Oxford, 2000, p. 125 et seq.

[41] Shrimp II, para. 127.

[42] Shrimp II, para. 129; Shrimp III, para. 119. μ߻棬United States C Standard for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 20 May 1996, para. 21-22.

[43] Shrimp II, para. 167-168. μ T. Scovazzi (ed.), The Protection of the Environment in a context of regional economic integration. The Case of the European Community, the Mercosur and the NAFTA, Milan, Giuffr, 2002.

[44] Shrimp III, paras. 115, 122, commented by P. Trachtmann on the web site of Eur. J. of Int. L. <http://www.ejil.org>.

[45] Shrimp II, para. 180.

[46] Shrimp II, para. 141; E. Cannizzaro, The Role of Proportionality in the Law of International Countermeasures, in: Eu .J. Int. Law (12), 2001, p. 889.

[47] Shrimp III, para. 153.

[48] Shrimp II, para. 181.

[49] T. Daintith еģѾõǿġ֧λhegemonyۣμ Exchange, response and competition: external perspectives on the United Kingdom constitution, in: Public Law, 2000, p. 165. ˽ߵۣμ P.N. Doremus, The Externalization of Domestic Regulation: Intellectual Property Rights in a Global Era, in: Indiana J. Of Global Legal Studies (3), 1996, no. 2, p. 1. ڡ򷨡ӦӦĹ۵ A. C. Aman, jr.ģμProposals for Reforming the Administrative Procedure Act: Globalization, Democracy and the Furtherance of a Global Public Interest, in: Ind. J. Global Legal Studies (6), 2001, p. 397.

[50] μ A. Stone Sweet, The new GATT: Dispute Resolution and the Judicialization of the Trade Regime, in: M. Volcansek (ed.), Law Above Nations: Supranational Courts and the Legalization of Politics, Gainesville, University of Florida Press, 1999, p. 118; Y. Iwasawa, WTO Dispute Settlement as Judicial Supervision, in: J. of Int. Ec. Law (5), 2002, no. 2, p. 287.

[51] ˽֯ͷܷ֯GATT/WTO˽⣬˹㷺ۡసרС鱨棨ֱ19911994δͨϵк갸IJþһ˿϶Ļش𡣴˺ŷҲ˽֯˾ķɻơμG. Shaffer, Defending Interests: Public-Private Parternship in WTO Litigation, Brookings Institution Press, 2003. ע

[52] N.M. Blokker and H.G. Schermers (eds.), Proliferation of International Organizations, The Hague, Kluwer, 2001.

[53] ھȫ򻯽УҵĹ𽥱ͬʱ˽֯ͻƵƣЧʸߣŷḻרҵ֪ʶ͹顣ȫ򻯵ľûʹְԽԽرίи˽֯еӶγһֹ/˽ںʽġnew governanceģʽˣ˽лʽչҪ־֡ģʽ˸ΪְõһϵзͬʽίС˰֧ȯֱӴҵԼӪȡμAlfred C. Aman, Jr., Globalization, Democracy, and the Need for a New Administrative Law, in: UCLA Law Rev. (49), 2002, p. 1687. ע

[54] һ⣬N. Luhmann ˻ԵĹףLegitimation durch Verfahren, Stuttgart, 1976, ˹㷺ۣμ K.F. Rohl and S. Machura (eds.), Procedural Justice, Ashgate, Dartmouth, 1997. μ D.J. Galligan, Due Process and Fair Procedures, cit., p. 350 et seq.

[55] R.B. Stewart, The Reformation of American Administrative Law, in: Harvard Law Rev. (88), 1975, p. 1670.

[56] μ C. Harlow, European Administrative Law and the Global Challenge, in: P. Craig and G. de Bur?a (eds.), The Evolution of EU Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 261.

[57] A. Chayes A. Handler Chayes Ȩthe new sovereignty, μThe New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements, Cambridge (Mass.), University Press, 1995; R.O. Keohane, Ironies of Sovereignty: the European Union and United States, in: J. Common Market St. (40), 2002, p. 743 et seq.

[58] ϸؽŷ޹ͬʱڣlex alius locilex alterius lociӦĸǰָձڶķɣָ֮乲ͬķɡڵlex alius lociͨһɺ͹ǿŷһ廯żʡ ע