Railway Liberalisation in the European Union

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.Former public sectors or sectors “close to the state” (staatsnahe Sektoren) like rail transport are exposed to a market- and competition-based liberalisation process in the context of European integration and the single market project. The European Commission (COM) promotes liberalisation in various ways. This paper analyses a number of infringement lawsuits led by COM against several member states (MSs) that were accused of not having transposed directives on railway liberalisation properly. These lawsuits allowed the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) for the first time to interpret the European legislation on rail transport. The role of the CJEU as political and politically restricted actor is evaluated differently in the scientific debate. On the one hand, the CJEU is considered to be an integrationist “engine of liberalization”. On the other hand, it is perceived to be bounded by its political surroundings. In the cases considered here the Court’s judgments differ and the paper asks for the reason for this differentiation. For this purpose, following a debate in the American Political Science Review, competing hypotheses concerning the CJEU’s political autonomy are generated and tested statistically. Since many MSs decided to intervene as third parties in support of other MSs during the proceedings at a first glance the interventions seemed to be of vital importance. However, the results do not support assumptions that MS interveners play a key role in the observed lawsuits. Against this, the judges followed the Court’s Advocate General nearly without exception, who as an independent expert witness confirms or rejects individual complaints of an infringement process in a factual manner. This holds true for recommendations in favour of the plaintiff (COM) as well as for those in favour of the indictee (MS). Beyond this, the judgment pattern shows that railway company holding models are tolerated by the CJEU. Such vertically integrated firm structures have been one of the core points of contention between COM and MS. In this paper, I do not find evidence that the CJEU has a strict bias in favor of liberalisation or in favor of the European Commission

CJEU judgments in the news – capturing the public salience of decisions of the EU’s highest court

Case salience data are prominent in the US judicial politics literature. By contrast, such data is not available for most other courts. With the continued judicialization of politics in the EU and the CJEU's growing importance, court decisions could increasingly receive public attention. Inspired by US case salience data this paper provides insight into new data on newspaper coverage of 4357 CJEU decisions in eight EU broadsheets. Asking under which conditions newspapers report on judicial decisions, the article links theoretical expectations about the public salience of court decisions with empirical data on CJEU case salience. Multi-level regression models show that the salience of CJEU decisions varies depending on the standing of courts in national political systems, case characteristics, inter-institutional conflict, and the Court's public relations activities. These findings have implications for the perception and communication of the CJEU and provide initial insights into media attention for hundreds of CJEU cases.ISSN:1350-1763ISSN:1466-442

Media Attention for CJEU Case Law: Measurement, Data Collection, and Analysis of Case Salience Data

Newspapers as the main media of political coverage continue to be primary outlets for reports and opinions on collectively binding decisions. Following a quantitative research strategy, this chapter introduces a new methodological approach that allows us to systematically capture media attention and public salience of court decisions. It provides insight into a new dataset for newspaper coverage of more than 4,000 CJEU decisions in eight EU quality newspapers. The chapter describes the data collection process, the structure of the data, and the opportunities for quantitative analysis. Moreover, it emphasizes the general applicability of this methodological approach for a large number of court cases across a longer time period. The collected data offers new insights into media attention to CJEU cases and various opportunities for future analysis. The contribution also reflects on limitations, strengths, and weaknesses of this quantitative approach of studying the CJEU, compared to other approaches presented in the volume

Contestation, Politicization, and the CJEU’s Public Relations Toolbox: Judgments of the Court of Justice of the EU in their Public and Political Context

EU politics has become an increasingly politicized environment in recent decades. This dissertation investigates how the EU’s highest court fares in this environment. Just like many other international courts, the CJEU gained power in recent decades. This development makes public and political attention and reactions more likely and bears the potential for contestation and politicization. Despite the importance of CJEU rulings, we have little to no systematic insight into their public salience and controversiality to date. The main aim of this dissertation is to identify under which conditions judicial procedures and decisions trigger reactions in the public and political environment of the CJEU. To address this aim, the dissertation poses several research questions: (1) Under which circumstances are governments mobilized to intervene in CJEU cases?; (2) Under which conditions do media report about CJEU decisions?; (3) How does the CJEU promote judgments through press releases and social media?; (4) Is it successful in doing so? The cumulative dissertation operationalizes and measures core components of contestation and politicization, and delivers empirical analyses of governmental and media attention to CJEU cases in quantitative research designs. It looks at the mobilization of actors in CJEU procedures (papers 1 and 2) and public and media attention to CJEU judgments (papers 3 and 4). Paper 1 reveals under which conditions EU governments intervene in CJEU procedures and delivers evidence that political preferences about legislative acts matter for conflicts in the EU’s judicial arena. The mobilization of EU governments and conflict among them also matters for the public communication efforts of the Court, as paper 2 can show. Paper 3 delivers empirical insights into new data on press coverage of more than 4,300 CJEU decisions in eight newspapers. The internet, digitalization, and the rise of online and social media have led to fundamental changes in the configuration of the public sphere. Therefore, paper 4 links data for the CJEU’s public communication with data on the public debate about the Court on Twitter. It reveals how the CJEU professionalized its communication strategies and how its messages influence the Twitter debate. Building on a variety of datasets and newly collected data, these findings deliver novel insights into public and political reactions to CJEU cases. They allow us to understand better, how the EU’s highest court fares in the deeply integrated and highly politicized setting EU politics has become. In sum, this dissertation shows that politicization matters for the Court and its judgments. Cases’ influence on domestic legislation, conflict among EU governments, the role of courts in domestic political systems, and public communication efforts of the Court have the strongest impact on the politicization of the CJEU

Online Appendix for "CJEU Judgments in the News – Capturing the Public Salience of Decisions of the EU’s Highest Court"

This is the online Appendix for the paper "CJEU Judgments in the News – Capturing the Public Salience of Decisions of the EU’s Highest Court"ISSN:1350-1763ISSN:1466-442

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

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

Data Management – An Introduction to Good Practice in Handling your Research Data

In today's research landscape, the volume and complexity of data generated across diverse disciplines continue to surge, underscoring the critical importance of robust data management practices. This lecture provides a comprehensive overview of strategies and best practice principles for handling research data. Participants will learn about key aspects of the different stages of the data lifecycle, from data management planning and organisation to data preservation and sharing. Attendees will gain an understanding of the following core topics: - Best practices for data management according to the FAIR data principles; - Strategies for data documentation and metadata creation; - Open Science aspects of data handling and principles of data publishing; - Advise on identifying suitable data repositories for publishing research data; - Importance of data preservation for ensuring the longevity and accessibility of research outputs; - Compliance with institutional and funder requirements for data archiving; - Adoption of standards for long-term data preservation; - Ethical and legal boundary conditions of research data handling and sharing; The lecture equips students and researchers with the knowledge necessary to navigate the terrain of research data management. Embracing effective data management practices supports participants to enhance the quality and impact of their research and equips them with valuable knowledge to contribute to the advancement of Open Science and scholarly collaboration

Action Plan Data Stewardship ETH Zurich

The poster summarises and presents the action plan on data stewardship that has been established for ETH Zurich. The action plan has been established in light of the Swiss national programme on Open Research Data that is implemented by swissuniversities, the rector's conference of Swiss higher education institutions

Friends of the Court? Why EU governments file observations before the Court of Justice

The preliminary reference procedure under which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) responds to questions from national courts regarding the interpretation of EU law is a key mechanism in many accounts of the development of European integration and law. While the significance of the procedure has been broadly acknowledged, one aspect has been largely omitted: The opportunity for member state governments to submit their views (‘observations’) to the Court in ongoing cases. Previous research has shown that these observations matter for the Court's decisions, and thus that they are likely to have a significant impact on the course of European integration. Still, little is known about when and why member states decide to engage in the preliminary reference procedure by submitting observations. This article shows that there is significant variation, both between cases and between member states, in the number of observations filed. A theoretical argument is developed to explain this variation. Most importantly, a distinction is made between legal and political reasons for governments to get involved in the preliminary reference cases, and it is argued that both types of factors should be relevant. By matching empirical data from inter‐governmental negotiations on legislative acts in the Council of the EU with member states’ subsequent participation in the Court procedures, a research design is developed to test these arguments. It is found that the decision to submit observations can be tied both to concerns with the doctrinal development of EU law and to more immediate political preferences. The conclusion is that the legal (the CJEU) and political (the Council) arenas of the EU system are more interconnected than some of the previous literature would lead us to believe.ISSN:0304-4130ISSN:1475-676