Judicial and Extra-Judicial Review: The Quest for Epistemic Certainty

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingBook chapterResearchpeer-review

Standard

Judicial and Extra-Judicial Review: The Quest for Epistemic Certainty. / Krajewski, Michal.

The Boards of Appeal of EU Agencies: A New Paradigm of Legal Protection?. ed. / Mariolina Eliantonio; Merijn Chamon; Annalisa Volpato. Oxford University Press, 2021.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingBook chapterResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Krajewski, M 2021, Judicial and Extra-Judicial Review: The Quest for Epistemic Certainty. in M Eliantonio, M Chamon & A Volpato (eds), The Boards of Appeal of EU Agencies: A New Paradigm of Legal Protection?. Oxford University Press.

APA

Krajewski, M. (2021). Judicial and Extra-Judicial Review: The Quest for Epistemic Certainty. In M. Eliantonio, M. Chamon, & A. Volpato (Eds.), The Boards of Appeal of EU Agencies: A New Paradigm of Legal Protection? Oxford University Press.

Vancouver

Krajewski M. Judicial and Extra-Judicial Review: The Quest for Epistemic Certainty. In Eliantonio M, Chamon M, Volpato A, editors, The Boards of Appeal of EU Agencies: A New Paradigm of Legal Protection?. Oxford University Press. 2021

Author

Krajewski, Michal. / Judicial and Extra-Judicial Review: The Quest for Epistemic Certainty. The Boards of Appeal of EU Agencies: A New Paradigm of Legal Protection?. editor / Mariolina Eliantonio ; Merijn Chamon ; Annalisa Volpato. Oxford University Press, 2021.

Bibtex

@inbook{412a5a4062d0482294dae1abe28f620b,
title = "Judicial and Extra-Judicial Review: The Quest for Epistemic Certainty",
abstract = "Boards of appeal have been set up in some EU agencies to offer legal protection attuned to regulatory fields requiring specialist knowledge. They also moderate the number of technically or scientifically complex cases reaching the generalist EU Courts. However, litigants have recently called in question the limited extent to which boards of appeal delve into contentious empirical appraisals adopted by EU agencies. Do the boards of appeal fulfil the hopes placed in them by exceeding EU judicial review capacities? This paper explores the review technique of the EU Courts and several boards of appeal employed in empirically complex cases decided between 2014 and 2018. It argues that neither the EU Courts nor the boards of appeals can perform a fully autonomous and exhaustive check of the contested empirical appraisals. Due to their institutional and procedural features, they struggle with epistemic uncertainty in regulatory fields in which decisions must be made despite persisting data gaps or the lack of rigorous scientific or technical methodologies. The judicial or extra-judicial review reaches only as far as the applicants themselves can prove the certainty of their scientific or technical assertions against those of the challenged EU institutions or agencies. This conclusion leads to fundamental questions regarding the rule of law{\textquoteright}s requirements in relation to the contentious and uncertain empirical basis of a growing number of EU legal acts and the normative functions of EU judicial and extra-judicial review.",
keywords = "Faculty of Law, Court of Justice of the European Union, General Court, board of appeal, Judicial review, administrative review, extra-judicial review, alternative dispute resolution, empirical uncertainty, administrative discretion, technical discretion, action for annulment, administrative appeal, Rule of Law, inquisitorial and adversarial trial",
author = "Michal Krajewski",
year = "2021",
language = "English",
editor = "Mariolina Eliantonio and Merijn Chamon and Annalisa Volpato",
booktitle = "The Boards of Appeal of EU Agencies: A New Paradigm of Legal Protection?",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
address = "United Kingdom",

}

RIS

TY - CHAP

T1 - Judicial and Extra-Judicial Review: The Quest for Epistemic Certainty

AU - Krajewski, Michal

PY - 2021

Y1 - 2021

N2 - Boards of appeal have been set up in some EU agencies to offer legal protection attuned to regulatory fields requiring specialist knowledge. They also moderate the number of technically or scientifically complex cases reaching the generalist EU Courts. However, litigants have recently called in question the limited extent to which boards of appeal delve into contentious empirical appraisals adopted by EU agencies. Do the boards of appeal fulfil the hopes placed in them by exceeding EU judicial review capacities? This paper explores the review technique of the EU Courts and several boards of appeal employed in empirically complex cases decided between 2014 and 2018. It argues that neither the EU Courts nor the boards of appeals can perform a fully autonomous and exhaustive check of the contested empirical appraisals. Due to their institutional and procedural features, they struggle with epistemic uncertainty in regulatory fields in which decisions must be made despite persisting data gaps or the lack of rigorous scientific or technical methodologies. The judicial or extra-judicial review reaches only as far as the applicants themselves can prove the certainty of their scientific or technical assertions against those of the challenged EU institutions or agencies. This conclusion leads to fundamental questions regarding the rule of law’s requirements in relation to the contentious and uncertain empirical basis of a growing number of EU legal acts and the normative functions of EU judicial and extra-judicial review.

AB - Boards of appeal have been set up in some EU agencies to offer legal protection attuned to regulatory fields requiring specialist knowledge. They also moderate the number of technically or scientifically complex cases reaching the generalist EU Courts. However, litigants have recently called in question the limited extent to which boards of appeal delve into contentious empirical appraisals adopted by EU agencies. Do the boards of appeal fulfil the hopes placed in them by exceeding EU judicial review capacities? This paper explores the review technique of the EU Courts and several boards of appeal employed in empirically complex cases decided between 2014 and 2018. It argues that neither the EU Courts nor the boards of appeals can perform a fully autonomous and exhaustive check of the contested empirical appraisals. Due to their institutional and procedural features, they struggle with epistemic uncertainty in regulatory fields in which decisions must be made despite persisting data gaps or the lack of rigorous scientific or technical methodologies. The judicial or extra-judicial review reaches only as far as the applicants themselves can prove the certainty of their scientific or technical assertions against those of the challenged EU institutions or agencies. This conclusion leads to fundamental questions regarding the rule of law’s requirements in relation to the contentious and uncertain empirical basis of a growing number of EU legal acts and the normative functions of EU judicial and extra-judicial review.

KW - Faculty of Law

KW - Court of Justice of the European Union

KW - General Court

KW - board of appeal

KW - Judicial review

KW - administrative review

KW - extra-judicial review

KW - alternative dispute resolution

KW - empirical uncertainty

KW - administrative discretion

KW - technical discretion

KW - action for annulment

KW - administrative appeal

KW - Rule of Law

KW - inquisitorial and adversarial trial

M3 - Book chapter

BT - The Boards of Appeal of EU Agencies: A New Paradigm of Legal Protection?

A2 - Eliantonio, Mariolina

A2 - Chamon, Merijn

A2 - Volpato, Annalisa

PB - Oxford University Press

ER -

ID: 252982064