Trust and Deference between Legal Authorities in Europe
A workshop organised by the Amsterdam Centre for European Law and Governance (ACELG) and the Paul Scholten Centre (PSC). Financed by Law and Justice Across Borders.
This workshop, financed by Law and Justice Across Borders, seeks to explore the conceptual and empirical assumptions and justifications underlying the mechanism of trust and deference between legal authorities in Europe.
Trust and deference are crucial mechanisms of interaction and cooperation between legal authorities in Europe. Deference means that an authority does not make its own assessment or decision in a particular matter but relies on the decision of another authority. The basis for this deference is trust in the second authority. It ultimately means that the deferring authority puts its trust on the authority it defers to. It has trust that the second authority takes a correct decision in matters of fact and law, especially the rule of law. The workshop seeks to explore the conceptual and empirical assumptions and justifications underlying the mechanism of trust and deference between legal authorities in Europe.
Scope and background
The mechanism of trust and deference operates between various authorities at different levels in Europe. The scope of the workshop is thus deliberately vast in terms of areas of law to be covered.
- ECtHR deferring to Parties to the Convention, cf. the margin of appreciation.
- ECtHR deferring to the EU, cf. the Bosphorus doctrine.
- Police and judicial authorities of one Member State deferring to a judicial authority of another Member State cf. mutual trust and recognition in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.
- Civil enforcement authorities of a Member State deferring to a judicial authority of another Member State, cf. mutual recognition of European Enforcement Orders.
- Administrative agencies of a Member state deferring to an administrative agency of another Member State, cf. Common European Asylum System, esp. Dublin Regulation; European passport for financial services (MIFID).
- Criminal courts deferring to administrative tribunals, cf. criminalization of migration offences.
- Administrative tribunals deferring to the administration, cf. marginal review of the exercise of administrative discretionary powers; judicial review of factual assessment done by the administration, instead of a de novo examination of the fact.
- Legislative and judicial authorities deferring to administrative authorities in the context of emergency regimes.
Both in case law and legal scholarship, we find justifications and explanations for this mechanism of trust and deference. A deferring authority may put its trust in other authorities because of their expertise. Deference may express a particular constitutional and political arrangement whereby some authorities are deemed more legitimate to make certain judgments, e.g. policy choices and weighting of interests. Trust and deference may also operate as a compromise between full harmonization and integration of public functions and retaining national or institutional autonomy, eg European Arrest Warrant.
- Evelien Brouwer (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
- Anne Meuwese (Tilburg University)
- Valsamis Mitsilegas (Queen Mary University of London)
- Marc de Wilde (University of Amsterdam)
- Lauréline Fontaine (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle - Paris 3)
- Ronald Janse (University of Amsterdam)
- Marie Linton (Uppsala University Sweden)
- Eva Storskrubb (Uppsala University Sweden)
Attendance is free of charge, registration per email to Yvonne ter Horst is appreciated.
Seminar room A3.01
Roeterseilandcampus - building A
Nieuwe Achtergracht 166 | 1018 WV AmsterdamGo to detailpage
+31 (0)20 525 5340