Searching for order: exploring the use of delegated and implementing acts in the EU customs code
Searching for order: exploring the use of delegated and implementing acts in the EU customs code
复制标题
寻找秩序：探索欧盟海关法典中授权和实施行为的使用
DOI：
10.1080/20508840.2017.1363980
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
E. Tauschinsky
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Tauschinsky
授权行为和执行行为之间的区分不仅在欧盟法院讨论，而且在起草要求使用授权或执行规则制定的立法时，这也是机构之间的辩论问题。本文以《联邦海关法》(UCC)为例，研究了授权和执行规则制定权的分配及其区别。海关制度经过重新调整，以适应委员会法案的变化，因此是一个特别恰当的例子。调查结果表明，授权的任务和执行的任务在措辞上有所不同。授权规则更多地提到物质条件，而执行规定更多地规定程序规则。在某些情况下，这也可以从UCC授权和实施法案本身中看出。这种情况可以用欧盟的分工来解释，在欧盟，执行和程序安排都是成员国的领域。然而，《海关法》及其《委员会法》也表明，这种做法需要对委员会的任务进行非常详细的说明，而且很难根据其内容来确定一项规定是实质性规则还是程序性规则。
The division between delegated and implementing acts is not only discussed before the Court of Justice of the EU, it is also a matter of debate between the institutions when drafting legislation which mandates the use of either delegated or implementing rule-making. This article uses the example of the Union Customs Code (UCC) to research the distribution of delegated and implementing rule-making powers and their differentiation. The customs regime was recast to account for the changes of Commission acts and is therefore a particularly apt example. The findings show that the delegated and implementing mandates differ in terms of their wording. Delegated rules refer more often to material conditions whereas implementing provisions provide more often for procedural rules. This can in some cases also be seen in the UCC Delegated and Implementing Acts themselves. This situation can be explained by the division of labour in the EU, where implementation and procedural arrangements both are the domain of Member States. However, the Customs Code and its Commission acts also show that such an approach requires a very detailed description of Commission mandates and that it is difficult to determine by its content whether a provision is a material or procedural rule.