‘Transposition’ of EU regulations: the politics of supplementing EU regulations with national rules

ABSTRACT

This article argues for the inclusion of regulations in studies of EU policy implementation and compliance. Although both EU directives and EU regulations are to be implemented by the member states, the literature has devoted almost exclusive attention to directives. This is because, first, directives are considered more important than regulations. Second, the notification of the transposition of directives provides a convenient way to compare implementation records. Third, the transposition of directives allegedly introduces an extra implementation step. However, upon closer inspection all three reasons are flawed. Regulations – like directives – often require national rules to enter into effect, a fact long accepted by the European Court of Justice. This creates a situation remarkably similar to the transposition of directives. By analysing two case studies, we contribute by detailing this politico-legal situation, demonstrating its empirical relevance and sketching a new research agenda on the supplementation of EU regulations with national rules.

KEYWORDS:

• European Union
• compliance
• directives
• implementation
• legal instrument
• regulations

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 These numbers stem from the EUR-Lex database visited on May 23, 2022. It can be discussed exactly how such numbers should be counted, for instance whether Commission acts should to be included. However, no matter how the population of regulations and directives is defined, the former clearly outnumbers the latter.

2 Calculated by the authors based on the dataset published by Fabio Franchino at: https://sites.unimi.it/fabiofranchino/publications/books/the-powers-of-the-union/

3 See, e.g., articles 5, 23 and 45 in regulation (EU) 2016/424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on cableway installations and repealing Directive 2000/9/EC, OJ L 81, 31.3.2016, pp. 1–50.

4 See, e.g., the Danske Svineproducenter case (C-316/10: point 41); the Ketelä case (C-592/11: point 36); and the Lingurar case (C-315/16: point 18).

5 For full documentation of the case studies, please see Blom-Hansen et al. (2021).

6 Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport. OJ L 3, 5.1.2005, pp. 1–44.

7 Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market. OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, pp. 72–87.

Additional information

Funding

The research reported in this article has been funded by a grant from the Danish Parliament, Folketinget, under grant number 19/14013-3.

Notes on contributors

Jens Blom-Hansen

Jens Blom-Hansen is Professor of Political Science at the University of Aarhus, Denmark.

Jørgen Grønnegård Christensen

Jørgen Grønnegård Christensen is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Aarhus, Denmark.

Caroline Howard Grøn

Caroline Howard Grøn is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Aarhus, Denmark.

Michael Hansen Jensen

Michael Hansen Jensen is Professor of Law at the University of Aarhus, Denmark.

Peter B. Mortensen

Peter B. Mortensen is Professor of Political Science at the University of Aarhus, Denmark.