@article{DawsonBobićMaricutAkbik, author = {Dawson, Mark and Bobić, Ana and Maricut-Akbik, Adina}, title = {Reconciling Independence and accountability at the European Central Bank: The false promise of Proceduralism}, series = {European Law Journal}, volume = {25}, journal = {European Law Journal}, number = {1}, issn = {1468-0386}, doi = {10.1111/eulj.12305}, pages = {75 -- 93}, abstract = {This article revisits the balancing act between independence and accountability at the European Central Bank (ECB). It contrasts procedural and substantive concepts of accountability, and challenges the mainstream idea that independence and accountability can be reconciled through narrow mandates, the indiscriminate increase of transparency, the creation of multiple channels of accountability, and the active use of judicial review. These assumptions form the pillars of a procedural type of accountability that promises to resolve the independence/accountability dilemma but fails to do so in practice. The article brings evidence to show how ECB accountability has become a complex administrative exercise that focuses on the procedural steps leading up to monetary and supervisory decisions while simultaneously limiting substantive accountability. The failure to acknowledge the trade-off between independence and accountability (said to be 'two sides of the same coin') has resulted in a tendency to privilege the former over the latter.}, language = {en} } @article{DawsonBobić, author = {Dawson, Mark and Bobić, Ana}, title = {Quantitative easing at the Court of Justice - Doing whatever it takes to save the euro: Weiss and Others}, series = {Common Market Law Review}, volume = {56}, journal = {Common Market Law Review}, number = {4}, issn = {0165-0750}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-30368}, pages = {1005 -- 1040}, language = {en} } @article{BobićDawson, author = {Bobić, Ana and Dawson, Mark}, title = {Making sense of the "incomprehensible": The PSPP Judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court}, series = {Common Market Law Review}, volume = {57}, journal = {Common Market Law Review}, number = {6}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-36925}, pages = {1953 -- 1998}, language = {en} } @incollection{Bobić, author = {Bobić, Ana}, title = {Accountability Through Self-Governance in EU Economic Governance}, series = {Critical Reflections on Constitutional Democracy in the European Union}, booktitle = {Critical Reflections on Constitutional Democracy in the European Union}, editor = {Garben, Sacha and Govaere, Inge and Nemitz, Paul}, publisher = {Bloomsbury}, address = {London, UK}, isbn = {9781509933266}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-42322}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {149 -- 165}, language = {en} } @incollection{Bobić, author = {Bobić, Ana}, title = {(Re)Turning to Solidarity in EU Economic Governance: A Normative Proposal}, series = {Contesting Austerity: A Socio-Legal Inquiry Into Resistance to Austerity}, booktitle = {Contesting Austerity: A Socio-Legal Inquiry Into Resistance to Austerity}, editor = {Farahat, Anuscheh and Arzoz, Xabier}, publisher = {Bloomsbury Publishing}, address = {London, UK}, isbn = {9781509942824}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-42330}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {115 -- 134}, language = {en} } @misc{vanZebenBobić, author = {van Zeben, Josephine and Bobić, Ana}, title = {Polycentricity in the European Union}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, address = {Cambridge}, isbn = {Online: 9781108528771, Print: 9781108423540}, doi = {10.1017/9781108528771}, pages = {340}, abstract = {Supranational governance is being challenged by politicians and citizens around the EU as over-centralized and undemocratic. This book is premised on the idea that polycentric governance, developed by Vincent and Elinor Ostrom, is a fruitful place to start for addressing this challenge. Assessing the presence of, and potential for, polycentric governance within the EU means approaching established principles and practices from a new perspective. While the debate on these issues is rich, longstanding and interdisciplinary, it has proven difficult to sidestep the 'renationalisation/federalisation' dichotomy. The aim of this volume is not to reject the EU's institutional structure but provide a different benchmark for the assessment of its functioning. Polycentric theory highlights the importance of multilevel horizontal relationships within the EU - between states, but also between many sub-state actors, all the way down to individuals. This helps us answer the question: how do we achieve self-governance in an interdependent world?}, language = {en} } @book{Bobić, author = {Bobić, Ana}, title = {The Individual in the Economic and Monetary Union: A Study of Legal Accountability}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, address = {Cambridge}, isbn = {9781009207942}, publisher = {Hertie School}, language = {en} } @book{Bobić, author = {Bobić, Ana}, title = {The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict in the European Union}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {9780192847034}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {320}, abstract = {A comparative and comprehensive account of the jurisprudence of constitutional conflict between the Court of Justice and national courts with the power of constitutional review. This monograph addresses the incidences of, and reasons for, constitutional clashes in the application and enforcement of EU law. It aims to determine how the principle of primacy of EU law works in reality and whether the jurisprudence of the courts under analysis supports this concept. To this end, the book explores the three areas of constitutional conflict: ultra vires review, identity review, and fundamental rights review. The book substantiates the descriptive and strengthens the normative contributions of the theory of constitutional pluralism in relation to the web of relations in the European judicial space. By examining the influence that the jurisprudence of constitutional conflict has on the balance of powers between the Court of Justice and constitutional courts, the volume develops the judicial triangle as an analytical tool that depicts the consequences for the horizontal (constitutional courts vis-{\`a}-vis the Court of Justice) and vertical judicial relationships (Court of Justice vis-{\`a}-vis ordinary national courts; constitutional courts vis-{\`a}-vis ordinary national courts). By offering a thorough compilation of the jurisprudence of constitutional conflict in the EU, The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict in the European Union improves our understanding of the principle of primacy of EU law and its limits, as well as reinforces the theory of constitutional pluralism in explaining and guiding judicial power relations and interactions in the EU.}, language = {en} } @article{Bobić, author = {Bobić, Ana}, title = {Constructive Versus Destructive Conflict: Taking Stock of the Recent Constitutional Jurisprudence in the EU}, series = {Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies}, volume = {22}, journal = {Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies}, issn = {1528-8870 (Print), 2049-7636 (Online)}, doi = {10.1017/cel.2020.9}, pages = {60 -- 84}, language = {en} } @article{Bobić, author = {Bobić, Ana}, title = {Developments in The EU-German Judicial Love Story: The Right To Be Forgotten II}, series = {German Law Journal}, volume = {21}, journal = {German Law Journal}, number = {S1}, issn = {2071-8322}, doi = {10.1017/glj.2020.15}, pages = {31 -- 39}, abstract = {The relationship between the Court of Justice and the Bundesverfassungsgericht is perhaps one of the most explored relationships in all of EU's legal history. In attempting to understand and operationalize the uncertainty surrounding the positioning between EU and national constitutional orders, they have in some respects followed the footsteps of a typical life-long love story: in the early years of European integration, both courts appeared to be in denial of any romance, and entered into a conflict over the question of the final arbiter; they subsequently turned to flirting by moving away from an institutionally based conflict towards finding a common substantive ground; which resulted in finally abandoning the competition for domination, but rather embracing mutual respect and a heterarchical relationship. This brief piece follows these developments in fundamental rights review that for now end with the second German decision concerning the right to be forgotten.}, language = {en} } @article{Bobić, author = {Bobić, Ana}, title = {Constitutional Pluralism Is Not Dead: An Analysis of Interactions Between Constitutional Courts of Member States and the European Court of Justice}, series = {German Law Journal}, volume = {18}, journal = {German Law Journal}, number = {6}, issn = {2071-8322}, doi = {10.1017/S2071832200022380}, pages = {1395 -- 1428}, abstract = {The theory of constitutional pluralism as advanced by MacCormick and Walker witnessed immense success in its attempt to explain the relationship between courts of Member States performing constitutional review and the Court of Justice. Despite its success, the theory has often been criticized for its lack of normative prescriptions and legal certainty in resolving the question of the final arbiter in the EU. It is the aim of this Article to address and move beyond these criticisms by introducing and exploring the auto-correct function necessary for the proper and balanced functioning of the pluralist system. The auto-correct has the function of preventing an outbreak of conflict between the constitutional jurisdictions involved—in the EU judicial architecture, an awareness on the part of all the actors involved of the benefits of a pluralist setting results in conflict management and control. The auto-correct function operates as follows: in the EU as we know it, issues prone to constitutional conflict arise regularly, and both the Court of Justice and national constitutional jurisdictions are able, through their respective procedural avenues, to control the extent of the conflict. There are also two legal imperatives driving this dynamic in two opposite directions—the principle of primacy of Union law on the one hand, and the obligation to respect the national identity of Member States on the other. As analyzing judicial behaviour shows, the application of self-restraint and mutual accommodation avoids a clash between parallel sovereignty claims on EU and national levels. In particular, national and EU law interaction demonstrates the existence of in-built conditions for the auto-correct function's application, such as the principle of EU-friendly interpretation in national constitutional law, or the national identity clause in primary EU law. The auto-correct function manifests itself and brings about a balance between the different constitutional orders only through the interaction of parallel claims to sovereignty.}, language = {en} } @incollection{BobićDawson, author = {Bobić, Ana and Dawson, Mark}, title = {How can law contribute to accountability in EU monetary policy?}, series = {The Cambridge Handbook on European Monetary, Economic and Financial Market Integration}, booktitle = {The Cambridge Handbook on European Monetary, Economic and Financial Market Integration}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, address = {Cambridge}, publisher = {Hertie School}, language = {en} } @incollection{Bobić, author = {Bobić, Ana}, title = {Forging Identity-Based Constructive Constitutional Conflict in the European Union}, series = {Autonomy without collapse in a better European Union}, booktitle = {Autonomy without collapse in a better European Union}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {9780192897541. 9780192651976. 9780192651983}, publisher = {Hertie School}, language = {en} } @incollection{vanZebenBobić, author = {van Zeben, Josephine and Bobić, Ana}, title = {Introduction - the Polycentric Potential of the European Union}, series = {Polycentricity in the European Union}, booktitle = {Polycentricity in the European Union}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, address = {Cambridge}, isbn = {110842354X, 9781108423540}, publisher = {Hertie School}, language = {en} } @incollection{Bobić, author = {Bobić, Ana}, title = {The Shared System of Rules in a Polycentric European Union}, series = {Polycentricity in the European Union}, booktitle = {Polycentricity in the European Union}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, address = {Cambridge}, isbn = {9781108528771}, publisher = {Hertie School}, language = {en} } @incollection{vanZebenBobić, author = {van Zeben, Josephine and Bobić, Ana}, title = {Polycentricity and the Internal Market}, series = {Polycentricity in the European Union}, booktitle = {Polycentricity in the European Union}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, address = {Cambridge}, isbn = {9781108528771}, publisher = {Hertie School}, language = {en} } @incollection{vanZebenBobić, author = {van Zeben, Josephine and Bobić, Ana}, title = {Conclusion - Pathways to Polycentricity}, series = {Polycentricity in the European Union}, booktitle = {Polycentricity in the European Union}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, address = {Cambridge}, isbn = {9781108528771}, publisher = {Hertie School}, language = {en} } @incollection{Bobić, author = {Bobić, Ana}, title = {A Dynamic Analysis of Judicial Behaviour: The Auto-Correct Function of Constitutional Pluralism}, series = {The Court of Justice of the European Union: Multidisciplinary Perspectives}, booktitle = {The Court of Justice of the European Union: Multidisciplinary Perspectives}, publisher = {Hart Publishing Ltd}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {9781509919086. 9781509938278. 9781509919093. 9781509919109.}, doi = {10.5040/9781509919116.ch-003}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {35 -- 52}, language = {en} } @incollection{Bobić, author = {Bobić, Ana}, title = {Constructive Constitutional Conflict as an Accountability Device in Monetary Policy}, series = {Substantive Accountability in Europe's New Economic Governance}, booktitle = {Substantive Accountability in Europe's New Economic Governance}, editor = {Dawson, Mark}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, address = {Cambridge}, doi = {10.1017/9781009228800.012}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {197 -- 316}, language = {en} } @article{Bobić, author = {Bobić, Ana}, title = {Imagining transnational solidarity in the EU through Hegel's idea of mutual recognition}, series = {Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law}, volume = {31}, journal = {Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law}, number = {6}, publisher = {SAGE Publications}, doi = {10.1177/1023263X251314443}, pages = {676 -- 690}, abstract = {How do we, EU constitutional scholars, define solidarity? For the most part, solidarity is used as a political soundbite for something that is generally seen as 'good' or normatively desirable. In this paper, I make two arguments. On the one hand, I critically reflect upon the dominant approach in EU law under which solidarity as a principle chiefly governs relations between the Member States. Citizens in the EU are at the moment not a unit of concern for which solidarity produces legal outcomes. On the other, based on Durkheim's work on enlightened self-interest, I show that measures in EU law that invoke solidarity mainly do so on economic grounds and do not allow for the creation of socioeconomic and political bonds between citizens in the EU. I then turn to what solidarity in the EU could be. By revisiting Hegel's idea of mutual recognition as the condition for freedom, I offer a more robust understanding of solidarity. Finally, I offer a brief look into potential areas where solidarity might become a meaningful principle for connecting citizens for non-economic purposes and by offering thoughts on space for further research.}, language = {en} } @article{DawsonBobić, author = {Dawson, Mark and Bobić, Ana}, title = {Unpacking Legal Accountability: The Case of the European Central Bank}, series = {Politics and Governance}, volume = {13}, journal = {Politics and Governance}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.8907}, abstract = {Although the term "legal accountability" increasingly appears in scholarly discourse surrounding the European Central Bank (ECB), it is under-theorised. This article explores three different dimensions of legal accountability, which are often confused. Accountability to law refers to accountability to legal rules and standards. Accountability through law refers to achieving routes of administrative and political accountability through legal institutions. Accountability of law implies the accountability of legal institutions themselves to the wider public (and other courts) for their decisions. We argue that these dimensions are deeply connected in the sense that either improvements or failures along one dimension are easily carried to the others. We demonstrate the argument by applying our concept of legal accountability to ECB activity, comparing judicial review in the context of monetary policy with the Single Supervisory Mechanism. These cases suggest a possible vicious rather than virtuous circle of legal accountability, i.e., a tendency for either unclear legal standards or lack of accountability of courts themselves to undermine accountability for ECB activity as a whole.}, language = {en} } @article{DermineBobić, author = {Dermine, Paul and Bobić, Ana}, title = {Of Winners and Losers: A Commentary of the Bundesverfassungsgericht ORD Judgment of 6 December 2022}, series = {European Constitutional Law Review}, volume = {20}, journal = {European Constitutional Law Review}, number = {1}, issn = {1574-0196}, doi = {10.1017/S1574019624000117}, pages = {163 -- 190}, language = {en} }