Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reframing Legal Risk in EU Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Legal Risks in EU Law

Abstract

Legal risk is an oxymora. Law creates predictable duties and rights protecting human relations and justice conciliates disagreements on law’s interpretation. The high production of international, European and national legislations increases legal protection and thus legitimate expectations but paradoxically (or logically) makes interpretation more complex for three reasons. Firstly, legal provisions may be imprecise, unclear or uncertain. Secondly individuals, companies or even public authorities may not have the necessary knowledge. Thirdly, the concerned bodies may not have the structural and financial capabilities to fulfil their obligations. Due to its inherent complexity, EU law faces many legal risks. The Better Regulation policy has thus introduced risk management in the EU law making process. However, the Impact Assessments focus on economic, social and environmental hypothetic consequences and the legal ones remain subsidiary as long as fall into the national competences. For that purpose, the European Commission has recently adopted a culture of evaluation monitoring the implementation of EU law. However, it doesn’t prevent against any infringement relating to legal uncertainty. The Court of Justice of the European Union plays a major role to stabilise the interpretation and to allocate the liabilities. This chapter aims at presenting an exhaustive review of the doctrine relating to legal risk management and to connect it with the European Union in order to sketch few first elements of definition of what can be considered as legal risk in EU law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Mahler (2007), pp. 10–31; Moorhead and Vaughan (2015), p. 36; available at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/law-ethics/research/papers/erc-executive-report-legal-risk-definition-management-ethics.pdf.

  2. 2.

    Beck (1986, 1988, 1991a, b, c, 1995a, b, 1999).

  3. 3.

    Beck (1991a, b, c), pp. 155–182.

  4. 4.

    ISO, No. 31000, available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/iso31000.htm.

  5. 5.

    Baranoff (2003), p. 639; Collard et al. (2011), p. 285.

  6. 6.

    Hopkins (2013), p. 2; Anderson and Black (2013); Whittaker (2003), pp. 5–7.

  7. 7.

    Tracol (2014), pp. 711–744. See Communication of the European Commission on Customs Risk Management and Security of the Supply Chain, COM(2012)793 final.

  8. 8.

    Dowd (2002), p. 274.

  9. 9.

    Elliot (2002); Meric et al. (2009), p. 277; Grimaldi (2006), p. 996.

  10. 10.

    Terblanché (2012); Mccormick (2008); Howard (2007–2008), p. 505; Viscuki (2000).

  11. 11.

    Since 1988, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision has adopted 3 major accords setting capital requirements for banks: Basel III: International framework for liquidity risk measurement, standards and monitoring, 2010; Basel II: International convergence of capital measurement and capital standards; Basel I: International convergence of capital measurement and capital standards, 1988. Hull (2012), pp. 257–278.

  12. 12.

    International Bar Association, The Management of Legal Risk by Financial Institutions, Draft Discussion Paper, Working Party on Legal Risk, 2003.

  13. 13.

    Wyss (2005); Pfohl (2002).

  14. 14.

    Dekeuwer-Defossez (2015), p. 5; Moury (2012), p. 1020; Lasserre (2011), p. 1632; Barbier (2011); Millet (2001).

  15. 15.

    Mahler (2007).

  16. 16.

    European Journal of Risk Regulation, since 2010, 4 issues a year, available at: http://www.lexxion.de/en/zeitschriften/fachzeitschriften-englisch/ejrr/about-ejrr.html.

  17. 17.

    Alemanno (2016), p. 224; Alemanno (2014); Alemanno et al. (2014), p. 338; Alemanno and Spina (2014); Alemanno (2012); Alemanno (2011), p. 320; Alemanno (2008), Series No. 6; Alemanno (2007).

  18. 18.

    European Central Bank, Opinion of 17 February 2005 on a proposal for Directives recasting Directive 2000/12/EC of 20 March 2000 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions and Directive 93/6/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions (2005/C 52/10).

  19. 19.

    Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (recast), OJ L 177, 30.6.2006, pp. 1–200.

  20. 20.

    The General Court mentioned it in two Judgments only to express the binding effect of EU Law in national legal orders and the consequence of an agreement between two Parties: Joined Cases T-425/04, T-444/04, T-450/04 and T-456/04, France, France Télécom vs Bouygues e. a. [2010] ECR II-02099, para. 187; Case T-271/04, Citymo SA vs European Commission [2007] ECR II-01375, para. 152.

  21. 21.

    Art. 7, para 1 EU in case of “clear risk of serious breach by a MS of the [European] values”; Art. 121, para 4 TFEU provides a possibility for the European Commission to address a warning to a MS if its economic policies risk to jeopardise “the proper functioning of economic and monetary union”; Art. 126, para 3 TFEU permits the European Commission to prepare a report if “there is a risk of an excessive deficit in a Member State”; under Art. 196, para 1 a) TFEU, the Union supports the MS’ action in risk prevention relating to civil protection; Art. 207, para 4 a) relating to the common commercial policy foresees (Who?), in case the agreements in the field of trade in cultural and audiovisual services risk prejudicing the Union’s cultural and linguistic diversity, the Council shall also act unanimously, as well as, under b) in the field of trade in social, education and health services; Art. 256, para 2 TFEU provides Decisions given by the General Court in proceedings brought against Decisions of the specialised courts which may be subject to review by the Court of Justice “where there is a serious risk of the unity or consistency of Union law being affected”, as well as for a preliminary ruling and in general the First Advocate General may propose it, on the basis of Art. 62 of the Protocol (No. 3) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union; Art. 7, para 3 of the Protocol (No. 5) of the Statute of the European Investment Bank specifying that “the Board of Directors shall […] lay down the terms and conditions of any financing operation presenting a specific risk profile” and under para 6 “the Bank shall protect itself against exchange risks by including in contracts for loans and guarantees such clauses as it considers appropriate” and Art. 7 provides the same protection in referring to the risks. Finally Art. 19, para 2 states that “No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

  22. 22.

    Craig and de Burca (2011), p. 549.

  23. 23.

    Art. 191, para 2 TFEU refers to the precautionary principle. European Commission, Communication of 2 February 2000 on the Precautionary Principle, COM/2000/0001 final. Case C-246/07, European Commission v. Sweden [2010] (Sometimes you use vs and sometimes v. when referring to the different Cases and I think you should choose one so it is consistent.) applying the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

  24. 24.

    The 1st Case mentioning risk management was Case T-13/99, Pfizer Animal Health SA v. Council [2002], ECR II-3318 relating to risk assessment and management of transfer of resistance to antibiotics from animals to humans. See the website of the DG Public Health relating to risk management:

    http://ec.europa.eu/health/preparedness_response/risk_management/index_en.htm.

  25. 25.

    Case C-601/11 P, France v. European Commission [2013] EU:C:2013:465 relating to risk management of the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies; Joined Cases C-58/10 to C-68/10, Monsanto SA v. Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche [2011] ECR I-07763 relating to the risks of GMO dissemination; Case C-558/07, S. P. C. M. SA e. a. v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2009] ECR I-05783 concerning the REACH Regulation; Case C-66/04, UK v. EP and Council [2005] ECR I-10553 concerning the Regulation on Smoke Flavourings; Case C-198/03 P, European Commission v. CEVA Santé Animale SA e. a. [2005] ECR I-06357.

  26. 26.

    Communication on the Precautionary Principle, Brussels, 2 February 2000, COM(2000)1 final.

  27. 27.

    Case C-180/96 UK v. Commission [1998] ECR I-2265, para. 99.

  28. 28.

    Case C-1/00, European Commission v. France [2001] ECR I-09989.

  29. 29.

    Case C-393/01, France v. European Commission [2003] ECR I-5405.

  30. 30.

    Case T-13/99 Pfizer Animal Health SA v. Council [2002] ECR I-3305; Case T-74, 76, 83–85, 132, 137 and 141/00, Artegodan GmbH v. Commission [2002] ECR II-4945.

  31. 31.

    Serratosa (2011), Weimer (2010), pp. 31–39.

  32. 32.

    Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of Food Law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety.

  33. 33.

    Art. 3, 9 of Regulation No. 178/2002.

  34. 34.

    Case C-333/08, European Commission v. France [2010] ECR I-757.

  35. 35.

    ECHR Case 6833/74, Marckx v. Belgium [1979], para. 58.

  36. 36.

    Case 348/85, Denmark v. European Commission [1987] ECR 5225 (declaring void a Commission Decision cancelling financial compensation for agriculture).

  37. 37.

    Case C-48/14, EP v. Council [2015] on protecting human health against radioactive substances in water intended for human consumption (action dismissed); Case C-147/13, Spain v. Council [2015] EU:C:2015:299, para. 79 (on the creation of unitary patent protection), Case C-81/10 P, France Télécom v. Commission [2011] ECR I-12899, para. 100; Case C-643/11, LVK [2013] EU:C:2013:55, para. 51; Case C-325/91, France v. Commission [1993] ECR I-3283, para. 26.

  38. 38.

    Case C-98/14, Berlington Hungary Tanácsadó és Szolgáltató kft e. a. v. Hungary [2015] EU:C:2015:386, para. 77.

  39. 39.

    Case C-348/85, ibid., para. 19.

  40. 40.

    Case C-52/14, Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v. Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung [2015] EU:C:2015:381.

  41. 41.

    Cases C-401/13 and C-432/13, Vasiliki and Attila Balazs v. Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Cluj [2015] EU:C:2015:26, para. 50, concerning social security for migrant workers; Case C-76/14, Mihai Manea v. Instituția Prefectului județul Brașov [2015] EU:C:2015:216, paras. 54 and 55. Joined cases C-338/11 to C-347/11, Santander Asset Management SGIIC and Others [2012] EU:C:2012:286, paras. 59 and 60.

  42. 42.

    Case C-221/12, Belgacom NV v. Integan, Inter-Media, WVEM, PBE [2013] EU:C:2013:736, para. 40.

  43. 43.

    Case C-662/13, Surgicare — Unidades de Saúde SA v. Fazenda Pública [2015] EU:C:2015:89; Case C-312/93, Peterbroeck [1995] ECR I-04599, para. 14; Case C-2/08, Fallimento Olimpiclub, [2009] ECR I-07501, para. 27.

  44. 44.

    See, in that sense, Joined Cases C-270/97 and C-271/97, Deutsche Post AG and Elisabeth Sievers, Brunhilde Schrage [2000] ECR I-933, para. 50.

  45. 45.

    In that sense, Case C-362/12, Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation [2013] EU:C:2013:834.

  46. 46.

    Chalmers et al. (2010), p. 412.

  47. 47.

    Case T-549/08, Luxembourg v. Commission [2010] ECR II-2477, para. 71; Case T-347/03, Branco v. Commission [2005] ECR II-255, para. 102; Case T-282/02, Cementbouw Handel & Industrie v. Commission [2006] ECR II-319, para. 77.

  48. 48.

    Sharpston (1990), p. 103.

  49. 49.

    In that sense, see Cases C-288/09 and C-289/09, British Sky Broadcasting Group plc, Pace plc v. The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs [2011] ECR I-2851, paras. 104–112.

  50. 50.

    Case C-585/13, Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG v. Council [2015] EU:C:2015:145, para. 95; Case C-194/09, Alcoa Trasformazioni v. Commission [2011] ECR I-6311, para. 71. In that sense: Case C-144/14, Cabinet Medical Veterinar Dr. Tomoiagă Andrei [2015] EU:C:2015:452, paras. 39–42.

  51. 51.

    Case C-599/13, Somalische Vereniging Amsterdam en Omgeving (Somvao) v. Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie [2014] EU:C:2014:2462, para. 52; Case 385/06, Vereniging Nationaal Overlegorgaan Sociale Werkvoorziening and Others [2008] ECR I-1561, para. 56.

  52. 52.

    Case C-183/14, Radu Florin Salomie, Nicolae Vasile Oltean v. Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj [2015] EU:C:2015:454, para. 29; Cases C-487/01 and C-7/02, Gemeente Leusden and Holin Groep [2004] ECR I-5337, para. 57; Case C-376/02, Goed Wonen, [2005] ECR I-3460, para. 32; Cases C-181/04 to C-183/04, Elmeka NE [2006] ECR I-8186, para. 31.

  53. 53.

    Case C-183/14, Radu Florin Salomie, Nicolae Vasile Oltean v. Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj [2015] EU:C:2015:454, para. 29.

  54. 54.

    The same was concluded in the Case C-144/14, Cabinet Medical Veterinar Dr. Tomoiagă Andrei [2015] EU:C:2015:452. See O’Neill (2011), p. 1960, pt. 2.163.

  55. 55.

    Case C-98/14, Berlington Hungary Tanácsadó és Szolgáltató kft e. a. v. Hungary [2015] EU:C:2015:386, paras. 111–115.

  56. 56.

    According EUR-Lex database.

  57. 57.

    Cases C-401/13 and C-432/13, Vasiliki and Attila Balazs v. Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Cluj [2015] EU:C:2015:26.

  58. 58.

    Case C-334/07 P, European Commission v. Freistaat Sachsen [2008] ECR I-9465; Case C-168/09, Flos SpA v. Semeraro Casa e Famiglia SpA [2011] ECR I-181.

  59. 59.

    Case C-596/13, European Commission v. Moravia Gas Storage a. s. [2015] EU:C:2015:203, paras. 32 and 33.

  60. 60.

    Case C-610/10, Commission v. Spain, [2012] EU:C:2012:781, para. 45.

  61. 61.

    Cases 212/80 to 217/80, Meridionale Industria Salumi and Others [1981] ECR 2735, para. 9; Case C-201/04, Molenbergnatie [2006] ECR I-02049 para. 31; Case C-334/07, Commission v. Freistaat Sachsen [2008] ECR I-9465, para. 44.

  62. 62.

    Case T-465/11, Globula v. Commission [2013] EU:T:2013:406.

  63. 63.

    Related in the media: Beck (2011).

  64. 64.

    Case C-127/13, Guido Strack v. European Commission [2014] EU:C:2014:2250, para. 29.

  65. 65.

    Predescu and Safta (2009).

  66. 66.

    Case C-341/13, Cruz & Companhia Lda v. IFAP [2014] EU:C:2014:2230, para. 62.

  67. 67.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v. Council [1994] ECR I-4973, para. 79, and Swedish Match, para. 73.

  68. 68.

    Joined Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04, Alliance for Natural Health e. a. v. Secretary of State for Health e. a. [2005] ECR I-06451, para. 128.

  69. 69.

    European Commission, Impact Assessment Guideline, 2009.

  70. 70.

    Communication on the Precautionary Principle, COM(2000)1 final, pp. 3 and 15.

  71. 71.

    European Commission, Better Regulation for Better Results – An EU Agenda, 19 May 2015, COM(2015)215 final. See the Better Regulation website: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/index_en.htm.

  72. 72.

    IA Guidelines, 15 January 2009, SEC(2009) 92, updating the previous versions of 2005 and 2006.

  73. 73.

    Smismans (2005), pp. 6–26.

  74. 74.

    Smismans et al. (2015), p. 11; Smismans (2005), pp. 6–26.

  75. 75.

    Commission staff working document, Better Regulation Guidelines, 19 May 2015, COM(2015) 111 final.

  76. 76.

    European Commission, Communication on EU Regulatory Fitness, COM(2012) 746 final; Communication on Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT): Results and Next Steps, COM(2013) 685 final; Communication on Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT): State of Play and Outlook, 18 June 2014, COM(2014) 368 final; Decision of the European Commission Establishing the REFIT Platform, 19 May 2015, C(2015) 3261 final.

  77. 77.

    Idem, COM(2014) 368 final, p. 2.

  78. 78.

    European Commission, Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the EU – Final Report, 12 December 2012, SWD(2012) 423 final.

  79. 79.

    For example, 670 stakeholders have been consulted for the proposal for a Directive amending Directives 2008/98/EC on waste, 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment. See Commission staff working document impact assessment accompanying the document Proposal of the Directive, 2 July 2014, SWD(2014) 207 final.

  80. 80.

    In that sense, Smismans et al. (2015), p. 13.

  81. 81.

    Final Impact Assessment reports in 2014 available at: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/cia_2014_en.htm.

  82. 82.

    Only 25 of them have been examined by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. Since 1st July 2015, the IA Board has been replaced by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. It provides an independent quality control of the IA.

  83. 83.

    Raccah (2008), pp. 543–558.

  84. 84.

    Beck (2009).

  85. 85.

    Moorhead and Vaughan (2015), p. 36; See Edhec Risk Institute, available at: http://www.edhec-risk.com/; Collard et al. (2011); Collard (2008).

  86. 86.

    Example: Directive 2014/104/EU of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under National Law for infringements of the Competition Law provisions of the MS and of the EU, OJ L 349, 5.12.2014, pp. 1–19.

  87. 87.

    Case C-447/13, Riccardo Nencini v. EP [2014] EU:C:2014:2372.

  88. 88.

    Case C-585/13, Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG v. Council [2015] EU:C:2015:145; Case T-549/08, Luxembourg v. European Commission [2010] ECR II-02477.

  89. 89.

    Case C-279/13, C More Entertainment AB v. Linus Sandberg [2015] EU:C:2015:199 relating to legal uncertainty regarding the nature and the level of protection of copyrights.

  90. 90.

    Case C-603/10, Pelati [2012] EU:C:2012:639.

  91. 91.

    Case C-183/14, Radu Florin Salomie, Nicolae Vasile Oltean v. Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj [2015] EU:C:2015:454; Case C-144/14, Cabinet Medical Veterinar Dr. Tomoiagă Andrei [2015] EU:C:2015:452; Case C-76/14, Mihai Manea v. Instituția Prefectului județul Brașov [2015] EU:C:2015:216; Case C-362/12, Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2013] EU:C:2013:834.

  92. 92.

    Case C-212/02, Commission v. Austria [2004] EU:C:2004:386.

  93. 93.

    Case C-19/13, Ministero dell’Interno v. Fastweb SpA [2015] EU:C:2014:2194, paras. 57–65.

  94. 94.

    Case C-221/12, Belgacom NV v. Integan, Inter-Media, WVEM, PBE [2013] EU:C:2013:736, paras. 40 and 41.

  95. 95.

    Smith (2015), pp. 90–100.

  96. 96.

    Case C-29/14, European Commission v. Poland [2015] EU:C:2015:379.

  97. 97.

    Case C-277/13, European Commission v. Portugal [2014] EU:C:2014:2208.

  98. 98.

    Case C-546/07, European Commission v. Germany [2010] ECR I-00439.

References

  • Alemanno A (2007) The shaping of the precautionary principle by European courts: from scientific uncertainty to legal certainty. In: Cuocolo L, Luparia L (eds) Valori costituzionali e nuove politiche del diritto. Cahiers Européens, Halley

    Google Scholar 

  • Alemanno A (2008) Science & EU risk regulation: the role of experts in decision-making and judicial review. In: Vos E (ed) European risk governance – its science, its inclusiveness and its effectiveness, Connex Report, Series No. 6

    Google Scholar 

  • Alemanno A (2011) Governing disasters: the challenges of emergency risk regulation. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd

    Google Scholar 

  • Alemanno A (2012) Public perception of risks under WTO law: a normative perspective. In: van Calster G, Prévost D (eds) Research handbook on environment, health and the WTO. Edward Elgar, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Alemanno A (2014) What role for a chief scientist in the European Union system of scientific advice? Eur J Risk Regul 3:1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Alemanno A (2016) EU risk regulation: towards a European government of health, safety and environmental risks, modern studies in European Law. Hart Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Alemanno A, Spina A (2014) Nudging legally – on the checks and balances of behavioural regulation. Int J Const Law 12(2):1–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Alemanno A, Den Butter F, Nijsen A (2014) Better business regulation in a risk society. Springer Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson K, Black J (2013) Legal risks and risks for lawyers. Herbert Smith Freehills and LSE Regulatory Reform Forum

    Google Scholar 

  • Baranoff E (2003) Risk management and insurance, 8th edn. Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbier H (2011) La liberté de prendre des risques, thèse, PU Aix-Marseille

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck U (1986) Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne, Suhrkamp

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck U (1988) Gegengifte. Die organisierte Unverantwortlichkeit, Suhrkamp

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck U (1991a) Risk society: towards a new modernity. SAGE Publications, pp 155–182, Chapter 7 on “Science Beyond Trust and Enlightenment?”

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck U (1991b) Risk society: towards a new modernity. SAGE Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck U (1991c) Politik in der Risikogesellschaft: Essays und Analysen, Suhrkamp

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck U (1995a) Ecological politics in an age of risk. Blackwell Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck U (1995b) Ecological enlightenment, essays on the politics of the risk society. Atlantic Highlands, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck U (1999) World risk society. Blackwell Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck U (2009) Critical theory of world risk society: a cosmopolitan vision. Blackwell Publishing, Constellations vol 16, no 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck S (2011) Ein Beamter kämpft gegen Brüssel. Süddeutsche Zeitung (online)

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers D et al (2010) European Union law. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Collard Ch (2008) Le risque juridique existe-t-il? Contribution à la définition du risque juridique. Cahiers de droit de l’entreprise 24–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Collard Ch et al (2011) Risque juridique et Conformité, Lamy Conformité

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig P, de Burca G (2011) EU law, 5th edn. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekeuwer-Defossez F (2015) Chronique Droit et Risque. Les Petites Affiches 5–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowd K (2002) Beyond value at risk, the new science of risk management. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot A (2002) Beck’s sociology of risk: a critical assessment. SAGE Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimaldi M (2006) La promotion de notre système juridique s’organise: la constitution d’une Fondation pour le droit continental. Rec. Dalloz 996

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins EB (2013) Legal risk management for in-house counsel and managers. Trafford Publishing, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard PK (2007–2008) The dynamics of legal risk. Drake Law Rev 56:505; Seminar organised by UNIDROIT on “Legal Risk and Market Efficiency”, Rome, 2003; Conference on “Risk Management for Law Firms”, 2007, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull CfJC (2012) Risk management and financial institutions. Wiley Finance 257–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasserre V (2011) Le risque. Rec. Dalloz 1632

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahler T (2007) Defining legal risk. Proceedings of the conference “Commercial Contracting for Strategic Advantage - Potentials and Prospects”. Turku University of Applied Sciences. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1014364

  • Mccormick R (2008) Legal risk in the financial markets, Round table organised by Herbert Smith on “Legal and Compliance Risk Management: Towards Principles of Best Practices”. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Meric J et al (2009) La «Société du Risque»: analyse et critique. Economica 277

    Google Scholar 

  • Millet F (2001) La notion de risque et ses fonctions en droit privé, LGDJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorhead R, Vaughan S (2015) Legal risk: definition, management and ethics, Executive Report of the UCL Center for Ethics and Law, p 36, available at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/law-ethics/research/papers/erc-executive-report-legal-risk-definition-management-ethics.pdf

  • Moury J (2012) Le droit confronté à l’omniprésence du risque. Rec. Dalloz 1020

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill A (2011) EU law for UK lawyers. Hart Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfohl HCH (2002) Risiko- und Chancenmanagement in der Supply Chain. Erich Schmidt Verlag GmbH & Co. KG

    Google Scholar 

  • Predescu I, Safta M (2009) Principiul securităţii juridice, fundament al statului de drept repere jurisprudenţiale. Buletinul Curţii. Constituţionale, nr. 1/2009, pp 1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Raccah A (2008) Towards a formalisation of the EU’s pre-legislative procedure. RFAP 543–558

    Google Scholar 

  • Serratosa J (2011) Food safety risk assessment in the E.U. versus U.S., Optimizing Food Systems for Human Health, Healthy Food Summit. Available at: http://www.arboretum.umn.edu/2011healthyfoodssummit.aspx

  • Sharpston E (1990) European Community law and the doctrine of legitimate expectation: how legitimate, and for whom? N West J Int Law Bus 11(1):87–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Smismans S (2005) Policy evaluation in the EU: the challenge of linking ex ante and ex post appraisal. EJRR, pp 6–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Smismans S, Schreffer L, Luchetta G, Simonelli F (2015) A new tool in the box the cumulated cost assessment. EJRR 1:68–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith M (2015) Evaluation and the salience of infringement data. EJRR 1:90–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Terblanché JR (2012) Legal risk and compliance for banks operating in a common law legal system. J Oper Risk 7(2):67–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracol X (2014) Legal risk management in EU organizations. Eur Public Law 20(4):711–744

    Google Scholar 

  • Viscuki WK (2000) Risk equity. J Leg Stud XXIX:843–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weimer M (2010) The regulatory challenge of animal cloning for food – the risks of risk regulation in the European Union. EJRR 1:31–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker AM (2003) Lawyers as risk managers. Butterworths J Int Bank Financ Law 5–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyss L (2005) Juristisches Risk Management und Hedging als Mittel zur Risikokontrolle. Stämpfli Verlag AG

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Catholic University of Lille, Lille, France

    Aurélien Raccah

Authors
  1. Aurélien Raccah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aurélien Raccah .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

    Emilia Mišćenić

  2. Law Faculty, Catholic University of Lille, Lille, France

    Aurélien Raccah

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Raccah, A. (2016). Reframing Legal Risk in EU Law. In: Mišćenić, E., Raccah, A. (eds) Legal Risks in EU Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28596-2_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28596-2_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28595-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28596-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation