7. Conclusions

natural resources according to the national and regional legislation. Thus, we can see that this case study implements a method of effective transparency and participation by clearly laying out their process and methodology concerning such a contentious area. This shows a vast cross section of administration and society working together and negotiating to achieve a common aim.

The last example is a case10 on good governance and economic policy in Denmark. For a number of years, exporting companies have purchased large quantities of ground beef from a slaughter house and exported it to Arab countries. Pursuant to Community regulations, the exporter received approximately DKR 100 million by way of refunds. According to the relevant legislation, the amount of funds depended on the proportion of beef included in the composition of the product, namely 60 per cent in the present case. Subsequent investigations revealed that the beef content was in fact only 28 per cent. The Ministry sought to recover the refunds, but the exporters contended that they could not be held liable for the reprehensible conduct of the slaughter house, and it was in fact the responsibility of the Ministry and the customs to check the quality of the goods. The Eastern Regional Court upheld the exporters’ point of view. The Ministry decided to refer several questions to the European Court of Justice. The findings of the ECJ were respected and followed by the Danish domestic court. The ECJ found that it would not be proportionate to make the exporter surrender his right to plead his good faith as regards the conformity of the goods with the description that was given in the declaration submitted. The Court upheld its decision that Community law does not preclude grounds for excluding repayment from being taken into account where these are related to the administration’s own conduct. Therefore, the negligence of the state authorities with respect to the quality checks should be taken into account and this should preclude the repayment of the funds. Finally, the Court held that Community law does not preclude the national courts from taking into account the period of time that has elapsed since the payment of the aid. The principles of good governance developed in this case are proportionality and legitimate expectation.

These concrete examples illustrate the application and the importance of the principles of good governance for both governments and citizens in different policy fields.

7. Conclusions

Here we will come to some conclusions by answering the general research question and the six specified sub-questions. The sub-questions are drawn from the general research question, and their answers come in the form of conclusions and recommendations. The general research question is: what interpretations and applications of good governance exist in the member states, taking into account different functions of the governmental bodies?

The issue of good governance receives the attention of the EU member states, as supported by the fact that elements of history and culture relating to good governance can be traced back for decades. In the literature, it is said that the cultural dynamics led to several shared philosophical principles and that these principles should be the foundation of a European-wide dialogue on good governance. The results of this study contain the instruments for this dialogue.

10 Case C-366/95 Landbrugsministeriet v Steff-Houlberg Export and Others.

Good governance is part of the modern state not only in Europe, but also in other parts of the world, not only on national and local levels, but also on the regional and international levels. This concept has been developed through its six principles. Good governance has a dual nature, comprising both a real (or factual) dimension, and an ideal (or critical) one and has to be studied based on an interdisciplinary view. There are several reasons to work on good governance: the prevention of maladministration (including corruption), the fragmentation of legal norms, the need for good governance norms for new independent administrative authorities, the needs of a highly qualified administration, the proper control of the administration and legal protection by courts, the good control by fourth power institutions like the Ombudsman and Court of Audit.

The theme of the study was developed through a theoretical framework and research questions. We have looked for interpretations and practices of good governance and underlying values. Attention was also paid to cases where, in applying these norms, different governmental institutions reveal differences in interpretation and application in the countries we examined, and which also influence the countries’ attitudes at EU level. We distinguished three dimensions of good governance in the practice of the member states and noted that there are differences between the use of the terms values and principles, as well as the term integrity. It is interesting to notice that there are not only shifts in the different dimensions of good governance but also a shift in thinking about situations of violation of integrity norms.

From a theoretical perspective, two elements are particularly relevant for the concepts and the definitions in this research: the concepts of good governance and the concept of states—the latter being linked to government and (good) governance. We showed the differences in definitions between government and governance, governance and administration, principles of good governance and of proper administration, good governance and integrity.

We have developed an interdisciplinary approach of good governance and distinguished a factual and a normative line of good governance, and discussed the interaction between the two lines. Based on this normative framework we described the good governance situation in the twenty-eight EU member states, which we have divided into five regional groups.

We made a distinction between three dimensions of good governance: rule of law, democracy, and institutions. Within each of the three dimensions we distinguished between the following three developments: the general development, the specification, and the intermediate position. For example, in relation to the rule of law dimension: the general development in which there is a strong focus on legality, and the specific development by the properness and the human rights principles. The intermediate position is a mix of the general and specific development. Within each development we can distinguish between a written development in the constitution, the law or the regulations, and a development of (un)written principles by case law and/or in the literature.

(a) Specification of the conclusions by answering the research sub-questions The first sub-question was: what interpretations of good governance exist in the member states of the EU and what are the underlying values (suitability, integrity, and transparency)? We can conclude that in all EU member states the concept of good

governance is used as a norm for the activities of the administration, by the administration. It is mostly not applied as a norm for the other powers of the state: the legislator or the judiciary. Nevertheless, the two other powers are increasingly using and developing these norms for the administration. For that reason, we can speak about good governance here, but in a strict sense it is about good administration. In countries where corruption is an issue (which in a strict sense can be seen as a violation of the principle of prohibition on misuse of power), a link is also made with the principle of integrity. In the Netherlands, the violation of integrity has a broader application than for corruption situations, and we find there some links with the principles of good governance. In this research, we distinguished ten forms of violation of the integrity principle, which are directly related to the principles of properness, human rights, transparency, and accountability.

Our second sub-question was: how are the principles of good governance applied in the member states? In general, we conclude that in all the countries the concept of good governance by way of its principles is known and applied. In almost all the countries we find the three dimensions of the principles of good governance: rule of law, democracy, and institutions. • For the rule of law dimension, in the Northern Europe countries there is a strong focus on the principles of properness and human rights (two of the three countries; one country was intermediate). In the Western Europe group, three countries focused on properness and human rights principles, while three were intermediate. In the Southern Europe group, the focus was more on the general line of the rule of law for three counties, while three other countries were intermediate. For the Central Europe group there was a mix in which five countries were intermediate, four countries more focused on the general rule of law line, and two countries more on the specification of properness and human rights. In the Anglo-Saxon Europe group, both countries were in the intermediate bracket. • For the democracy dimension, in the Northern Europe group we found that two of the three countries had specified transparency and participation, while one country was intermediate. For the Western Europe group, most of the countries (four) were intermediate and one country was more focused on the general development of democracy, while another country was focused on the specification of transparency and participation. For the Southern Europe group, four of them were intermediate and two countries had a specification of transparency and participation. In the Central Europe group, four countries were intermediate, two focused on the general aspects of democracy and three on the specification of transparency and participation. In the Anglo-Saxon Europe group, one country focuses on the general aspects of democracy, while the other is intermediate. • For the institutional dimension, in the Northern Europe group, one is intermediate, while one focuses on effectiveness and accountability. In the Western

Europe group, three countries focus on the general aspects of the institutions and one country on the principles of effectiveness and accountability, while two are intermediate. In the Southern Europe group, most of the countries (four) are intermediate and two focus on the general aspects of the institutions. For Central

Europe, we found four countries to be intermediate, four countries focusing on the general aspects of the institutions and three countries on the specific aspects of effectiveness and accountability. In the Anglo-Saxon Europe group, we found that both are focusing on the specification of effectiveness and accountability.

According to the following aspect, we had to answer the question: what differences exist as to the interpretation and application of good governance as to the different functions of government (policy development, implementation, supervision)? In relation to the three dimensions of good governance, we see that general aspects are often worked out in the constitution and general laws and regulations; this means there is an important role for the policy development and implementation components of the government. The specification of the dimensions by the development of principles is mostly initiated by the supervisory and controlling bodies of the government. After some time, we usually find codification of the specified principles in the general laws.

It is interesting to see that there are some differences in relation to each of the three dimensions. We find more often specification of the human rights, transparency, and participation principles; the specification of the properness sub-principles is lagging behind a little. The specification of the accountability and effectiveness principles is behind the properness principles. These differences can be applied mutatis mutandis for the five groups of Europe countries.

Another sub-question was: how are conflicting values balanced? It concerns choices in member states, but sometimes it also concerns cooperating countries differently weighing in on these values. Sometimes the legislator has already prevented the conflict in two ways: first by codifying one principle and not the other, or by giving priority to one principle over the other principles; the executive power also achieves that by making political priorities related to principles. So, the question is: how should apparent conflicts of principles be dealt with? Given the fact that there is no hierarchy whatsoever, other factors are decisive in balancing the principles. According to the Dutch legal system, principles could be more important—on a case-by-case basis— depending on their legal status. For example, principles that are laid down in international treaties or formal law need to be applied in several countries. Also, principles can be laid down in policy documents and may therefore be more important than principles that have no formal status. The rule is: the more a principle has a legal basis, the more likely it is that this principle outweighs other principles. Thereby, two other rules stem from case law. The first is that of specialty. In the case law, often a special rule has priority over a general rule, but that can be regulated differently in the law. The second rule is less explicit, but not less important. When a court voids a decision on the basis of so-called principles of procedure, a governmental body may come to the same decision, as long as it follows the correct procedure. This is not the case if the decision was made void on the basis of a principle affecting the merits. Therefore, it may be that the latter may prevail over procedural principles. But this balance is made on a case-bycase basis. Apart from these rules, might certain principles be more successful in certain situations? It should be assessed whether a certain conflict is general or particular in nature and if these conflicts can be solved according to the previously mentioned rules of the legal system. Also, the courts are doing this in two ways: by specifying a principle or by translating the principle in terms of a human right.

We also had to answer the following question: what is the influence of interpretations and applications of good governance in member states on their attitudes at the EU level? It is important whether the countries have a monistic or a dualistic system. In a monistic system, internationally binding norms are also directly enforceable in the national legal system; in a dualistic system, there is always a need for national transformation of international law into national norms before these norms have legal effect on a national level. In countries with a dualistic system, there is a more explicit discussion about the relation between the national and international norms and principles.

We see a growing attention for the national norms from these countries, in their position on a regional or international level.

The last sub-question was: what are the main differences in the interpretation and application of the principles of good governance? How could these be explained and what are the benefits and problems with regard to European politics? We see at the EU level a strong development by the Fundamental Rights Charter, in which we find a fundamental right of good administration. Also, the Court of Justice of the European Union is strongly developing the principles of EU law, of which the principles of good administration are a part. In the literature, there is a strong emphasis on the development of a European administrative act. The EU executive level is very fragmented: the European Parliament is strongly focused on a more integrative approach of the principles of good governance.