This article examines the impact of the introduction of the Schutznorm-principle (relativiteitsvereiste) in the Dutch General Administrative Law Act on the private enforcement of state aid law. This principle prohibits the administrative courts to annul a decision if the ground manifestly does not protect the complainants interests. Court decisions are examined to research the role of individuals in the private enforcement of state aid law. These individuals often have no competitive relation with the (alleged) beneficiary of the aid. However, presumably the Schutznorm-principle will not hinder them from annulling the decision because the Schutznorm-principle requires clarity regarding the scope of the provision invoked. Article 108 TFEU lacks this clarity. Based on possibilities of appeal against Commissions decisions and case law of the EU CoJ on this matter, the author argues that not every individual needs to be able to invoke state aid provisions.

In its Betfair judgment, the Court of Justice ruled that the exclusive license system with respect to games of chance under Dutch law breaches Article 49 of the EC, now: Article 56 of the TFEU, concerning the free movement of services, and in particular the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency. This article addresses the lessons which can be drawn from this judgement and which Dutch legal concepts could be applied to this 'European' obligation of transparency. According to the judgement, this is not only the case for 'public contracts'and 'concessions', but also to licenses under public law. This article addresses the meaning of these legal concepts and discusses to what extent this 'European' obligation of transparency applies to the relevant Dutch legal concepts.

Soft law is a necessity in modern public administration. On the verge of public bodies that execute administrative tasks various forms of soft law are applied. This article explores the many shapes of soft law in a continental European context. This results in the identification of a series of variables that are relevant for the legal effects of soft law. The article further focuses on the way policy rules, as a special form of soft law, are treated in the Dutch legislation.

In this contribution the history of Dutch administrative law and the General Administrative Law Act (GALA) has been described, with a strong focus on administrative procedures. It sets out the the scope and structure of the act and highlights the main debates on codification of administrative procedure. Finally, it describes the impact of international and European law on Dutch administrative procedures. In conclusion the authors appreciate the uniformity and systematization that the GALA has brought, but place some critical remarks on the strong focus on the procedural side of decision-making, which may be at the expense of the substantive review of orders.

The case law of the Court of Justice on revoking a national final administrative decision or judgement which is not compliant with EU law can illustrate the existing tension between the principle of primacy on the one hand, and the principle of national procedural autonomy on the other. Although the Court’s choice for one of the two principles as a starting point for solving a collision between EU law and national law may seem arbitrary at first glance, a system may be possible to a certain extent. This study discusses this system, hoping to provide a possible model of explanation which may be applicable to future case law.

The central issue of this article is which European requirements apply when European and national authorities divide European grants among the applicants. Mostly, the European money which is available for awarding European grants is scarce. In this article, two questions come up for discussion. First: which distribution system has to be chosen? Second: to what extent the principles of equal treatment and transparancy – derived from the European procurement rules – are applicable to the distribution of European grants? This article will conclude that there is a difference between European grants awarded by the European Commission, European agencies and the so-called national agencies on the one hand, and European grants awarded by national authorities on the other.

This publication discusses all aspects of causal connection between damages and unlawful governmental decisions.