This article explores how national judges' reasoning in the preliminary ruling procedure varies depending on the prescriptive clarity of European Union (EU) legal frameworks. Drawing on the logic of appropriateness and the logic of expected consequences, this article formulates hypotheses regarding judges' motivational patterns. Interviews with Swedish judges generate findings that partly corroborate these hypotheses. The findings show that when EU legal frameworks are clear, judges express a mix of considerations, including references to EU rules, expected politico-strategic outcomes and professional norms. When the clarity of the frameworks is low, judges mainly motivate their decisions by invoking professional norms. In light of these findings, the article proposes a revision of the compliance pull explanation that takes into account how not only formal EU rules but also informal norms of appropriate professional conduct may influence the actions of national judges.

This article investigates the tension between the ideal of national equality in wel-fare policy and the principle of local self-government emphasized in the Swedish Instrument of Government (Regeringsformen). We do this by analyzing the rights legislation – an overlooked instrument through which the national government can influence the actions of the local governments in welfare matters. The aim is to shed light on how administrative judicial review of local government decisions concerning individuals’ right to welfare works in practice and to discuss the impli-cations this has for local self-government. To achieve the aim, we set out to answer two research questions: (i) Do the administrative courts’ decisions concerning indi-viduals’ right to elderly care limit the discretion of local governments, and if so, within which aspects? (ii) Is the discretion of local governments limited to the same extent by all administrative courts, or are there regional variations in this regard? By developing a theoretical framework, we show that three aspects of the court’s powers are particularly decisive for the municipalities’ discretion: the grounds or scope of court review, the policy content of the court review, and the type of rem-edies or judgment. The empirical results show that Swedish administrative courts overturn municipal decisions to a comparatively low degree (23%), which indicates that judicial review of welfare rights does not necessarily challenge the discretion of local governments. However, when the administrative courts actually overturn decisions, they use their formal powers to limit the local governments’ discretion to a great extent, both in terms of the content of eldercare services provided and resource allocation. The results also show variation in approval rates between the Swedish administrative courts. This finding indicates that the administrative judi-cial review of the Social Services Act’s rights clause affects the discretion of some local governments more than others.

This article develops a framework for understanding how the design of administrative judicial review can circumscribe the discretion of different bureaucratic actors. The framework proposes that bureaucratic discretion is limited to a great extent if courts can (i) overturn bureaucratic decisions on substantive grounds, (ii) review decisions associated with high economic costs, and (iii) issue detailed instructions for how rulings are to be implemented. Applying the framework to the Swedish case, we first show that the legislative design of the judicial review process allows administrative courts to greatly limit the discretion of senior officials and street-level bureaucrats. Second, we show that Swedish courts defer to the expertise of bureaucratic actors in the welfare sector by sparingly overturning decisions. However, when courts actually overturn decisions, they frequently limit bureaucratic discretion by issuing detailed judgments in high-cost cases, possibly undermining the conditions for good governance.

This article analyzes whether, and if so, why, national inspectorates adopt different enforcement strategies when controlling the provision of welfare services, such as health care, eldercare, and the compulsory school. The findings show that the Swedish Schools Inspectorate uses a predominantly strict strategy, while the Health and Social Care Inspectorate relies on a more situational strategy. To explain this variation in enforcement strategy, the article tests four hypotheses derived from the literature on regulatory enforcement. The findings suggest that the variation between the agencies is not primarily the result of differences in resources or the authority to issue punitive decisions, as suggested by previous research. Instead, we find support for the hypothesis that the definition of quality can explain variation in adopted strategies, and partial support for the hypothesis that differences in regulatory mission can account for a variation in the agencies' formal enforcement strategies.

This article explores why national judges remain passive on EU legal integration by examining judges’ reasons for not requesting preliminary rulings from the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The article combines insights from social psychology and literature on the role of national courts in European integration to formulate expectations regarding what type of motives guide national judges’ behaviours. Drawing on interviews held with Croatian, Slovenian and Swedish judges, our results reveal three shared reasons judges remain passive: referrals are not required by the formal rules (procedural normative motivation), referrals are not made to protect the parties to the case (substantive normative motivation) and referrals are not made to protect judges’ reputations (instrumental motivation). In addition, we unveil motives that are shared by only judges from one or two Member States, such as not referring cases to uphold the capacity of the preliminary ruling procedure (Swedish judges) and not referring cases due to a fear of sanctions and a lack of knowledge and resources (Croatian and Slovenian judges). We discuss these similarities and divergences in light of the theoretical discussion on the role of courts as active or passive actors in EU legal integration.

This article sheds new light on the role of national courts in the preliminary ruling procedure and European integration by examining: (1) whether national courts allow the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to decide politically sensitive cases and (2) whether national courts frame the cases by expressing support for an integration-friendly interpretation of EU law or by voicing an opinion in defence of the challenged national law. This study shows that the single most common court behaviour is to support legal integration by referring politically sensitive cases and expressing support for EU law. However, by examining the two choices together, this article also uncovers previously untheorised patterns of behaviour. These findings show that the national courts’ behaviour is not limited to either supporting or resisting integration. Instead, it is suggested that national courts may regularly contribute to striking a balance between EU integration and member state autonomy.

This introductory chapter sheds light on the opportunities and challenges that the digital era has in store for the European Union (EU) at a time when its fundamental values are being called into question by prominent political currents. The chapter sets the scene by an account of how previous periods of technological transformation affected European societies and considers the financial and regulatory resources at the disposal of the EU to manage the technological shift of the 2020s. The chapter introduces the book’s interdisciplinary approach, which offers various disciplinary perspectives on how the technological mega-shift impacts the EU’s ability to meet the multifaceted challenges it is facing. The chapter concludes that decision-makers at the national as well as European levels must be prepared to take a holistic perspective when addressing technological trends and seeking solutions to the problems that arise in the wake of changing economic and political conditions in society.