From Francovich to Köbler and beyond : The evolution of a State liability regime for the EC

The aim of this paper is to present the evolution of the Francovich doctrine within the European legal order. The first part deals with the gradual development of the ECJ's case law on State liability in damages for breach of EC law. Starting from the seminal Francovich and Brasserie du Pêcheur, the clarification of the criteria set by the Court is attempted with reference to subsequent case law, whereas issues concerning the extent and form of the compensation owned are also mentioned. The second part concerns one of the more recent developments in the field, namely State liability for breaches of Community law attributed to national judiciary. The Court's ruling in Köbler is examined in connection with two other recent judgments, namely Commission v. Italy of 2003 and Kühne & Heitz, as an attempt of the ECJ to reframe its relationships with national supreme courts and appropriate for itself the position of the Supreme Court in the European legal order. The implications on State liability claims by the ruling in Commission v. France of 1997 constitute the theme of the third part, where it is submitted that Member States can also be held liable for disregard of Community law by private individuals within their respected territories. To this extent, Schmidberger is viewed as a manifestation of this opinion, with fundamental rights acquiring a new dimension, being invoked by the States, contra the individuals as a shield to liability claims. Finally, the third part examines the relationship between the Francovich doctrine and the principle of legal certainty and concludes that the solutions employed by the ECJ have been both predictable and acceptable by the national legal orders. Keywords: State liability, damages, Francovich, Köbler, Schmidberger

Power and Authority. Birgitta of Sweden and her Revelations

In the High Middle Ages female saints were customarily noble virgins. Thus, as a wife and a mother of eight children, the Swedish noble lady Birgitta (1302/3 1373) was an atypical candidate for sanctity. However, in 1391 she was canonized only 18 years after her death and became a role model for many late medieval women, who were mothers and widows. The dissertation Power and Authority Birgitta of Sweden and Her Revelations investigates how Birgitta went about establishing her power and authority during the first ten years of her career as a living saint, in 1340 1349. It is written from the perspectives of gender, authority, and power. The sources consist of approximately seven hundred revelations, hagiographical texts and other medieval documents. This work concentrates on the interaction between Birgitta and her audience. During her lifetime Birgitta was already regarded as a holy woman, as a living saint. A living saint could be given no formal papal or other recognition, for one could never be certain about his or her future activities. Thus, the living saint needed an audience for whom to perform signs of sanctity. In this study particular attention is paid to situations within which the power relations between the living saint and her audience can be traced and are open to critical analysis. Situations of conflict that arose in Birgitta s life are especially fruitful for this purpose. During the Middle Ages, institutional power and authority were exclusively in the hands of secular male leaders and churchmen. In this work it is argued, however, that Birgitta used different kinds of power than men. It is evident that she exercized influence on lay people as well as on secular and clerical authorities. The second, third, and fourth chapter of this study examine the beginning of Birgitta s career as a visionary, what factors and influences lay behind it, and what kind of roles they played in establishing her religious authority. The fifth, sixth, and seventh chapter concentrate on Birgitta s exercising of power in specific situations during her time in Sweden until she left on a pilgrimage to Rome in 1349. The central question is how she exercised power with different people. As a result, this book will offer a narrative of Birgitta s social interactions in Sweden seen from the perspectives of power and authority. Along with the concept of power, authority is a key issue. By definition, one who has power also has authority but a person who does not have official power can, nevertheless, have authority. Authority in action is defined here as meaning that a person was listened to. Birgitta acted both in situations of open conflict and where no conflict was evident. Her strategies included, for example, inducement, encouragement and flattery. In order to make people do as she felt was right she also threatened them openly with divine wrath. Sometimes she even used both positive persuasion and threats. Birgitta s power seems very similar to that of priests and ascetics. Common to all of them was that their power demanded interaction with other people and audiences. Because Birgitta did not have power and authority ex officio she had to persuade people to believe in her powers. She did this because she was convinced of her mission and sought to make people change their lives. In so doing, she moved from the domestic field to the public fields of religion and politics.

Rhetoric and public speech in English republicanism, 1642-1681

The study analyses the ambivalent relationship republicanism, as a form of self-government free from domination, had with the ideal of participatory oratory and non-dominated speech on the one hand, and with the danger of unhindered demagogy and its possibly fatal consequences to that form of government on the other. Although previous scholarship has delved deeply into republicanism as well as into rhetoric and public speech, the interplay between those aspects has only gathered scattered interest, and there has been no systematic study considering the variety of republican approaches to rhetoric and public speech in 17th-century England. The rare attempts to do so have been studies in English literature, and they have not analysed the political philosophy of republicanism, as the focus has been on republicanism as a literary culture. This study connects the fields of political theory, political history as well as literature in order to make a multidisciplinary contribution to intellectual history. The study shows that, within the tradition of classical republicanism, individual authors could make different choices when addressing the problematic topics of public speech and rhetoric, and the variety of their conclusions often set the authors against each other, resulting in the development of their theories through internal debates within the republican tradition. The authors under study were chosen to reflect this variety and the connections between them: the similarities between James Harrington and John Streater, and between John Milton and John Hall of Durham are shown, as well the controversies between Harrington and Milton, and Streater and Hall, respectively. In addition, by analysing the writings of Marchamont Nedham the study will show that the choices were not limited to more, or less, democratic brands of republicanism. Most significantly, the study provides a thorough analysis of the political philosophies behind the various brands of republicanism, in addition to describing them. By means of this analysis, the study shows that previous attempts to assess the role of free speech and public debate, through the lenses of modern, rights-based liberal political theory have resulted in an inappropriate framework for understanding early modern English republicanism. By approaching the topics through concepts used by the republicans legitimate authority, leadership by oratory, and republican freedom and through the frames of reference available and familiar to them roles of education and institutions the study presents a thorough and systematic analysis of the role and function of rhetoric and public speech in English republicanism. The findings of this analysis have significant consequences to our current understanding of the history and development of republican political theory, and, more generally, of the connections between democratic theory and free speech.