The judge symbolizes the qualities of fairness, justice and dispassion and acts as a counterpoint to other authority figures, be it the father or the master, and can even act accordingly. The civilisational mission of EU law in VGL, which is to hold other places of power to account, speaks for this image. The civilisational mandate also fits well with the role of EU law, leading to an authority of the Union rather than the more usual opposite of a sovereign power to be granted to the law. The use of formal rationing – whether scientific, economic or legal – characterizes the exercise of this type of authority, because it produces the qualities of dispassion, objectivity and justice that are valued in the judge. It also leads to relying heavily on the law, not only to create the framework of policy and government, but also to be an instrument of government. As a result, the maquis of legal measures associated with the Union41 with legislative measures has been repeatedly overtaken by delegated and implementing laws, which are a central means of EU policy.42 While the value of this style of authority lies in its formality and dispassion, this style is also associated with rigidity. which manifests itself in complaints from economic operators about the costs of Union law or from laymen about its narrow style of risk management.43 The autonomy of Union law governs the relationship between Union law and international law.62 It is used to explain why international law, although bound by international law63, does not have as its object: to decide on the central institutional characteristics of Union law64 or to contradict certain rules of Union law. EU law65 and why international law should, in many cases, have only limited effects in EU law.66 In any case, granting greater effect of international law would undermine the autonomy of EU law. However, this doctrine of the autonomy of EU law raises many questions. Any restriction by international law will, in a sense, limit the EU`s legal autonomy. The intermittent effects accorded to international law suggest a subtext that must address both the legal identity of the EU and the reasons why it should give effect to international law. It is not possible for EU law to be an invention of international law.

Otherwise, international law would have to be fully applied, especially since EU law could not limit its effects on the same basis as nation-states, since the EU does not enjoy sovereignty. If EU law is not such a product, the question arises as to why it is bound by international law in the first place. International comity, pacta sunt servanda or the obligation to respect certain values could give rise to certain reasons, but their status would be secondary within such a regulation and could not explain the autonomy of EU law, since they have all crossed it. The role of the EU administration is that of a housekeeper for these areas of activity.55 The external nature of these areas of activity implies that EU law can contribute to the proper functioning, protection and harmony of these areas of activity, but cannot establish them. This affects both the impact and modes of government of the EU. It should only intervene if it is able to achieve the perceived objectives of these areas of activity better than other institutional arrangements (subsidiarity) and only to the extent necessary to contribute to their proper functioning (proportionality). It also leads to a concern for a government economy that shifts ideological debate as the central driver of legal change. The Union should “do more with less”. The procedure should be as discreet as possible in order to achieve the best possible results. Within the EU, the simplification programme therefore led to the repeal of 6,500 pages of legislation between 2005 and 2009, with 729 additional measures “consolidated” into 142 legal acts.56 In contrast, 84 laws were adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure in 2012.57 Van Gend en Loos produced three transformative developments: the central symbols and ideals of EU law; an autonomous legal system with more powers than traditional treaties; and a system of individual rights and obligations.

The judgment also set out how each of these developments should be used. Symbols and ideals were put in place to proclaim the authority of the EU instead of going to what the EU has done. What the EU has done is first and foremost a government by law. The EU legal order was therefore conceived primarily as a means for the EU government to make a statement. This, in turn, shaped the distribution of individual rights, most of which were granted only when they furthered the collective goals of the EU government. The conception of EU law as governmental law has also left profound and negative implications for the legal importance of the EU. This has been shaped by the reduction of EU law to something that supports the activities valued by the EU government, rather than creating a broader and more emancipatory imaginary. The principle of effectiveness sets out the circumstances in which EU law establishes individual rights before national courts. It is well known that it has been used to provide horizontal direct effect,70 direct effect on directives,71 State responsibility in general72 and in particular State liability for errors of law73 and indirect side effects.74 Most of the architecture of individual legal actions in EU law is therefore based on the principle of effectiveness. However, effectiveness is not about ensuring the full realization and protection of the respective individual rights.

If that were the case, Union law would have to develop, inter alia, its own system of remedies, legal aid, remedies and procedural rules. He does none of that. However, the reasoning makes more sense if the principle of efficiency is only to ensure the efficient functioning of the areas of activity that are the subject of concern to the EU government. In some cases, this reasoning is very explicit. In its founding judgments on horizontal direct effect and direct side effect, the Court held that these doctrines had been introduced in order to ensure the best functioning of equality between women and men in the workplace75 and in the internal market76 respectively. In other cases, individual rights are used as tools to monitor states to ensure that activities are operating as required by EU law. They intervene accordingly where there has been a failure of the State. With both the direct effect of the directives and the responsibility of the State, the existence of a fault on the part of the State was therefore a justification for the establishment of the doctrine and a condition for its recourse by individuals.77 This police logic also explains the approach of EU law to remedies and procedures. If the state has a reasonably satisfactory framework78, EU law will not intervene either because it does not want to control too intensively. First, those external areas of activity determine the importance of EU law, as EU law comes into play in response to their particular dynamics. The instrument for this is the action plan. The Plan of Action, widely used since the early 1970s, sets out a programme of measures to protect or regulate an area of activity.

This program defines the problems to be solved or the schemes to be implemented; justifies legal action by the EU to resolve these problems; defines the role of the proposed legislation; link legislation to applicable EU law and measures of other jurisdictions or other forms of regulation; and, finally, to link the problems to the general objectives of the Union. It is the interrelationship between these claims that leads to ambivalence when it comes to praising what VGL stands for. Since the symbols and ideals of EU law are contained in a proclamation, they do not go into the details of what EU law does. They support the EU government, but do not severely restrict it, as the objective of EU law is an instrument of that government.