Top

Published in:

2019 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Member State Interests and EU Internal Market Law

Author : Mónika Papp

Published in: Between Compliance and Particularism

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to show to what degree Member States’ choices in pursuing their national interest is limited by EU internal market law. Additionally, the question is raised whether the EU legal framework is apt to accommodate measures emanating from diverse social, cultural and political settings at the national level. The present study seeks to improve our understanding of the capacity of the European Union to tackle particularistic Member State behaviour. It argues in line with other academics that the current extensive reach of internal market rules as developed by the Court of Justice should be rolled back in order to preserve more room for national public policy choices. On the other hand, the paper takes note of the fact that drawing a precise line between legitimate national policy measures and hidden regulatory or other protectionism is a difficult exercise.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter EU Post-crisis Economic and Financial Market Regulation

next chapter Member State Interests in EU State Aid Law and Policy

In the Court of Justice’s interpretation, the internal market has always comprised of the four freedoms and the principle of competition. See Judgment of 11 June 1991, Commission v Council, C-300/89, EU:C:1991:244, paragraphs 14–16. Competition is viewed as a precondition for European market integration.

For a critical commentary on Polanyi’s theory see Joerges (2013).

See Article 2 TEU on the Union’s values and Article 3 on its aims.

See Article 8 TEU on the elimination of inequalities, Article 9 on high level of employment, adequate social protection, fight against social exclusion, high level of education, training and protection of human health, Article 11 on mainstreaming environmental protection, Article 12 on consumer protection, and Article 14 on services of general economic interest.

See, in this regard, Judgment of 5 May 1982, Gaston Schul, C-15/81, EU:C:1982:135, paragraph 33 (“The concept of a common market as defined by the Court in a consistent line of decisions involves the elimination of all obstacles to intra-Community trade in order to merge the national markets into a single market bringing about conditions as close as possible to those of a genuine internal market.”).

See, in this regard, Judgment of 5 October 2000, Germany v European Parliament and Council, C-376/98, EU:C:2000:544, paragraph 84 (“a measure adopted on the basis of Article 100a of the Treaty must genuinely have as its object the improvement of the conditions for the establishment and functioning of the internal market. If a mere finding of disparities between national rules and of the abstract risk of obstacles to the exercise of fundamental freedoms or of distortions of competition liable to result therefrom were sufficient to justify the choice of Article 100a as a legal basis, judicial review of compliance with the proper legal basis might be rendered nugatory.”).

On the difference between intergovernmentalism and functionalism in theorising EU integration, see Spolaore (2016). On the coordination mechanisms in the post-Maastricht era, see Bickerton et al. (2014).

According to Rodrik’s inescapable trilemma of the world economy, democracy, national sovereignty and global economic integration are mutually incompatible phenomena. Any two of the three can be combined, but never all three simultaneously and in full (Rodrik 2012).

For the summary of the jurisprudence, see Judgment of 15 November 2016, Fernand Ullens de Schooten, C-268/15, EU:C:2016:874.

See, for example, Judgment of the Court of 9 March 1978, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA, C-106/77, EU:C:1978:49.

Judgment of 12 December 1974, Walrave and Koch, C-36/74, EU:C:1974:140, paragraph 18; Judgment of 12 July 2012, Fra.bo SpA, C-171/11, EU:C:2012:453.

Judgment of 11 December 2007, International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union v Viking Line ABP and OÜ Viking Line Eesti, C-438/05, EU:C:2007:772; Judgment of 18 December 2007, Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, C-341/05, EU:C:2007:809.

For the lack of de minimis effect, see Judgment of 10 July 1985, Commission v the Netherlands, C-16/84, EU:C:1985:309; Judgment of 5 April 1984, Criminal proceedings against Jan van de Haar and Kaveka de Meern BV, Joined cases 177 and 178/82, EU:C:1984:144; Judgment of 18 May 1993, Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft e.V. v Yves Rocher GmbH., C-126/91, EU:C:1993:191.

Judgment of 7 March 1990, Krantz, C-69/88, EU:C:1990:97; Judgment of 27 January 2000, Volker Graf v Filzmoser Maschinenbau GmbH, C-190/98, EU:C:2000:49.

Judgment of 13 March 1984, Criminal proceedings against Karl Prantl, C-16/83, EU:C:1984:101; Judgement of 5 April 1984, Criminal proceedings against Jan van de Haar and Kaveka de Meern BV, Joined cases C-177 and 178/82.,C:1984:144.

In the case of free movement of goods and services, the case law relies on the similar market access test; see Judgment of 24 November 1993, Criminal proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard, Joined cases C-267/91 and C-268/91, EU:C:1993:905; Judgment of 2 December 2010, Ker-Optika Bt., C-108/09, EU:C:2010:725.

See, inter alia, Judgment of 4 December 1974, van Duyn, C-41/74, EU:C:1974:133.

Judgement of 4 December 1974, van Duyn, C-41/74, EU:C:1974:133.

See, inter alia, Judgment of 23 September 2003, Margarethe Ospelt and Schlössle Weissenberg Familienstiftung, C-452/01, EU:C:2003:493, paragraph 40; Judgment of 16 June 2011, Commission v Austria, C-10/10, EU:C:2011:399, paragraphs 32, 34 and 37; Judgment of 22 October 2013, Essent, Joined Cases C-105/12 to C-107/12, EU:C:2013:242, paragraphs 58–65.

See, inter alia, Judgment of 4 June 2002, Commission v Portugal, C-367/98, EU:C:2002:326, paragraph 52.

See, inter alia, Judgment of 28 April 1998, Nicolas Decker and Caisse de Maladie des Employés Privés, C-120/95, EU:C:1998:167, paragraph 39 (accepting the risk of seriously undermining the financial balance of the social security system) and Judgment of 28 April 1998, Raymond Kohll v Union des caisses de maladie, C-158/96, EU:C:1998:171.

See Judgment of 21 October 1999, Questore di Verona v Diego Zenatti, C-67/98, EU:C:1999:514; Judgment of 6 November 2003, Criminal proceedings against Piergiorgio Gambelli and Others, C-243/01, EU:C:2003:597.

Judgment of 14 February 2008. Dynamic Medien Vertriebs GmbH v Avides Media AG, C-244/06, EU:C:2008:85. See, further, Judgment of 14 October 2004, Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn, C-36/02, EU:C:2004:614.

Judgment of 5 June 2007, Rosengren, C-170/04, EU:C:2007:31, paragraph 39.

Judgment of 26 November 2014, Raffaella Mascolo and Others v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca and Comune di Napoli, C-22/13, EU:C:2014:2401.

See, inter alia, Judgment of 16 December 2010, Marc Michel Josemans v Burgemeester van Maastricht, C-137/09, EU:C:2010:774, paragraphs 18–19; Judgment of 13 May 2003, V.G. Müller-Fauré v Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij OZ Zorgverzekeringen UA and E.E.M. van Riet v Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij ZAO Zorgverzekeringen, C-385/99, EU:C:2003:270.

See Judgment of the Court of 14 March 2000, Association Eglise de scientologie de Paris and Scientology International Reserves Trust v The Prime Minister, C-54/99, EU:C:2000:124, paragraphs 17 and 48; Judgment of 4 June 2002, Commission v France, C-483/99, EU:C:2002:327; Judgment of 4 June 2002, Commission v Belgium, C-503/99, EU:C:2002:328, paragraph 72; Judgment of 13 May 2003, Commission v Spain, C-463/00, EU:C:2003:272; Judgment of 9 March 1978, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA, C-106/77, EU:C:1978:49.

See, for example, Judgment of 23 December 2015, Scotch Whisky Association and Others v The Lord Advocate and The Advocate General for Scotland, C-333/14, EU:C:2015:845, paragraph 45.

See ibid.

See, for example, example Judgment of 13 December 1979, Liselotte Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz, C-44/79, EU:C:1979:290.

See, inter alia, Judgment of 18 June 1991, ERT, C-260/89, EU:C:1991:254; Judgment of 12 June 2003, Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v Republik Österreich, C-112/00, EU:C:2003:333; Judgment of 14 October 2004, Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn, C-36/02, EU:C:2004:614.

See Judgement of November 2003, Criminal proceedings against Piergiorgio Gambelli and others, C-243/01, EU:C:2003:597.

See, for example, Judgment of March 2009, Commission v Italy, C-326/07, EU:C:2009:193; Judgment of 4 June 2002, Commission v Portugal, C-367/98, EU:C:2002:326; Judgment of 1 June 1999, Klaus Konle v Republik Österreich, C-302/97, EU:C:1999:271.

See, for example, Judgment of 20 February 2001, Analir, C-205/99, EU:C:2001:107; Judgment of 28 February 2018, Sporting Odds Limited v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Központi Irányítása, C-3/17, EU:C:2018:130; Judgment of 4 June 2002, Commission v Belgium, C-503/99, EU:C:2002:328.

Judgment of 10 February 2009, Commission v Italy, C-110/05, EU:C:2009:66, paragraph 66.

Judgment of 12 December 1996, Reisebüro Broede, C-3/95, EU:C:1996:487.

See, in the context of the recognition of degrees, Judgment of 7 May 1991, Irène Vlassopoulou v Ministerium für Justiz, Bundes- und Europaangelegenheiten Baden-Württemberg, C-340/89, EU:C:1991:193; Judgment of 18 November 2010, Commission v Portugal, C-458/08, EU:C:2010:692.

See, in particular, Judgment of 10 February 2009, Commission v Italy, C-110/05, EU:C:2009:66, paragraph 65.

Judgment of 9 March 1999, Centros Ltd v Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen, C-212/97, EU:C:1999:126.

Judgment of 12 September 2006, Cadbury Schweppes plc and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, C-196/04, EU:C:2006:544.

Judgment of 16 December 2008, Lodewijk Gysbrechts and Santurel Inter BVBA, C-205/07, EU:C:2008:730.

See, in this regard, Judgment of 6 September 2012, Deutsches Weintor, C-544/10, EU:C:2012:526, paragraph 49.

See AG Cruz Villalón Opinion of 5 May 2010, Santos Palhota, C-515/08, EU:C:2010:245, paragraph 53.

See the chapter by written by Sára Hungler in this book.

On neoliberalism generally and especially its role after the crisis, see Schmidt and Thatcher (2013).

See Article 52(1) of the Charter.

See, for example, Judgment of 3 April 2014, Commission v Spain, C-428/12, EU:C:2014:218; Judgment of 11 November 2010, Commission v Portugal, C-543/08, EU:C:2010:669.

Alter, K. (2009). The European court’s political power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Arrowsmith, S. (2015). Rethinking the approach to economic justifications under the EU’s free movement rules. Current Legal Problems, 68, 307–365.CrossRef

Ashiagbor, D. (2013). Unravelling the embedded liberal bargain: Labour and social welfare in the context of EU market integration. European Law Journal, 19, 303–324.CrossRef

Azoulai, L. (2008). The Court of Justice and the social market economy: The emergence of an ideal and the conditions for its realization. Common Market Law Review, 45, 1335–1356.CrossRef

Bach, T., & Ruffing, E. (2016). The multi-level administration of the EU. Transnational coordination through national and supranational bureaucracies (TARN Working Paper 3/06).

Bailer, S., Mattila, M., & Schneider, G. (2014). Money makes the EU go round: The objective foundations of conflict in the Council of Ministers. Journal of Common Market Studies, 53, 437–456.CrossRef

Barnard, C. (2009a). Derogations, justifications and the four freedoms: Is state interest really protected? In C. Barnard & O. Odudu (Eds.), The outer limits of European Union law (pp. 273–306). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Barnard, C. (2009b). Restricting restrictions: Lessons for the EU from the US? Cambridge Law Journal, 68, 575–606.CrossRef

Bickerton, C., Hodson, D., & Puetter, U. (2014). The new intergovernmentalism: European integration in the post-Maastricht era. Journal of Common Market Studies, 53, 703–722.CrossRef

Blanke, H.-J. (2012). The economic constitution of the European Union. In H.-J. Blanke & M. Stelio (Eds.), The European Union after Lisbon (pp. 369–419). Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRef

Cappelletti, M., Seccombe, M., & Weiler, J. H. H. (Eds.). (1985–1988). Integration through law: Europe and the American federal experience. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Claes, M. (2013). The European Union, its Member States and their citizens. In D. Leczykiewicz & S. Weatherill (Eds.), The involvement of EU law in private law relationships (pp. 29–52). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Clift, B., & Woll, C. (2012). Economic patriotism: Reinventing control over open markets. Journal of European Public Policy, 19, 307–323.CrossRef

Craig, P. (2012). Competence and Member State autonomy: Casualty, consequence and legitimacy. In H. Micklitz & B. De Witte (Eds.), The ECJ and the autonomy of the Member States (pp. 11–34). Antwerp: Intersentia.

Crouch, C. (2013). Making capitalism fit for society. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Dagmar, S. (2017). Towards more resilience for a social EU – The constitutionally conditioned internal market. European Constitutional Law Review, 13, 611–640.CrossRef

Damjanovic, D. (2013). The EU market rules as social market rules: Why the EU can be a social market economy. Common Market Law Review, 50, 1685–1717.CrossRef

Dani, M. (2012). Rehabilitating social conflicts. European Law Journal, 18, 621–643.CrossRef

Davies, G. (2014). Internal market adjudication and quality of life in Europe. Columbia Journal of European Law, 289–328.

Davies, G. (2015). Democracy and legitimacy in the shadow of purposive competence. European Law Journal, 21, 2–22.CrossRef

Davies, G. (2017). Between market access and discrimination: Free movement as a right to fair conditions of competition. In P. Koutrakos & J. Snell (Eds.), The law of the EU’s internal market (pp. 13–28). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Dawson, M., & Durana, A. (2017). Modes of flexibility: Framework legislation v “soft” law. In A. Ott & E. Vos (Eds.), Between flexibility and disintegration in EU law (pp. 92–117). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRef

Dawson, M., De Witte, B., & Muir, E. (Eds.). (2013). Judicial activism at the European Court of Justice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

De Sousa, P. C. (2015). The European fundamental freedoms. A contextual approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

De Witte, B. (2011). A competence to protect. The pursuit of non-market aims through internal market legislation. In P. Syrpis (Ed.), The judiciary, the legislature and the EU internal market (pp. 25–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

De Witte, F. (2017a). The architecture of the EU’s social market economy. In P. Koutrakos & J. Snell (Eds.), Research handbook on the law of the EU’s internal market (pp. 117–138). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRef

De Witte, F. (2017b). The constitutional quality of the free movement provisions: Looking for context in the case law on article 56 TFEU. European Law Review, 42, 313–338.

Devroe, W., & Van Cleynenbreugel, P. (2011). Observations on economic governance and the search for a European economic constitution. In D. Schiek, U. Liebert, & H. Schneider (Eds.), European economic and social constitutionalism after the treaty of Lisbon (pp. 96–122). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Enchelmaier, S. (2017). Horizontality: The application of the four freedoms to restrictions imposed by private parties. In P. Koutrakos & J. Snell (Eds.), Research handbook on the law of the EU’s internal market (pp. 54–81). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRef

Frieden, J. (1991). Invested interests: The politics of national economic policies in a world of global finance. International Organization, 45, 425–451.CrossRef

Garben, S. (2017). The constitutional (im)balance between “the market” and “the social” in the European Union. European Constitutional Law Review, 13, 23–61.CrossRef

Grimm, D. (2015). The democratic costs of constitutionalisation: The European case. European Law Journal, 21, 460–473.CrossRef

Harbo, T. I. (2010). The function of the proportionality principle in EU law. European Law Journal, 16, 158–185.CrossRef

Hatzopoulos, V. (2002). Killing national health and insurance systems but healing patients? The European market for health care services after the judgments of the ECJ in Van Braekel and Peerbooms. Common Market Law Review, 39, 683–729.CrossRef

Iglesias Sánchez, S. (2018). Purely internal situations and the limits of EU law: A consolidated case law or a notion to be abandoned? European Constitutional Law Review, 14, 7–36.CrossRef

Jans, J. H. (2000). Proportionality revisited. Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 27, 239–265.CrossRef

Joerges, C. (2013). Europe’s economic constitution in crisis and the emergence of a new constitutional constellation (Zentra Working Papers in Transnational Studies 06/2012).

Joerges, C., & Rödl, F. (2004). The “social market economy” as Europe’s social Model? (EUI Working Paper LAW 2004/08).

Kingreen, T. (2010). Fundamental freedoms. In A. von Bogdandy & J. Bast (Eds.), Principles of European constitutional law (pp. 515–549). Oxford: Hart Publishing, CH Beck, Nomos.

Maduro, M. P. (1998). We, the court. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Mathisen, G. (2010). Consistency and coherence as conditions for justification of Member State measures restricting free movement. Common Market Law Review, 47, 1021–1048.CrossRef

Micklitz, H. W., & De Witte, B. (Eds.). (2012). The European Court of Justice and the autonomy of the Member States. Antwerp: Intersentia.

Moravcsik, A. (1993). Preferences and power in the European Community: A liberal intergovernmentalist approach. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31, 473–524.CrossRef

Moravcsik, A. (1998). The choice for Europe. Social purpose and state power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Mulder, J. (2016). Responsive adjudication and the “social legitimacy” of the internal market. European Law Journal, 22, 597–620.CrossRef

Oliver, P. (2016). When, if ever, can restrictions on free movement be justified on economic grounds. European Law Review, 41, 147–175.

Oliver, P., & Roth, W.-H. (2004). The internal market and the four freedoms. Common Market Law Review, 41, 407–431.CrossRef

Polanyi, K. ([1944] 2001). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Prechal, S., & de Vries, S. (2009). Seamless web of judicial protection in the internal market ? European Law Review, 34, 5–24.

Psyhogiopoulou, E. (2008). Integration of cultural considerations in European Union law and policies. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRef

Rasmussen, H. (1986). On law and policy in the European Court of Justice. A comparative study in judicial policymaking. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.

Reich, N. (2012). How proportionate is the proportionality principle? Some critical remarks on the use and methodology of the proportionality principle in the internal market case law of the ECJ. In H. W. Micklitz & B. De Witte (Eds.), The European court of justice and the autonomy of the member states (pp. 83–111). Antwerp: Intersentia.

Ritter, C. (2006). Purely internal situations, reverse discrimination, Guimont, Dzodzi and article 234. European Law Review, 31, 690–710.

Rodrik, D. (2012). The globalization paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Saydé, A. (2017). Freedom as a source of constraint: Expanding market discipline through free movement. In P. Koutrakos & J. Snell (Eds.), Research handbook on the law of the EU’s internal market (pp. 29–53). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRef

Scharpf, F. W. (2010). The asymmetry of European integration, or why the EU cannot be a ‘social market economy’. Socio-Economic Review, 8, 211–250.CrossRef

Scharpf, F. W. (2015). After the crash: A perspective on multilevel European democracy. European Law Journal, 21, 384–405.CrossRef

Schiek, D. (2011). Re-embedding economic and social constitutionalism: Normative perspectives for the EU. In D. Schiek, U. Liebert, & H. Schneider (Eds.), European economic and social constitutionalism after the treaty of Lisbon (pp. 17–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Schiek, D. (2017). Towards more resilience for a social EU – The constitutionally conditioned internal market. European Constitutional Review, 13, 611–640.CrossRef

Schmidt, V. A., & Thatcher, M. (Eds.). (2013). Resilient liberalism in Europe’s political economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schwarze, J. (2013). Balancing EU integration and national interests in the case-law of the Court of Justice. In A. Rosas, E. Levits, & Y. Bot (Eds.), The Court of Justice and the construction of Europe: Analyses and perspectives on sixty years of case-law (pp. 257–278). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.

Shuibhne, N. N. (2016). Primary laws: Judging free movement restrictions after Lisbon. In P. Koutrakos, N. N. Shuibhne, & P. Syrpis (Eds.), Exceptions from EU free movement law. Derogation, justification and proportionality (pp. 297–318). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Shuibhne, N. N., & Maci, M. (2013). Proving public interest: The growing impact of evidence in free movement case law. Common Market Law Review, 50, 965–1006.CrossRef

Snell, J. (2016a). Economic justifications and the role of the state. In P. Koutrakos, N. N. Shuibhne, & P. Syrpis (Eds.), Exceptions from EU free movement law. Derogation, justification and proportionality (pp. 12–31). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Snell, J. (2016b). The trilemma of European economic and monetary integration, and its consequences. European Law Journal, 22, 157–179.CrossRef

Spolaore, E. (2016). The political economy of European integration. In H. Badinger & V. Nitsch (Eds.), Routledge handbook of the economics of European integration (pp. 435–448). London and New York: Routledge.

Thym, D. (2016). The constitutional dimension of public policy exceptions. In P. Koutrakos, N. N. Shuibhne, & P. Syrpis (Eds.), Exceptions from EU free movement law. Derogation, justification and proportionality (pp. 171–189). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Tridimas, T. (2011). Constitutional review of member state action: The virtues and vices of an incomplete jurisdiction. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 9, 737–756.CrossRef

Tuori, K. (2014). European social constitution: Between solidarity and access justice. In K. Purnhagen & P. Rott (Eds.), Varieties of European economic law and regulation (pp. 371–400). Berlin: Springer Publishing.

Van den Bogaert, S. (2002). Horizontality: The Court attacks? In C. Barnard & J. Scott (Eds.), The law of the single European market (pp. 123–152). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Varju, M., & Papp, M. (in press). Member State economic patriotism and the law of the EU Single Market: Legitimate control through proportionality?

Vedder, H. (2017). Integrating rather than juxtaposing environmental policy and the internal market. In P. Koutrakos & J. Snell (Eds.), The law of the EU’s internal market (pp. 171–190). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Weatherill, S. (2014). Why there is no “principle of mutual recognition” in EU law (and why that matters to consumer lawyers). In K. Purnhagen & P. Rott (Eds.), Varieties of European economic law and regulation (pp. 401–418). Berlin: Springer Publishing.

Weatherill, S. (2017). The internal market as a legal concept. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Title: Member State Interests and EU Internal Market Law
Author: Mónika Papp
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Book: Between Compliance and Particularism
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05781-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-05782-4

Copyright Year: 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05782-4_5