Abstract
Striking an appropriate balance between the requirements of EU integration and due consideration of the Member States’ legitimate interests is a challenge well known to the Court of Justice of the European Union. This article aims to give a rather general answer to the question as to what extent the ECJ has managed to reconcile the promotion of the Union’s interests with due regard for the Member States’ interests on the basis of an assessment of three different categories of judgments. While on the one hand numerous cases in which the ECJ managed to balance well EU integration against Member States’ interests can be identified, there are on the other hand some examples of less well balanced decisions of the Court as well as judgments remaining somewhat ambivalent. The analysis of selected rulings of exemplary character carried out in this article reveals that the Court of Justice has altogether successfully managed to duly take into consideration the respective interests, using a diversity of judicial techniques. Doubts persist however in regard to a general line of the case-law that concerns a particular reasoning in the established practice of the ECJ, according to which the Member States shall be obliged to adhere to the general rules of EU law even in fields which are not subject to competences of the Union. It seems desirable that the Court of Justice accurately justifies its reasoning and clearly defines the limits of this interpretation technique in order to avoid its extensive application. As the struggle for an appropriate balance to be struck between the aims of the Union and the interests of the Member States is today and will be in the future one of the core tasks of the Court of Justice, the article concludes by recommending certain interpretation principles that might be helpful in reconciling EU integration with Member States’ interests.
The author is Professor for Public Law, European Union Law and Public International Law at the University of Freiburg. He is director of the Institute for Public Law and the Europa-Institut Freiburg e.V. He wishes to express his gratitude to his research assistants Dominic Divivier, Elisabeth Göttlinger, Jonas Hail and Jan Wolters for their valuable help in preparing this contribution.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Hereafter called ECJ, Court of Justice or Court.
- 2.
This wording was already used in Article 31 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC); nowadays see Article 19 of the consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).
- 3.
- 4.
See Kutscher 1981, p. 400 et seq.
- 5.
See for more details Schwarze 2012, Article 19 TEU para 63.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
ECJ Case C-36/02 Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn, ECR 2004, I-9609. For further discussion of this judgment see amongst others Schwarze 2005, p 3459 et seq.; Ackerman 2005, p. 1107 et seq.; Bulterman and Kranenborg 2006, p. 93 et seq.; Chu 2006, p. 85 et seq.
- 9.
ECJ Case C-36/02 Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn, ECR 2004, I-9609, paras 30, 37, 38.
- 10.
ECJ Case C-34/10, Judgment of 18 October 2011, Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace eV, not yet published in the ECR.
- 11.
§ 2 of the Patentgesetz, as amended for the purposes of transposition of Article 6 of the Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (BGBl. 2005 I, p. 2521), is worded as follows:
1. Patents may not be granted for inventions whose commercial exploitation would be contrary to ordre public or morality; however, exploitation shall not be deemed to be so contrary merely because it is prohibited by law or regulation.
2. In particular, patents shall not be awarded for: […]
(3) uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes; […].
- 12.
Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, OJ 1998 L 213, p. 13.
- 13.
Article 6 of Directive 98/44/EC reads as follows:
1. Inventions shall be considered unpatentable where their commercial exploitation would be contrary to ordre public or morality; however, exploitation shall not be deemed to be so contrary merely because it is prohibited by law or regulation.
2. On the basis of para 1, the following, in particular, shall be considered unpatentable: […]
(c) uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes; […].
- 14.
ECJ Case C-34/10, Judgment of 18 October 2011, Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace eV, not yet published in the ECR, para 25 et seq.
- 15.
ECJ Case C-34/10, Judgment of 18 October 2011, Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace eV, not yet published in the ECR, para 34.
- 16.
ECJ Case C-34/10, Judgment of 18 October 2011, Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace eV, not yet published in the ECR, para 35.
- 17.
ECJ Case C-34/10, Judgment of 18 October 2011, Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace eV, not yet published in the ECR, para 37. According to Ohly 2011, this question has, as science stands today, to be answered in the negative for pluripotent stem cells.
- 18.
ECJ Case C-34/10, Judgment of 18 October 2011, Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace eV, not yet published in the ECR, para 41 et seq.
- 19.
See, regarding the far-reaching protection of fundamental and human rights guaranteed by the ECJ, its decisions: ECJ Case C-423/04, Sarah Margaret Richards v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, ECR 2006, I-3585 regarding equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security in the context of a refusal to award a retirement pension at the age of 60 to a transsexual who has undergone male-to-female gender reassignment surgery; Case C-13/94, P v S and Cornwall County Council, ECR 1996, I-2143 regarding equal treatment for men and women in the context of a dismissal of a transsexual; Case C-404/92 P, X v European Commission, ECR 1994, I-4737 regarding a breach of the right of secrecy as regards state of health. See regarding the peculiar relevance of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union for the future development of EU law, von Danwitz 2012, p. 39.
- 20.
An exception only exists for inventions for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes which are applied to the human embryo and are useful to it, recital no. 42 of Directive 98/44/EC.
- 21.
Groh 2011, p. 912.
- 22.
- 23.
See Opinion of Advocate General Bot delivered on 10 March 2011, Case C-34/10, Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace eV, not yet published in the ECR, para 62.
- 24.
ECJ Case C-34/10, Judgment of 18 October 2011, Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace eV, not yet published in the ECR, para 28.
- 25.
ECJ Case C-34/10, Judgment of 18 October 2011, Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace eV, not yet published in the ECR, para 28.
- 26.
See Schwarzburg 2012, p. 301 et seq.
- 27.
ECJ joined Cases C-171/07 and C-172/07, Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes et al. (C-171/07) and Helga Neumann-Seiwert (C-172/07) v Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales, ECR 2009, I-4171. For further discussion of this judgment see amongst others Mand 2010, p. 702 et seq.; Günther 2009, p. 285 et seq.
- 28.
The so-called ‘Fremdbesitzverbot’ is enshrined in § 2 para 1 subpara 3 in conjunction with §§ 7 and 8 of the Gesetz über das Apothekenwesen.
- 29.
ECJ joined Cases C-171/07 and C-172/07, Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes et al. (C-171/07) and Helga Neumann-Seiwert (C-172/07) v Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales, ECR 2009, I-4171, para 19.
- 30.
ECJ joined Cases C-171/07 and C-172/07, Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes et al. (C-171/07) and Helga Neumann-Seiwert (C-172/07) v Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales, ECR 2009, I-4171, para 37.
- 31.
ECJ joined Cases C-171/07 and C-172/07, Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes et al. (C-171/07) and Helga Neumann-Seiwert (C-172/07) v Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales, ECR 2009, I-4171, para 39. According to the Court of Justice it is also permissible for a Member State inter alia to assess, "whether such a risk exists in the case of manufacturers and wholesalers of pharmaceutical products on the ground that they might compromise the independence of employed pharmacists by encouraging them to promote the medicinal products which they produce or market themselves. Likewise, a Member State may determine whether operators lacking the status of pharmacist are liable to compromise the independence of employed pharmacists by encouraging them to sell off medicinal products which it is no longer profitable to keep in stock or whether those operators are liable to make reductions in operating costs which may affect the manner in which medicinal products are supplied at retail level.” ECJ joined Cases C-171/07 and C-172/07, Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes et al. (C-171/07) and Helga Neumann-Seiwert (C-172/07) v Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales, ECR 2009, I-4171, para 40.
- 32.
ECJ joined Cases C-171/07 and C-172/07, Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes et al. (C-171/07) and Helga Neumann-Seiwert (C-172/07) v Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales, ECR 2009, I-4171, para 51.
- 33.
ECJ joined Cases C-171/07 and C-172/07, Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes et al. (C-171/07) and Helga Neumann-Seiwert (C-172/07) v Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales, ECR 2009, I-4171, para 58.
- 34.
In ECJ Case C-140/03, European Commission v Hellenic Republic, ECR 2005, I-3177 the Court of Justice found that the Hellenic Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 (former Article 43 EC Treaty) and 54 TFEU (former Article 48 EC Treaty) by enacting and maintaining in force national provisions under which the establishment by a legal person of an optician’s shop was subject inter alia to the condition that authorisation for the establishment and operation of that shop had to have been granted to a recognised optician who was a natural person and the person holding the authorisation to operate the shop had to hold at least 50 % of the company’s share capital and participate at least to that extent in the profits and losses of the company.
- 35.
ECJ joined Cases C-171/07 and C-172/07, Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes et al. C-171/07) and Helga Neumann-Seiwert (C-172/07) v Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales, ECR 2009, I-4171, para 60.
- 36.
See BVerfGE 5, 377 et seq. (establishment of a pharmacy) and the fundamental decision BVerfGE 7, 377 et seq. (judgment on pharmacies). See also BVerfGE 13, 225 ff. (station pharmacy Frankfurt) and BVerfGE 104, 357 et seq. (opening hours for pharmacies).
- 37.
ECJ Case C-144/04, Mangold v Helm, ECR 2005, I-9981. In this case, the ECJ has acknowledged the prohibition of discrimination based on age as a general legal principle of the Community, even though this principle was only established in the legal orders of two Member States; for a detailed analyses on the function of general principles Schwarze 2011, p. 723; see for further reading regarding the general relevance of general principles Lenaerts and Gutiérrez-Fons 2010, p. 1629 et seq.
- 38.
ECJ Case C-285/98, Kreil v Germany, ECR 2000, I-69.
- 39.
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions Official Journal L 039, 14/02/1976 pp. 0040–0042.
- 40.
Tomuschat 2005, p. 872.
- 41.
See Schwarze 2001, p. 241 et seq.
- 42.
E.g. ECJ Case C-155/09, Judgment of 20 January 2011, European Commission v Hellenic Republic, not yet published in the ECR, para 39: ”[…] according to settled case-law, although direct taxation falls within their competence, the Member States must none the less exercise that competence consistently with EU law […].” ECJ Case C-208/09, Judgment of 22 December 2010, Sayn-Wittgenstein v Landeshauptamt von Wien, not yet published in the ECR, para 38: “Although, as European Union law stands at present, the rules governing a person’s surname and the use of titles of nobility are matters coming within the competence of the Member States, the latter must none the less, when exercising that competence, comply with European Union law […]."
- 43.
See also Schwarze 2008.
- 44.
- 45.
Montag and von Bonin 2011, p. 3624; see further e.g. ECJ Case C-127/08 Metock and others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, ECR 2008, I-6241, here the Court adjudicates on grounds of an extensive understanding of the scope of application of the underlying provisions on family reunion, see on this issue Epiney 2008, p. 840 et seq.
- 46.
See ECJ Case C-34/09, Judgment of 8 March 2011, Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi, not yet published in the ECR, para 14 et seq.
- 47.
ECJ Case C-34/09, Judgment of 8 March 2011, Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi, not yet published in the ECR, operative part.
- 48.
ECJ, as cited above. para 44.
- 49.
ECJ Case C-256/11, Judgment of 15 November 2011 Murat Dereci et al . v Bundesministerium für Inneres, not yet published in the ECR, para 66.
- 50.
ECJ Cases C-47/08, C-50/08, C-51/08, C-53/08, C-54/08, C-61/08, C-52/08, Judgments of 24 May 2011, European Commission v Belgium/France/Luxembourg/Austria/Germany/Greece/Portugal, not yet published in the ECR; the following text refers to ECJ Case C-54/08, European Commission v Germany.
- 51.
ECJ Case C-54/08, Judgment of 24 May 2011, European Commisson v Germany, not yet published in the ECR, para 90.
- 52.
ECJ Case C-54/08, Judgment of 24 May 2011, European Commisson v Germany, not yet published in the ECR, para 91.
- 53.
ECJ Case C-54/08, Judgment of 24 May 2011, European Commisson v Germany, not yet published in the ECR, para 93.
- 54.
ECJ Case C-54/08, Judgment of 24 May 2011, European Commisson v Germany, not yet published in the ECR, para 96.
- 55.
Likewise Fuchs 2011, p. 475 et seq.
- 56.
In this sense the ECJ clarifies already at the beginning of his decision, that the Commission’s relevant head of claim relates neither to the status or the organisation of notaries, nor to other conditions of access; it concerns solely the nationality condition laid down by the legislation at issue for access to the profession of notary, ECJ Case C-54/08, Judgment of 24 May 2011, European Commisson v Germany, not yet published in the ECR, para 75 et seq. This interpretation has recently been shared by the Bundesverfassungsgericht which states in its decision of 19 June 2012 (Case 1 BvR 3017/09, para 46) that the ECJ’s judgement in Case C-54/08 only calls for an abolition of the nationality condition.
- 57.
ECJ Case C-54/08, Judgment of 24 May 2011 European Commisson v Germany, not yet published in the ECR, para 98.
- 58.
ECJ Case C-54/08, Judgment of 24 May 2011, European Commisson v Germany, not yet published in the ECR, para 98.
- 59.
- 60.
For example in the case ECJ Case C-54/08, Judgment of 24 May 2011, European Commisson v Germany, not yet published in the ECR, Germany was supported by 11 Member States.
- 61.
See Article 3 para 3 TEU along with protocols. See for an in-depth analysis Mellein 2007.
- 62.
See for example for the federate state of Baden-Württemberg the Gesetz über die Beteiligung des Landtags in Angelegenheiten der Europäischen Union (EULG) of 17 February 2011 (GBl. p. 77).
- 63.
See for example ECJ Case C-391/09, Judgment of 12 May 2011, Malgožata Runevič-Vardyn and Łukasz Paweł Wardyn v Vilniaus miesto savivaldybės administracija et al., not yet published in the ECR, para 63 and Case C-208/09, Judgment of 22 December 2010, Ilonka Sayn-Wittgenstein v Landeshauptmann von Wien, not yet published in the ECR, para 38.
- 64.
See for an elaborate analysis Schwarze 2001, particularly regarding the Tanja Kreil-case, p. 242 et seq.
- 65.
See Kokott et al. 2008, p. 10 et seq.
- 66.
See Schwarze 2001, p. 242.
- 67.
- 68.
Lerche 1961.
- 69.
Translation of von der Groeben 1982, p. 265.
- 70.
Regarding the future of European public law, see in general Schwarze 2010.
- 71.
See, regarding the relationship between the ECJ and the constitutional courts of the Member States, Schiemann’s comment on the occasion of the 16th Day of Administrative Courts 2010 in Freiburg, that with regard to fundamental rights protection in Europe there is not a triangle between the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union but a polygon with 27 national consitutional courts involved, 2010, p. 58 et seq.; for this question, see also von Danwitz 2010, p. 143 et seq.
References
Ackermann T (2005) Case C-36/02, Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v. Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn. Judgment of the Court of Justice (First Chamber) of 14 Oct 2004. CMLR, pp 1107–1120
Bulterman MK, Kranenborg HR (2006) What if rules on free movement and human rights collide? About laser games and human dignity: the Omega case. Eur Law Rev:93–101
Calliess C, Korte S (2011) Dienstleistungsrecht in der EU: Handbuch des Rechts der Europäischen Union zum freien Dienstleistungsverkehr. C.H. Beck, München
Chu G (2006) “Playing at Killing” freedom of movement. Legal Issues Econ Integr 33:85–94
Epiney A (2008) Von Akrich über Jia bis Metock: zur Anwendbarkeit der gemeinschaftlichen Regeln über den Familiennachzug—Gleichzeitig eine Anmerkung zu EuGH, Urt. v. 25.7.2008, Rs. C-127/08 (Metock). EuR:840–857
Everling U (1995) Bundesverfassungsgericht und Gerichtshof der Europäischen Gemeinschaften nach dem Maastricht-Urteil. In: Randelzhofer A, Scholz R, Wilke D (eds) Gedächtnisschrift für Eberhard Grabitz. C.H. Beck, München, pp 57–75
Fuchs M-C (2011) Anmerkung zu EuGH (Große Kammer), Urt. v. 24.5.2011—C-54/08 (Kommission/Deutschland). EuZW:475–476
Groh T (2011) Anmerkung zu EuGH (Große Kammer), Urt. v. 18.10.2011—C-34/10 (Oliver Brüstle/Greenpeace e.V.). EuZW:910–912
Günther C (2009) The European Court of Justice lets the pharmacist stay in his pharmacy, No branch pharmacies for pharmaceutical companies. Eur Law Report:285–291
Hailbronner K and Thym D (2011) Case C-34/09, Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v. Office national de l’emploi. Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2011. CMLR:1253–1270
Hesse K (1995) Grundzüge des Verfassungsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 20th edn. Müller, Heidelberg
Heyer M, Dederer HG (2007) Präimplantationsdiagnostik, Embryonenforschung. Klonen. Ein vergleichender Überblick zur Rechtslage in ausgewählten Ländern. Alber, Freiburg
Huber B (2011) Die ausländerrechtlichen Folgen des EuGH-Urteils Zambrano. NVwZ:856–859
Kokott J, Dervisopoulos I, Henze T (2008) Aktuelle Fragen des effektiven Rechtsschutzes durch die Gemeinschaftsgerichte. EuGRZ:10–15
Korte S, Steiger D (2011) Deutschennotariat abgestempelt!. NVwZ:1243–1247
Kubicki P (2011) Der Unionsbürgerstatus als subjektives Recht—Anmerkung zu EuGH, Rs. C-34/09 (Zambrano). GPR:279–281
Kutscher H (1981) Über den Gerichtshof der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. EuR:392–413
Laimböck L, Dederer H-G (2011) Der Begriff des „Embryos” im Biopatentrecht, Anmerkungen zu den Schlussanträgen von GA Yves Bot v. 10. März 2011, Rs. C-34/10—Brüstle, Zugleich eine Kritik des Kriteriums der “Totipotenz”. GRURInt:661–667
Lenaerts K, Gutiérrez-Fons JA (2010) The constitutional allocation of powers and general principles of EU law. CMLR:1629–1669
Lerche P (1961) Übermaß und Verfassungsrecht: zur Bindung des Gesetzgebers an die Grundsätze der Verhältnismäßigkeit und der Erforderlichkeit. Heymann, Köln
Mand E (2010) Der EuGH und das Fremdbesitzverbot für Apotheken—Paradigmenwechsel in der Kontrolldichte gesundheitspolitischer Entscheidungen der EU-Mitgliedstaaten. Wettbewerb in Recht und, Praxis, pp 702–708
Mellein C (2007) Subsidiaritätskontrolle durch nationale Parlamente—Eine Untersuchung zur Rolle der mitgliedstaatlichen Parlamente in der Architektur Europas. Nomos, Baden–Baden
Mischo J (1999) Der Beitrag des Gerichtshofes zur Wahrung der föderalen Balance in der Europäischen Union, Vorträge und Berichte des Zentrums für Europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht der Universität Bonn, No. 100, Bonn
Montag F, Bonin A von (2011) Die Entwicklungen des Unionsrechts bis Mitte 2011. NJW:3623–3628
Ohly A (2011) Anmerkung zu EuGH, Urteil vom 18.10.2011—C-34/10, “Brüstle/Greenpeace”. LMK 326137, Ausgabe 11/2011 vom 24.11.2001
Schiemann K (2010) Comment on the occasion of the 16th Day of Administrative Courts 2010 in Freiburg, Rundschreiben des Bundes Deutscher Verwaltungsrichter und Verwaltungsrichterinnen (BDVR), pp 58–59
Schockweiler F (1995) Die richterliche Kontrollfunktion: Umfang und Grenzen in Bezug auf den Europäischen Gerichtshof. EuR:191–201
Schwarzburg K (2012) Die Menschenwürde im Recht der Europäischen Union. Nomos, Baden–Baden
Schwarze J (1993) Das Staatsrecht in Europa. JZ:585–594
Schwarze J (2001) Das „Kooperationsverhältnis“des Bundesverfassungsgerichts mit dem Europäischen Gerichtshof. In: Badura P, Dreier H (eds) Festschrift 50 Jahre Bundesverfassungsgericht, Band 1. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 223–243
Schwarze J (2005) Der Schutz der Grundrechte durch den EuGH. NJW:3459–3466
Schwarze J (2008) Grenzen des Richterrechts in der europäischen Rechtsordnung—Anmerkungen zu dem zweiten Tabakwerbeurteil des EuGH vom 12.12.2006. In: Müller G, Osterloh E, Stein T (eds) Festschrift für Günther Hirsch zum 65. Geburtstag. C.H. Beck, München, pp 4165–4173
Schwarze J (2010) Zukunftsaussichten für das europäische öffentliche Recht. Analyse im Lichte der jüngeren Rechtsentwicklung in den Mitgliedstaaten und der Europäischen Union. Nomos, Baden–Baden
Schwarze J (2011) Zwischen Tradition und Zukunft: Die Rolle allgemeiner Rechtsgrundsätze im Recht der Europäischen Union. DVBl:721–727
Schwarze (2012) EU-Kommentar, 3rd edn. Nomos, Baden–Baden
Simm M (1998) Der Gerichtshof der Europäischen Gemeinschaften im föderalen Kompetenzkonflikt. Nomos, Baden–Baden
Skouris V (2010) Methoden der Grundrechtsgewinnung in der Europäischen Union. In: Merten D, Papier H-J (eds) Handbuch der Grundrechte in Deutschland und Europa, Band VI/1, Europäische Grundrechte I. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg, pp 859–888
Stein T (2007) Anmerkung zu EuGH, Urteil v. 12.12.2006—C-380/03 Deutschland/Parlament und Rat. EuZW:54–56
Tomuschat C (2005) Das Europa der Richter. In: Bröhmer J (ed) Festschrift für Georg Ress zum 70. Geburtstag, Heymann, Köln, pp 857–874
Vizthum N Graf (2011) Die Entdeckung der Heimat der Unionsbürger—Anmerkung zum Urteil des EuGH vom 8. März 2011, Rs. C-34/09 – Zambrano. EuR:550–567
von Danwitz T (2010) Kooperation der Gerichtsbarkeiten in Europa. ZRP:143–147
von Danwitz T (2012) Zur Entwicklung der Unionsrechtsordnung nach Lissabon – Bedingungen, Herausforderungen und Perspektiven. In: Gesellschaft für Rechtspolitik Trier/Institut für Rechtspolitik an der Universität Trier (ed) Bitburger Gespräche Jahrbuch 2011/I. C.H. Beck, München, pp 31–46
von der Groeben H (1982) Aufbaujahre der Europäischen Gemeinschaft. Nomos, Baden–Baden
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 T.M.C. Asser Instituut
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schwarze, J. (2013). Balancing EU Integration and National Interests in the Case-Law of the Court of Justice. In: The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-law - La Cour de Justice et la Construction de l'Europe: Analyses et Perspectives de Soixante Ans de Jurisprudence. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-897-2_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-897-2_15
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands
Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-896-5
Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-897-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)
