The Single European Market in Goods

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isidora Maletić ◽  
Catherine Barnard
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Policy Objective ◽  
Product Regulation ◽  
Single European Market ◽  
Integration Project ◽  
Administrative Tasks

The focus of this chapter is on the European Union administrative law that has arisen in the specific policy setting of the internal market. The creation of the internal market, which ‘shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured’, is at the heart of the European Union integration project and consequently also of the EU’s administrative network structure. A number of the other chapters that follow in this collection are closely related to the present discussion, either through the specific type of product concerned, or by virtue of exploring a particular policy objective intertwined with the broader framework of the internal market. This chapter concentrates on the internal market and its administration more narrowly understood. Its focus is mainly on the administrative tasks, structures, procedures, and enforcement in the field of product regulation. However, this should not overlook the extent to which the underlying provisions, principles, and practices in this field relate, more widely, to the whole body of EU administrative law.

scholarly journals Towards More Resilience for a Social EU – the Constitutionally Conditioned Internal Market

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (04) ◽  
pp. 611-640 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dagmar Schiek
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Integration ◽  
Economic Justice ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Social ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Integration Project

Gap between the EU’s normative commitments to socio-economic justice and the practical workings of its integration project -- Potential for strengthening the social EU by recourse to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Charter normatively commits EU to a constitutionally conditioned Internal Market – Charter curbs property rights and entrepreneurial freedom specifically for the sake of social rights guarantees – Constructive response to legitimacy dilemmas emerging from cases such asLaval,VikingandAGET Iraklis– Reinstating socially embedded constitutionalism at EU levels as an alternative to relegating social integration to national levels

scholarly journals National Market Protectionist Gambling Policies in the European Union: The Finnish Gambling Monopoly Merger as a Case in Point

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jani Selin ◽  
Matilda Hellman ◽  
Tuulia Lerkkanen
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Systemic Change ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Policy Objective ◽  
Public Funds ◽  
National Market ◽  
The Media ◽  
Gambling Operators ◽  
Human Desire ◽  
Gambling Market

A rapidly growing globalized and digitalized gambling industry has compelled European jurisdictions to take action in order to secure some level of gambling market control, to secure public funds from gambling, and to protect citizens from gambling-related harm. This study concerns the market protectionist endeavour to merge three gambling operators into one state-owned monopoly in Finland in 2017. The justification of the systemic change is analysed in key policy documents and media reporting that discerns the political narratives that nudged the monopoly merger from the idea stage to its completion. Within the narratives, the merger is presented as necessary due to the threats of market intrusion by foreign gambling operators and the likelihood of an internal system implosion framed by European Union (EU) law. The worries expressed in the studied materials plug into a general zeitgeist of globalization. The justifications of the systemic change presuppose the inevitable determination of the change and an innate and constant human desire to gamble. Critical views on the merger were introduced in the media at a late stage, stressing the role of the media as a facilitator and manufacturer of political consent. The study demonstrates how market protectionist justifications can, through the maintenance of a regulated gambling market, assure preservation of national public funds obtained from gambling in the EU. The official gambling policy objective of securing public health played a secondary role in the process.RésuméLa croissance fulgurante de l’industrie du jeu, mondialisée et numérisée, a incité les autorités européennes à prendre des mesures afin d’assurer un certain contrôle sur ce marché, de garantir les fonds publics provenant du jeu et de protéger les citoyens des dommages liés au jeu. Cette étude porte sur la tentative protectionniste de la Finlande de fusionner trois exploitants de jeux d’argent en un monopole d’État en 2017. On analyse les raisons justifiant le changement systémique dans des documents politiques clés et des reportages dans les médias en mettant en évidence le contenu narratif politique qui a conduit à la fusion du monopole, depuis la naissance de l’idée jusqu’à sa concrétisation. Dans ce contenu narratif, la fusion est présentée comme une nécessité en raison des menaces d’intrusion par des exploitants de jeux étrangers et la probabilité d’une implosion du système interne encadré par le droit de l’UE. Les inquiétudes exprimées dans les documents analysés cadrent avec une tendance généralisée à l’égard de la mondialisation. Les fondements qui sous-tendent ce changement systémique présupposent l’inévitabilité du changement et un désir inné et constant de jouer chez l’être humain. Les points de vue critiques sur la fusion sont présentés tardivement dans les médias, ce qui confirme le rôle des médias comme facilitateur et créateur de consentement politique. L’étude montre que les justifications protectionnistes du marché peuvent, par le maintien d’une réglementation du marché des jeux, garantir l’apport de fonds publics nationaux générés par les jeux de hasard dans l’UE. L’objectif officiel de la politique en matière de jeu visant à protéger la santé publique a joué un rôle de second plan dans le processus.

5. Article 102

2021 ◽  
pp. 180-223
Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Single Market ◽  
Substantial Part ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Dominant Firms ◽  
Abuse Of Dominance

This chapter discusses the main features of Article 102 of the Treaty of Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which is concerned with the abusive conduct of dominant firms. It begins by discussing the meaning of ‘undertaking’ and ‘effect on trade between Member States’ in the context of Article 102. It then considers what is meant by a dominant position and looks at the requirement that any dominant position must be held in a substantial part of the internal market. Thereafter it discusses some general considerations relevant to the concept of abuse of dominance, followed by an explanation of what is meant by ‘exploitative’, ‘exclusionary’ and ‘single market’ abuses. It then discusses possible defences to allegations of abuse, and concludes by considering the consequences of infringing Article 102.

Differentiation through Derogations—Contesting Internal Market Discipline

2019 ◽  
pp. 143-179
Author(s):  
Maria Weimer
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Market Discipline ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Member States ◽  
Strict Interpretation ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Decentralized Governance ◽  
Legal Frameworks

This chapter examines attempts to accommodate diversity and disagreement on issues of agricultural biotechnology in the European Union through derogation mechanisms, such as those contained in Article 114 TFEU. More specifically, it considers whether derogations can lead to differentiation in EU harmonization to regulate risk in the internal market. The chapter begins with a discussion of pathways of differentiation available under EU harmonized legal frameworks, with particular emphasis on opt-out clauses under Article 114(4) and (5) TFEU and safeguard clauses in EU secondary legislation. It then explores the practical application of these clauses in the field of GMOs, showing that their strict interpretation by both the Commission and the CJEU leaves little room for differentiation and decentralized governance after GMO authorization. Finally, the chapter analyses the contestation by Member States of such strict interpretation. By continuously invoking opt-outs and safeguards, Member States have achieved de facto differentiation through disobedience.

5. Article 102

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Controversial Issue ◽  
Substantial Part ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Dominant Firms ◽  
Article 102 Tfeu

This chapter discusses the main features of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which is concerned with the abusive conduct of dominant firms. It begins by introducing the European Commission’s Guidance on the Commission’s enforcement priorities in applying Article [102 TFEU] to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings. It then discusses the concept of undertaking, the requirement of an effect on trade between Member States, the concept of a dominant position and the requirement that any dominant position must be held in a substantial part of the internal market. The chapter also considers the meaning of abuse of a dominant position, which is a complex and controversial issue. A discussion of the defences to allegations of abuse is followed by a brief look at the consequences of infringing Article 102.

6. Free movement of persons

2020 ◽  
pp. 121-153
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Homewood
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This chapter discusses the law on the free movement of persons in the EU. Free movement of persons is one of the four ‘freedoms’ of the internal market. Original EC Treaty provisions granted free movement rights to the economically active—workers, persons exercising the right of establishment, and persons providing services in another Member State. The Treaty also set out the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, ‘within the scope of application of the Treaty’. All these provisions are now contained in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Early secondary legislation granted rights to family members, students, retired persons, and persons of independent means. The Citizenship Directive 2004/38 consolidated this legislation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document