Abstract
Lately both the Court and the Commission have taken to referring to the principle of mutual recognition in the law of the EU’s internal market. But there is no principle of mutual recognition in the law of the EU’s internal market. There is only a principle of non-absolute or conditional mutual recognition. Put another way, EU law does not require Member States to admit on to their market products or services that comply with the regulatory requirements of the State of origin. Instead EU law requires Member States to show good reasons in the public interest when they wish to refuse admission to such products or services. Internal market law includes space for justified trade barriers. The Court and the Commission are probably not trying to re-write the law of the EU’s internal market. The Court and the Commission are probably just being a bit sloppy and a bit lazy. But such imprecision carries risk. An over-emphasis in internal market law on the impetus towards the liberation of cross-border trade at the expense of the regulatory sensitivities of individual Member States carries the risk that deregulation-by-law will be driven too deep—more deeply than the Treaty envisages. And that same overemphasis on market deregulation also carries the risk of loading too much weight on to the judicial means to construct an internal market—the law of free movement—at the expense of the supplementary role performed by the EU’s legislative process, most prominently in the name of harmonisation. So recognition that there is no principle of mutual recognition in the law of the EU’s internal market is important in grasping the legitimate place of both Statelevel and EU-level regulation in the building of that market.
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.
Case C-110/05 Commission v Italy [2009] ECR I-519 para 34.
- 2.
The change from ‘respect’ the principles to ‘comply with’ the principles seems to be merely a translation glitch: respecter and einhalten are used consistently in the French and German texts.
- 3.
Case C-108/09 Ker-Optika [2010] ECR I-12213 para 48.
- 4.
Judgment of 1 March 2012, Case C-484/10 Ascafor, not yet reported, paras 53, 70.
- 5.
Judgment of 26 April 2012, Case C-456/10 ANETT, not yet reported, para 33.
- 6.
Judgment of 18 October 2012, Case C-385/10 Elenca Srl, not yet reported, para 23.
- 7.
[1980] OJ C 256/2.
- 8.
Available via http://ec.europa.eu/white-papers/index_en.htm.
- 9.
COM(99) 299.
- 10.
SEC(2006) 1215.
- 11.
[2008] OJ L218/21.
- 12.
Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentrale AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein [1979] ECR 649.
- 13.
e.g. Case 227/82 Van Bennekom [1983] ECR 3883; Case C-14/02 ATRAL SA [2003] ECR I-4431.
- 14.
Case 261/81 Walter Rau v de Smedt [1982] ECR 3961.
- 15.
Case C-500/06 Corporación Dermoestética [2008] ECR I-5785.
- 16.
Case C-470/93 Verein gegen Unwesen in Handel und Gewerbe Köln eV v Mars GmbH [1995] ECR I-1923.
- 17.
Case C-434/04 Ahokainen and Leppik [2006] ECR I-9171 para 32.
- 18.
Case C-262/02 Commission v France [2004] ECR I-6569; Case C-429/02 Bacardi v TF1 [2004] ECR I-6613.
- 19.
Case 53/80 Eyssen [1981] ECR 4091.
- 20.
e.g. Case C-192/01 Commission v Denmark [2003] ECR I-9693 para 43.
- 21.
Case 328/87 Buet v Ministère Public [1989] ECR 1235.
- 22.
Case C-441/04 A-Punkt Schmuckhandels v Claudia Schmidt [2006] ECR I-2093.
- 23.
E.g. judgment of 7 March 2013, Case C-577/11 DKV Belgium SA, not yet reported; judgment of 18 July 2013, Case C-265/12 Citroën Belux NV, not yet reported.
- 24.
E.g. Case C-42/07 Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional and Bwin International [2009] ECR I-7633; Joined Cases C-316/07 et al Markus Stoss [2010] ECR I-8069; judgment of 24 January 2013, Joined Cases C-186/11 and C-209/11 Stanleybet, not yet reported.
- 25.
Case C-112/00 Schmidberger v Austria [2003] ECR I-5659.
- 26.
Case C-36/02 Omega Spielhallen [2004] ECR I-9609.
- 27.
[2002] OJ L11/4.
- 28.
[2005] OJ L149/22.
- 29.
Recitals (3) and (4).
- 30.
Case C-376/98 Germany v Parliament & Council [2000] ECR I-8419.
- 31.
Ibid, paras 78, 88.
- 32.
Ibid, paras 98, 117.
- 33.
Case C-380/03 Germany v Parliament and Council [2006] ECR I-11573.
- 34.
Case C-58/08 Vodafone, O2 et al v Secretary of State [2010] ECR I-4999.
- 35.
See M Brennke, ‘Annotation’ (2010) 47 Common Market Law Review 1793, 1804–1806.
- 36.
See S Weatherill, ‘The limits of legislative harmonisation ten years after Tobacco Advertising: how the Court’s case law has become a “drafting guide”’ (2011) 12 German Law Journal 827; D Wyatt, ‘Community Competence to Regulate the Internal Market’ in M Dougan and S Currie (eds), Fifty Years of the European Treaties: Looking Back and Thinking Forward (Oxford, Hart, 2009) 93.
- 37.
Case C-380/03 Germany v Parliament and Council [2006] ECR I-11573, para 39.
- 38.
Ibid, para 43.
- 39.
Case C-491/01 R v Secretary of State ex parte BAT and Imperial Tobacco [2002] ECR I-11543 paras 181–183.
- 40.
e.g. Case C-58/08 Vodafone, O2 et al v Secretary of State [2010] ECR I-4999 paras 72–80.
- 41.
Case C-491/01 R v Secretary of State ex parte BAT and Imperial Tobacco para 123. See similarly Case C-58/08 Vodafone para 52.
- 42.
- 43.
Judgment of 6 September 2012, Case C-544/10 Deutsches Weintor eG v Land Rheinland-Pfalz, not yet reported.
- 44.
[2006] OJ L 404/9.
- 45.
Para 47, citing Case C-275/06 Promusicae [2008] ECR I-271.
- 46.
Para 54.
- 47.
Para 48.
- 48.
Especially Case C-262/02 Commission v France; Case C-429/02 Bacardi v TF1.
- 49.
Case C-544/10 Deutsches Weintor eG v Land Rheinland-Pfalz para 52.
- 50.
e.g. C Herresthal, ‘Constitutionalisation of the Freedom of Contract in European Union Law’ in K Ziegler and P Huber (eds), Current Problems in the Protection of Human Rights—Perspectives from Germany and the UK (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013) 89; D Leczykiewicz, ‘Horizontal Effect of Fundamental Rights: In Search of Social Justice or Private Autonomy in EU Law?’ in U Bernitz and X Groussot (eds), General Principles of EU Law and Private Law (The Hague, Kluwer International, 2014); J Basedow, ‘Freedom of Contract in the European Union’ (2008) 16 European Review of Private Law 901, and several contributions, in particular but not only those by M Hesselink, B Lurger and R Schulze, in R Brownsword, H-W Micklitz, L Niglia, and S Weatherill (eds), The Foundations of European Private Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2011).
- 51.
e.g. Case C-380/03 Germany v Parliament and Council para 145; Case C-84/94 United Kingdom v Council [1996] ECR I-5755 para 58; Case C-491/01 R v Secretary of State ex parte BAT and Imperial Tobacco para 123.
- 52.
Judgment of 22 January 2013, Case C-283/11 Sky Österreich, not yet reported. Cf in the same vein judgment of 17 October 2013, Case C-101/12 Herbert Schaible, not yet reported.
- 53.
The only blot on the Court’s record is judgment of 18 July 2013, Case C-426/11 Alemo-Herron, not yet reported, which adopts an inappropriately aggressive interpretation of Article 16 of the Charter in the context of protection of workers on the transfer of undertakings, and quite wrongly pretends to be in line with the rulings in Sky Osterreich and Deutsches Weintor. Alemo-Herron deserves no more than I here grant it—scornful comment in a footnote.
- 54.
H-W Micklitz, ‘The Expulsion of the Concept of Protection from the Consumer Law and the Return of Social Elements in the Civil Law: a Bittersweet Polemic’ (2012) 35 Journal of Consumer Policy 283.
References
Basedow, J, ‘Freedom of Contract in the European Union’ (2008) 16 European Review of Private Law 901.
Brennke, M, ‘Annotation’ (2010) 47 Common Market Law Review 1793.
Brownsword, R, Micklitz H-W, Niglia, L, and Weatherill, S (eds), The Foundations of European Private Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2011).
Herresthal, C, ‘Constitutionalisation of the Freedom of Contract in European Union Law’ in K Ziegler and P Huber (eds), Current Problems in the Protection of Human Rights—Perspectives from Germany and the UK (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013) 89.
Leczykiewicz, D, ‘Horizontal Effect of Fundamental Rights: In Search of Social Justice or Private Autonomy in EU Law?’ in U Bernitz and X Groussot (eds), General Principles of EU Law and Private Law (The Hague, Kluwer International, 2014).
Micklitz, H-W, ‘The Expulsion of the Concept of Protection from the Consumer Law and the Return of Social Elements in the Civil Law: a Bittersweet Polemic’ (2012) 35 Journal of Consumer Policy 283.
Tridimas, T, The General Principles of EU Law (Oxford, OUP, 2006).
Weatherill, S, ‘The limits of legislative harmonisation ten years after Tobacco Advertising: how the Court’s case law has become a “drafting guide”’ (2011) 12 German Law Journal 827.
Wyatt, D, ‘Community Competence to Regulate the Internal Market’ in M Dougan and S Currie (eds), Fifty Years of the European Treaties: Looking Back and Thinking Forward (Oxford, Hart, 2009) 93.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Weatherill, S. (2014). Why There Is No ‘Principle of Mutual Recognition’ in EU Law (and Why that Matters to Consumer Lawyers). In: Purnhagen, K., Rott, P. (eds) Varieties of European Economic Law and Regulation. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04903-8_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04903-8_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04902-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04903-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)