Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Criterion of “Consistent and Systematic Manner” in Free Movement Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Reach of Free Movement

Abstract

The conflict between the four freedoms and national regulation is not merely about colliding interests but also of colliding values and thus has, potentially, constitutional implications. The conflict has often been phrased as one between national sovereignty and European integration, but is far more than this. It is about marked liberalism and market regulation, the latter constituting the very fundament upon which the European welfare states rest. In settling conflicts between the two constitutional orders—the ordo-liberal and the welfare-state constitutions—the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) applies the proportionality principle. However, the proportionality principle is arguably of such a discretionary character that one could question its legal credentials. The discretionary character of the proportionality principle thus threatens to undermine the legitimacy of the Court and, in turn, the legitimacy of the European legal order. In this chapter, the author discusses the invocation of the “consistent and systematic manner” criterion. Has it contributed to the formalization of the proportionality analysis, and thus decreased its discretionary character? Does it secure the legitimacy for the Court’s proportionality analysis and its corresponding market liberalizing effects? In answering these questions, the point of departure is taken in the gambling case saga.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Case C-438/05, Viking, ECLI:EU:C:2007:772; Case C-341/05, Laval un Partneri, ECLI:EU:C:2007:809; Case C-346/06, Rüffert, ECLI:EU:C:2008:189.

  2. 2.

    For the academic debate see, Joerges 2009.

  3. 3.

    On the establishment and application of the proportionality principle in EU law, see for example Tridimas 2006. On the ordo-liberal constitution, see Joerges 2004.

  4. 4.

    Harbo 2010, 2015.

  5. 5.

    Case C-243/01, Gambelli, ECLI:EU:C:2003:597, para 67.

  6. 6.

    There are a number of cases, which may illustrate the Court’s application of the various sub-tests of the proportionality principle. In the literature case C-331/88, Fedesa and Others, ECLI:EU:C:1990:391 (suitability test and strictu sensu test); Case 104/75, de Peijper, ECLI:EU:C:1976:67 (necessity) are often mentioned, see for example Tridimas 2006 Chapters. 3–5; Craig 2006, pp. 655–715; de Búrca 1993, pp. 105–150.

  7. 7.

    Dworkin 1977, Chapter 4; Hart 1994, p. 136 ff. The so-called Hart-Dworkin debate concerns the question as to how the judges should go about when deciding a case where there is no rule of law, which may be applied to solve a case at hand. According to Hart, the judges must in these cases act as “deputy legislators” and fill the “legal gap” in the way he believes the legislator would. According to Dworkin there really are no “legal gaps” since judges are bound to solve these cases according to the non-positivist concept of “arguments of principle.”

  8. 8.

    One could argue that most of the early cases in which the Court established the autonomous EU legal system as in case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1 and case 6/64 Costa v ENEL, ECLI:EU:C:1964:66, etc., where all so-called hard cases.

  9. 9.

    Ref. the principle of practical concordance in Schwarze 2006, p. 690.

  10. 10.

    Dworkin 1977, Chapter 4.

  11. 11.

    The connection between the liberal political theory of John Rawls, as for example elaborated on in his “A theory of Justice” and “Political liberalism” Dworkin’s liberal theory of law, as elaborated on in his “Taking rights seriously” is obvious.

  12. 12.

    Harbo 2015.

  13. 13.

    With a pragmatic concept of law, I mean legal positivism, legal institutionalism, legal realism, although clearly there are some major differences between the three. The better tag for them would probably be non-normative.

  14. 14.

    Hart 1994, 274.

  15. 15.

    Op cit. C-243/01, Gambelli, ECLI:EU:C:2003:597, para 6.

  16. 16.

    Ibid. (my italics).

  17. 17.

    Ibid., para 69 (my italics).

  18. 18.

    C-212/97, Centros, ECLI:EU:C:1999:126, para 22.

  19. 19.

    Case 138/78, Stoelting v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas, ECLI:EU:C:1979:46, para 7 of the Advocate General’s opinion; Case C-133/93, Crispoltoni II, ECLI:EU:C:1994:364.

  20. 20.

    Case 40/82, Commission v. UK, ECLI:EU:C:1984:33.

  21. 21.

    Case C-124/97, Läärä, ECLI:EU:C:1999:435.

  22. 22.

    Ibid., para 37 (my italics). The paragraph continues: “Limited authorisation of such games on an exclusive basis, which has the advantage of confining the desire to gamble and the exploitation of gambling within controlled channels, of preventing the risk of fraud or crime in the context of such exploitation, and of using the resulting profits for public interest purposes, likewise falls within the ambit of those objectives.” In later cases the Court has reviewed the consistency of gambling monopolies, see case C-42/07, Liga Portuguesa, ECLI:EU:C:2009:519, which concerned the granting of an exclusive rights to operate games of chance via the internet to the operator, Santa Casa, the Court while upholding the restrictive measure referred explicitly to the consistency and systematic manner-criterion, paras 59–61 (norm) para 67 (application of the norm on the facts).

  23. 23.

    For a similar deferent approach see Case C-275/92, Schindler, ECLI:EU:C:1994:119, para 61: “In those circumstances, it is for [the Member States] to assess not only whether it is necessary to restrict the activities of lotteries but also whether they should be prohibited, provided that those restrictions are not discriminatory.”

  24. 24.

    Case C-67/98, Zenatti, ECLI:EU:C:1999:514, para 36.

  25. 25.

    Op. cit. Gambelli, para 69.

  26. 26.

    Joined cases C-338/04, C-359/04 and C-360/04, Placanica and others, ECLI:EU:C:2007:133.

  27. 27.

    Ibid., para 55: “(…) viewed from that perspective, it is possible that a policy of controlled expansion in the betting and gaming sector may be entirely consistent with the objective of drawing players away from clandestine betting and gaming—and, as such, activities which are prohibited—to activities which are authorized and regulated (…) authorized operators must represent a reliable, but at the same time attractive, alternative to a prohibited activity” and that “[T]his may as such necessitate the offer of an extensive range of games, advertising on a certain scale and the use of new distribution techniques.”

  28. 28.

    Case C-169/07, Hartlauer, ECLI:EU:C:2009:141, para 55 (my italics).

  29. 29.

    Ibid., para 61.

  30. 30.

    Case C-500/06, Corporación Dermoestética, ECLI:EU:C:2008:421, paras 39 and 40 (my italics).

  31. 31.

    Joined cases C-171/07 and C-171/07, Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes et al., ECLI:EU:C:2009:316.

  32. 32.

    Ibid., para 37.

  33. 33.

    Ibid., para 42.

  34. 34.

    Ibid., paras 43–50.

  35. 35.

    Ibid., para 58.

  36. 36.

    The phrase “run counter to” is applied synonymously with inconsistency in the EFTA-Courts case E-3/06 Ladbrokes, para 51.

  37. 37.

    The German version reads: “die Kohärenz,” and the Danish version: “sammenheng,” the latter closer to the notion of coherence, in the meaning of connection, context or unity, than contradiction.

  38. 38.

    The German version reads: “Kohärenz, and the Danish version: “sammenheng.”

  39. 39.

    E.g. Herlin-Karnell and Konstadinides 2013; Mathisen 2010; Gralf-Peter Calliess 2003.

  40. 40.

    E.g. Hertog and Stross 2013; Cremona 2011; Hillion 2008. The Council has recognized the “importance of consistency between internal and external aspects of human rights protection and promotion in the Union framework in terms of enhancing the Union’s credibility in its external relations and leading by example in the area of human rights.” Council of the EU conclusions of May 2014, http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6256-2016-INIT/en/pdf (accessed 30 May 2016).

  41. 41.

    In the German version the word “die Kohärenz” is applied, and in the Danish version once again “sammenheng.”

  42. 42.

    Op. cit. Hertog and Stross 2013, p. 378 citing Elsuwege and Merket 2012.

  43. 43.

    Ibid., citing Casolari 2012.

  44. 44.

    The Oxford English Dictionary defines coherence as the “action of fact of sticking together” or a “harmonious connection to the several parts of a discourse, system etc., so that the whole hangs together.” Consistency is “the quality, state or fact of being consistent.”

  45. 45.

    AG Maduro’s Opinion in joined cases C-570/07 and C-571/07, Blanco Pérez and Chao Gómez, ECLI:EU:C:2010:300, para 21: “The coherence and consistency requirement lays down that the national legislation is appropriate for securing attainment of the objective relied upon only if it genuinely reflects a concern to attain that objective in a consistent and systematic manner.”

  46. 46.

    See references in Hertog and Stross 2013, p. 376.

  47. 47.

    Koutrakos 2001, pp. 39–44; Wessels 1999, p. 297.

  48. 48.

    Hillion 2008, p. 14, citing Velden 1992.

  49. 49.

    The distinction gives associations to Robert Alexy’s distinction between legal principles and rules, Alexy 2002, although I will not elaborate on these here.

  50. 50.

    MacCormick 2005, p. 190.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., p. 189.

  52. 52.

    Ibid., p. 190.

  53. 53.

    Dworkin 1998, 243.

  54. 54.

    Case 178/84, Commission v. Germany, ECLI:EU:C:1987:126.

  55. 55.

    In E-3/00—EFTA Surveillance Authority v. The Kingdom of Norway, para 26 (my italics).

  56. 56.

    The application of the proportionality principle in the Kellogg case is deemed to be problematic due to the invocation of the precautionary principle. Invoking the precautionary principle undermines the proportionality assessment since it allows for the substitution of a fact with an assumption. In these cases, it is difficult to assess whether a measure is suitable or necessary to reach the purported aim.

  57. 57.

    Joined cases C-447/08 and C- 448/08, Sjøberg and Gerdin, ECLI:EU:C:2010:415, para 43.

  58. 58.

    Op. cit. Case C-124/97 Läärä; C-42/07, Liga Portuguesa, ECLI:EU:C:2009:519.

  59. 59.

    Op. cit., Case C-438/05 Viking; Case C-341/05 Laval un Partneri; Case C-346/06 Rüffert.

  60. 60.

    The four freedoms may also be conceptualised as Dworkian arguments of policy, in so much as they securing the political (some would even say moral) aim of European integration.

  61. 61.

    Schwarze 2006. See also, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, the presumed legal realists Nielsen 2013 and Eckes 2013. Harbo 2016.

  62. 62.

    Case C-258/08, Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming, ECLI:EU:C:2010:308.

  63. 63.

    Ibid., para 21 (my italics).

  64. 64.

    Ibid., para 25 (my italics).

  65. 65.

    Ibid., para 26 (my italics).

  66. 66.

    Ibid., para 30 (my italics).

  67. 67.

    Ibid., para 31.

  68. 68.

    A similar approach is taken in a later judgment, C-375/14, Laezzia, ECLI:EU:C:2016:60, paras 36–38.

  69. 69.

    Ibid., para 32.

References

  • Alexy R (2002) A theory of constitutional rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess G-P (2003) Coherence and Consistency in European Consumer Contract Law: A Progress Report. German Law Journal, Vol. 4, No. 4

    Google Scholar 

  • Casolari F (2012) The Principle of Loyal Co-operation: A “master key” for EU External Representation? In: Blockmans S, Wessel RA (eds) Principles and Practice of EU External Representation. 5 CLEER Working Papers

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig P (2006) EU Administrative Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremona M (2011) Coherence in European Union foreign relations law. In: Panos K (ed) European Foreign Policy: Legal and Political Perspectives. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 55–92

    Google Scholar 

  • de Búrca G (1993) The Principle of Proportionality and Its Application in EC Law. Yearbook of European Law, vol. 13

    Google Scholar 

  • den Hertog L, Stross S (2013) Coherence in EU External Relations: Concepts and Legal Rooting of an Ambiguous Term. European Foreign Affairs Review 18, no. 3, pp. 373–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1977) Taking rights seriously. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1998) Law’s Empire. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckes C (2013) European Union Legal Methods – Moving Away from Integration. In: Neergaard U, Nielsen R (eds) European Legal Method – Towards a New European Legal realism? DJØF Publishing, Copenhagen, pp. 163–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbo T-I (2010) The Function of the Proportionality Principle in EU law. European Law Journal, Vol. 16. No. 2, March, pp. 158–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbo T-I (2015) The Function of the Proportionality Analysis in European Law. Brill, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbo T-I (2016) Introducing procedural proportionality review in European law. Leiden Journal of International Law (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart H (1994) The concept of law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Herlin-Karnell E, Konstadinides T (2013) The Rise and Expressions of Consistency in EU Law: Legal and Strategic Implications for European Integration. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, p. 139

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillion C (2008) Tous pour un, un pour tous! Coherence in the external relations of the European Union. In: Cremona M (ed) Developments in EU External Relations Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Joerges C (2004) What is left of the European Economic Constitution? EUI Working Paper Law No. 2004/13

    Google Scholar 

  • Joerges C (2009) Integration through conflicts law. On the defence of the European project by means of alternative conceptualisation of legal constitutionalisation. In: Nickel R (ed) Conflicts of laws and laws of conflict in Europe and beyond: Patterns of supranational and transnational juridification. ARENA Report No 1/09

    Google Scholar 

  • Koutrakos P (2001) Trade, Foreign Policy and Defence in EU Constitutional Law. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick N (2005) Rhetoric and the rule of law: A theory of legal reasoning. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathisen G (2010) Consistency and coherency as conditions for justification of Member State measures restricting free movement. Common Market Law review 47, pp. 1021–1048

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen R (2013) New European Legal Realism – New Problems, New Solutions? In: Neergaard U, Nielsen R (eds) European Legal Method – Towards a New European Legal Realism? DJØF Publishing, Copenhagen, pp. 75–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1993) Political Liberalism. Colombia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze J (2006) European Administrative Law. Sweet and Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Tridimas T (2006) The General Principles of EU Law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • van Elsuweg P, Merket H (2012) The role of the Court of Justice in Ensuring the Unity of the EU’s External Representation. In: Blockmans S, Wessel RA (eds) Principles and Practice of EU External Representation. 5 CLEER Working Papers

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Velden W (1992) Coherence in Law: A Deductive and Semantic Explanation of Coherence. In: Brouwer B et al (eds) Coherence and Conflict in Law. Kluwer, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessel RA (1999) The European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy – A Legal Institutional Perspective. Kluwer, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Agder, PO Box 422, 4608, Kristiansand, Norway

    Tor-Inge Harbo

Authors
  1. Tor-Inge Harbo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tor-Inge Harbo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Mads Andenas

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Tarjei Bekkedal

  3. Faculty of Public Management, Law and Safety, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Luca Pantaleo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Harbo, TI. (2017). The Criterion of “Consistent and Systematic Manner” in Free Movement Law. In: Andenas, M., Bekkedal, T., Pantaleo, L. (eds) The Reach of Free Movement. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-195-1_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-195-1_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-194-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-195-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation