Advertisement

Market freedoms and private interactions under EU law

  • Dolores Utrilla Fernández-BermejoEmail author
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The Court of Justice of the European Union has ascertained that free movement provisions as enshrined in European Union primary law entail not only mandatory rules prohibiting the creation and/or maintenance of national barriers to trade within the single market, but also subjective rights of economically active individuals to be enforced by national courts. Historically and as a matter of principle, such rights are recognized vis-à-vis Member states only, and therefore they do not deal with legal relationships between private subjects. However, over the course of time the case law of the Court has made apparent that free movement rules can also be of relevance to shape some legal interactions between private parties. This contribution offers an analytical approach to the mechanisms through which this may happen as well as a reflection about the challenges it involves for the composite European legal orders. Such challenges concern, inter alia, the blurring of the traditional boundaries between public, and private law and between competition law and free movement; the development of new forms of administrative action; and the institutional allocation of competences between the Union and the member states, as well as between the legislature and the judiciary.

Keywords

Market freedoms Interactions Freedom of establishment Freedom of services Horizontality Allocation of scarce rights 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adriaanse P et al (eds) (2016) Scarcity and the state I. The allocation of limited rights by the administration. Intersentia, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexy R (1994) Theorie der Grundrechte, 2nd edn. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  3. Arroyo L, Utrilla D (eds) (2015) La administración de la escasez. Los fundamentos de la actividad administrativa de adjudicación de derechos limitados en número. Marcial Pons, MadridGoogle Scholar
  4. Baquero Cruz J (1999) Free movement and private autonomy. Eur Law Rev 24:603–620Google Scholar
  5. Baquero Cruz J (2002) Between competition and free movement. Hart Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnard C (2008) Viking and Laval: an introduction. Camb Yearb Eur Legal Stud 10:463–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnard C (2010) The substantive law of the European Union: The Four Freedoms, 3rd edn. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Bauer H (1992) Verwaltungsrechtslehre im Umbruch? Rechtsformen und Rechtsverhaltnisse als Elemente einer zeitgemassen Verwaltungsrechtsdogmatik. Die Verwaltung 25(3):301Google Scholar
  9. Berg W (1976) Die Verwaltung des Mangels. Verfassungsrechtliche Determinanten für Zuteilungskriterien bei knappen Ressourcen. Der Staat 15:1–30Google Scholar
  10. Caro de Sousa P (2013) Horizontal expressions of vertical desires—horizontal effect and the scope of the EU fundamental freedoms. Camb J Int Comp Law 2(3):479–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Craig P, De Búrca G (2011) EU Law. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. De Vries S, Van Mastrigt T (2013) The horizontal direct effect of the four freedoms: From a hodgepodge of cases to a seamless web of judicial protection in the EU single market? In: Bernitz U et al (eds) General principles of EU law and European private law. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 249–280Google Scholar
  13. De Witte B (2011) Direct effect, primacy and the nature of the legal order. In: Craig P, De Búrca G (eds) The evolution of EU law. OUP, Oxford, pp 323–362Google Scholar
  14. Díez Sastre S (2015) La tutela de los competidores en los procedimientos administrativos de adjudicación. In: Arroyo L, Utrilla D (eds) La administración de la escasez. Los fundamentos de la actividad administrativa de adjudicación de derechos limitados en número. Marcial Pons, Madrid, pp 205–242Google Scholar
  15. Figueroa Regueiro PV (2002) Invocability of substitution and invocability of exclusion: bringing legal realism to the current developments of the case-law of ‘horizontal’ effect of directives”. Jean Monnet working paper 7/2002Google Scholar
  16. Frenz W (2002) Grundfreiheiten und Grundrechte. Europarecht 37(5):603–618Google Scholar
  17. Fuchs C (2009) Instrumente und Verfahren staatlicher Verteilungsverwaltung. In: Towfigh EV et al (eds) Recht und Markt: Wechselbeziehungen zweier Ordnungen. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 205–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hartkamp A (2013) The concept of (direct and indirect) horizontal effect of EU law: the terminology of European law scholars and of private law scholars compared. In: Bernitz U et al (eds) General principles of EU law and European private law. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 189–197Google Scholar
  19. Karayigit MT (2011) The horizontal effect of the free movement provisions. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 18:303–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kingreen T (2006) Fundamental freedoms. In: Von Bogdandy A, Bast J (eds) Principles of European constitutional law. Hart Publishing, London, pp 515–550Google Scholar
  21. Kupfer D (2005) Die Verteilung knapper Ressourcen im Wirtschaftsverwaltungsrecht. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  22. Leitão Marques MM, Bettencourt Nunes L (2015) Deepening the freedom of services through pro-competitive regulation: the case of the EU Services Directive. In: Drexl J, Bagnoli V (eds) State-initiated restraints of competition. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 103–134Google Scholar
  23. Lohse EJ (2007) Fundamental freedoms and private actors—towards an ‘indirect horizontal effect’. Eur Public Law 13(1):159–190Google Scholar
  24. Malaviya N (2009) Verteilungsentscheidungen und Verteilungsverfahren. Zur staatlichen Güterverteilung in Konkurrenzsituationen. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  25. Mortelmans K (2001) Towards convergence in the application of the rules on free movement and on competition? Common Market Law Rev 38:613–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. O’Keeffe D, Bavasso A (2000) Four freedoms, one market and national competence: in search of a dividing line. In: O’Keeffe D, Bavasso A (eds) Liber amicorum in honour of Lord Slynn of Hadley, vol I. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 541–556Google Scholar
  27. Oliver P, Roth WH (2004) The internal market and the four freedoms. Common Market Law Rev 41(2):407–441Google Scholar
  28. Ommeren Van et al (eds) (2011) Schaarse publieke rechten. Boom Jurisdische Uitgevers, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  29. Prechal S, De Vries S (2009) A seamless web of judicial protection in the internal market? Eur Law Rev 34(5):5–24Google Scholar
  30. Schepel H (2012) Constitutionalising the market, marketising the constitution, and to tell the difference: on the horizontal application of the free movement provisions in EU law. Eur Law J 18(2):177–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schmidt-Aβmann E (2004) Das allgemeine Verwaltungsrecht als Ordnungsidee. Grundlagen und Aufgaben der verwaltungsrechtlichen Systembildung. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  32. Skovgaard Ølykke G (2014) Is the granting of special and exclusive rights subject to the principles applicable to the award of concessions? Recent development in case law and their implications for one of the last sanctuaries for protectionism. Public Procure Law Rev 23:1–20Google Scholar
  33. Snell J (2002) Private parties and the free movement of goods and services. In: Andenas M, Roth WH (eds) Services and free movement in EU law. OUP, Oxford, pp 211–243Google Scholar
  34. Szydlo M (2011) The process of granting exclusive rights in the light of treaty rules on free movement. German Law J 12(7):1408–1445Google Scholar
  35. Van den Bogaert S (2002) Horizontality: The court attacks? In: Barnard C, Scott J (eds) The law of the single European market—unpacking the premises. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 123–152Google Scholar
  36. Van der Walt J (2014) The horizontal effect revolution and the question of sovereignty. Walter de Gruyter, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Ommeren F (2004) Schaarse vergunningen. De verdeling van schaarse vergunningen als onderdeel van het algemene bestuursrecht. Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  38. Wollenschläger F (2010) Verteilungsverfahren. Die staatliche Verteilung knapper Guter. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  39. Wollenschläger F (2015) EU law principles for allocating scarce goods and the emergence of an allocation procedure. Rev Eur Adm Law 8(1):205–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wollenschläger F (2016) The allocation of limited rights by the administration: challenges of legal protection. In: Adriaanse P et al (eds) Scarcity and the state I. The allocation of limited rights by the administration. Intersentia, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Wolswinkel J (2009) The allocation of a limited number of authorisations, some general requirements from EU law. Rev Eur Adm Law 2:61–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wolswinkel J (2015) From public contracts to limited authorisations and viceversa: exploring general award requirements from the EU court’s corollary approach. Public Procure Law Rev 24(5):137–163Google Scholar

Copyright information

© China-EU School of Law 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Law and Social SciencesUniversity of Castilla-La ManchaCiudad RealSpain

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options