Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Fundamental rights and fundamental freedoms framing market activities

  • Article
  • Published:
China-EU Law Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

On the basis of the structural characteristics of markets the article analyses the constitutional and European framework of market activities.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Concerning rights of property see Fernández-Bermejo 2014 in this issue.

  2. In contrast for example to the right to life and personal integrity according to art 2 para 1, art 3 para 1 ECHR, cf. Jarass 2013 Art. 2 ECHR mn. 5 and Art. 3 mn. 5; Art. 2 para. 2 German Basic Law, cf. Kunig 2012 Art. 2 German Basic Law mn. 44 et seqq., or the inviolability of the home, Art. 7 EHCR and Art. 13 German Basic Law, cf. Jarass 2013 Art. 7 ECHR mn. 35 et seq.; Kunig 2012 Art. 13 German Basic Law mn 10 et seqq. Concerning the approach of the ECHR to protect particular results of market activities, esp. The clientele, as property see below, 3.1.

  3. Herzmann 2014 in this issue.

  4. Cf. Posner 2011 pp. 39 et seqq.; Cooter and Ulen 2012 pp. 70 and 112 et seqq.

  5. Posner 2011 pp. 115 et seqq.; Cooter and Ulen 2012 pp. 276 and 307 et seqq.

  6. Posner 2011 pp. 369 et seqq.

  7. Richter and Furubotn 2010; Erlei et al. 2007.

  8. Socialist market economies for example exemplify the relationship, cf. Liu 2014, on “socialist market economy” clause in Chinese constitution, in this issue.

  9. Cf. Fernández-Bermejo 2014 in this issue; Schröder 2014 in this issue.

  10. Especially according to the concept of perfect or pure competition, cf. Borrmann and Finsinger 1999 pp. 6 et seqq.

  11. Vickers 1995, p. 1 and 16 et seq.; Martin 2001 pp. 89 et seqq.; concerning the ability of countries to innovate Welfens (2011) pp. 219 et seq.

  12. For an overview of the Harvard School, the Austrian School and the Chicago School cf. Schmidt and Haucap 2013 pp. 14 et seqq.

  13. Martin 2001 pp. 59 et seqq and pp. 82 et seqq.; Schmidt and Haucap 2013 pp. 201 et seqq.; Wandel 2013 pp. 1 et seqq.

  14. Concerning the difficulties in handling the relation between socialist planning and markets cf. Liu 2014, I.

  15. Von Hayek 1969 pp. 249 et seqq.

  16. Wunderlich 2010 pp. 35 et seqq. (Great Britain) and 49 et seqq. (France).

  17. Art. 12 para. 1 German Basic Law.

  18. “All Germans shall have the right freely to choose their occupation or profession, their place of work and their place of training. The practice of an occupation or profession may be regulated by or pursuant to a law”.

  19. BVerfG, dec. of 11.06.1958, 1 BvR 596/56—“Apothekenurteil”, para. 65 ff.; this integrative approach enables a consistent system of restrictions.

  20. BVerfG, dec of 11.06.1958, 1 BvR 596/56—“Apothekenurteil”, paras 55 f.; BVerfG, dec. of 26.06.2002, 1 BvR 558/91—“Glykolwarnung”, para. 41; BVerfG, dec. of 14.03.2006, 1 BvR 2087/03—“Geschäfts- und Betriebsgeheimnis”, para. 80; some hazardous or harmful activities are subject to exclusion.

  21. Kämmerer 2012 Art. 12 para. 33 with further references.

  22. Kämmerer 2012 Art. 12 para. 12.

  23. German term: Funktionsbedingung; BVerfG, dec. of 26.06.2002, 1 BvR 558/91—“Glykolwarnung”, para. 42; BVerfG, dec. of 17.12.2002, 1 BvL 28/95—“Arzneimittelfestbetrag”, paras 102 f.; BVerfG, dec. of 20.04.2004, 1 BvR 905/00—“Ökosteuer”, para. 44; BVerfG, dec. of 1.11.2010, 1 BvR 261/10, para. 11; BVerfG, dec. of 8.12.2011, 1 BvR 1932/08, para. 45; VG Berlin, dec of 13.12.2013, 4 L 570/13, para. 27; BayVGH, dec. of 21.12.2012, 4 ZB 11.2496, para. 8.

  24. BVerfG, dec. of 17.12.2002, 1 BvL 28/95—“Arzneimittelfestbetrag”, para. 104; BVerfG, dec. of 16.10.1968, 1 BvR 241/66—“Rumpelkammerfall/Kanzelwerbung“, para. 31; BVerfG, dec. of 1.2.1973, 1 BvR 426/72—“Vereinheitlichung der steuerberatenden Berufe“, para. 10; Kämmerer 2012 Art. 12 para. 44.

  25. Lately BVerfG, dec. of 8.12.2011, 1 BvR 1932/08, para. 45; BVerfG, dec. of 1.11.2010, 1 BvR 261/10, para. 11.

  26. BVerfG, dec. of 8.12.2011, 1 BvR 1932/08, para. 45; BVerfG, dec. of 1.11.2010, 1 BvR 261/10, § 11.

  27. In a way, this restriction of protection corresponds to the margin of discretion the ECJ concedes when it comes to the European professional freedom, see below 3.3.

  28. See above, 1.

  29. Cf. von Münch and Kunig 2012 Vorb. Art. 1-19 para. 22.

  30. Richter and Furubotn 2010 pp. 104 et seqq. and 136 et seqq. concerning property, pp. 184 et seqq. concerning contracts.

  31. Kunig 2012 Art. 2 German Basic Law mn. 12.

  32. See above 1.

  33. However, the jurisprudence might concede a margin of discretion in order to compensate a wider range of protection, see ECJ, dec. of 13.12.1994, C-306/93—“SW Winzersekt”; para. 22; ECJ, dec. of 17.07.1997, C-183/95—“Affish vs. Rijksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees”, para. 42; see below, 3.3.

  34. Achatz 2011 pp. 36 et seqq.; less critical Kämmerer 2012 Art. 12 para. 46.

  35. BVerfG, dec. of 26.06.2002, 1 BvR 558/91—“Glykolwarnung”.

  36. OVG Lüneburg, dec. of 14.06.2013, 13 ME 18/13, para. 6; OVG NRW dec of 24.04.2013, 13 B 192/13, paras 8 et seqq.: protection of professional freedom does not reach beyond the right of informational self-determination; VGH Baden-Württemberg, dec. of 28.01.2013, 9 S 2423/12, paras 10 et seq.; Bayerischer VGH, dec. of 18.03.2013, 9 CE 12.2755, para. 19.

  37. Kahl 2004 pp. 167 et seqq.; Murswiek 2006 pp. 474 et seqq.; Lindner 2003 pp. 185 et seqq.; Huber 2003 pp. 290 et seqq.; Schoch 2012 pp. 2844 et seqq.; Schoch 2011 pp. 193 et seqq.

  38. BVerfG, dec. of 26.06.2002, 1 BvR 558/91—“Glykolwarnung”, para. 48.

  39. Further Bäcker 2007 pp. 124 et seqq.

  40. Schuppert and Bumke 2000 p. 55.

  41. BVerfG, dec. of 26.06.2002, 1 BvR 558/91—“Glykolwarnung”, para. 60.

  42. BVerfG, dec. of 26.06.2002, 1 BvR 558/91—“Glykolwarnung”, para. 62; BVerfG, dec. of 13.06.2006, 1 BvR 1160/03—“Vergaberecht”, para. 63; BVerfG, dec. of 11.07.2006, 1 BvL 4/00—“Berliner Vergabegesetz”, para. 82; BVerfG, dec. of 13.02.2007, 1 BvR 910/05—“Rechtsanwaltsgebühren”, para. 79; BVerfG, dec. of 15.05.2007, 1 BvR 866/07, § 32; BVerfG, dec. of 25.07.2007, 1 BvR 1031/07—“Bio-Kraftstoff”, paras 32 et seq.; BVerfG, dec. of 14.10.2008, 1 BvR 928/08—“Glücksspielstaatsvertrag”, para. 21; BVerfG, dec. of 31.08.2009, 1 BvR 3275/07—“Zollflugplatz”, para. 11; concerning the general freedom of action BVerfG, dec. of 21.12.2011, 1 BvR 2007/10—“Sonnenstudioverbot”, para. 18; concerning the freedom of faith and conscience BVerfG, dec. of 01.12.2009, 1 BvR 2857/07—“Berliner Ladenöffnungszeiten”, para. 133.

  43. BVerfG, dec. of 26.06.2002, 1 BvR 558/91—“Glykolwarnung”, para. 62.

  44. Herzmann 2014 2.3, in this issue.

  45. See above, fn. 36.

  46. Cf. the duties to supply information as part of the European Consumer Protection Law, Meller-Hannich 2005 pp. 77 et seqq.; Vigneron-Maggio-Aprile 2006 pp. 36 et seqq.; Broemel 2010 pp. 89 and pp. 102 et seqq.

  47. Herzmann 2014, in this issue.

  48. BVerfG, dec. of 24.11.2010, 1 BvF 2/05—“Gentechnikgesetz”, para. 202; BVerfG, dec. of 14.03.2006, 1 BvR 2087/03—“Geschäfts- und Betriebsgeheimnis”, para. 84.

  49. Therefore rights to information have been considered as part of the property concerning trade- and business-secrets, BVerfG, dec. of 10.10.1989, 1 BvR 1549/88, para. 20.

  50. BVerfG, dec. of 14.03.2006, 1 BvR 2087/03—“Geschäfts- und Betriebsgeheimnis”, para. 84.

  51. BVerfG, dec. of 14.03.2006, 1 BvR 2087/03—“Geschäfts- und Betriebsgeheimnis”, para. 85.

  52. That may for example apply for some infrastructure based markets in the energy, telecommunications and railway sector cf. Geradin 2004.

  53. Knieps 2004; concerning the telecommunications sector Laffont and Tirole 2000.

  54. BVerfG, dec. of 14.03.2006, 1 BvR 2087/03—“Geschäfts- und Betriebsgeheimnis”, para. 84.

  55. BVerfG, dec. of 14.03.2006, 1 BvR 2087/03—“Geschäfts- und Betriebsgeheimnis”, para. 123.

  56. In more detail Schröder 2014 II. 1.

  57. BVerfG, dec. of 17.12.2013, 1 BvR 3139/08—“Garzweiler II”, para. 269; BVerfG, dec. of 16.02.2000, 1 BvR 242/91—“Altlasten”, para. 39; BVerfG, dec. of 31.03.1998, 2 BvR 1877/97—“Euro”, para. 87; Bryde 2012 Art. 14 para. 3.

  58. BVerfG, dec. of 08.11.2011, 1 BvR 2007/11, § 9; BVerfG, dec. of 28.04.1999, 1 BvL 32/95—retirement pension expectancy, para. 119; BVerfG, dec. of 18.02.1998, 1 BvR 1318/86—surviving dependant’s pension, § 58; BVerfG, dec. of 16.07.1985, 1 BvL 5/80—“health insurance contribution”, para. 104.

  59. Schröder 2014 II. 1. a) aa).

  60. Schröder 2014 II.

  61. See above, 1.

  62. Scotchmer 2004 pp. 31 et seqq; for a differentiated analyses see Engel 2000 pp. 43 et seqq.

  63. Schröder 2014 II.

  64. In detail Schröder 2014.

  65. Schröder 2014 II.

  66. Schröder 2014 III. 2.

  67. See above 2.1.1 and 2.2.

  68. Müller 1994 pp.164 et seq.; Volkmann 2013 pp. 90 et seqq.; Volkmann 2009, p. 157 (pp. 177 et seqq.).

  69. Art. 5 para. 3 German Basic Law.

  70. Müller 1994 p. 407 et seq.; vague reference to these peculiarities is made in the jurisprudence, cf. BVerfG, dec. of 29.12.2012, 1 BvR 1849/12, para. 8; BVerfG, dec. of 24.11.2010, 1 BvF 2/05—“Gentechnikgesetz”, para. 143; BVerfG, dec. of 20.07.2010, 1 BvR 748/06—“University Act of Hamburg”, para. 90; BVerfG, dec. of 26.10.2004, 1 BvR 911/00 –“University Act of Brandenburg”, para. 136: scientific freedom is characterized by “inherent laws of science”.

  71. Trute 1994 pp. 64 et seqq.

  72. Wunderlich (2000) pp. 63 et seqq.

  73. ECHR, dec. of 28.09.2004, app. no. 44912/98—“Kopecký v. Slovakia”, para. 35; ECHR, dec. of 14.01.2014, app. no. 12030/03—“Yianopulu c. Turquie”, para. 39: “Espérance légitime”.

  74. ECHR, dec. of 5.01.2000, app. no. 33202/96—“Beyeler v. Italy”, para. 100; ECHR, dec. of 14.01.2014, app. no. 12030/03—“Yianopulu c. Turquie”, para. 39; see Fernández-Bermejo 2014 2.1.1.

  75. Thus an expectation to inherit an estate principally does not lead to a legitimate expectation as long as certain necessary conditions according to domestic law are not fulfilled. However, if these conditions do not comply with fundamental rights granted by the Convention, they will not conflict with the legitimacy of the expectation; concerning a clause of reciprocity ECHR, dec. of 14.01.2014, app no. 12030/03—“Yianopulu c. Turquie”, para. 43; ECHR, dec. of 27.03.2007, app. no. 45628/99—“Apostolidi et autres c. Turquie”, paras 72 et seqq.; ECHR, dec. of 8.01.2008, app. nos. 19558/02 and 27904/02—“Nacaryan et Deryan c. Turquie”, paras 50 et seqq.; ECHR, dec. of 19.09.2009, app no. 31206/02—“Fokas c. Turquie”, paras 42 et seqq.

  76. ECHR, dec. of 27.11.2012, app. no. 21252/09—“Tipp 24 AG v. Germany”, para. 25; ECHR, dec. of 13.03.2012, app. no. 23780/08—“Malik v. the United Kingdom”, para. 88; ECHR, dec. of 26.06.1986 app. nos. 8543/79, 8674/79, 8675/79 and 8685/79—“Van Marle and others v. the Netherlands”, para. 41; see Fernández-Bermejo 2014.

  77. ECHR, dec. of 25.05.1999, app. no. 37592/97—“Olbertz v. Germany”, p. 6; ECHR, dec. of 9.11.1999, app. no. 37595/97—Döring v. Germany, p. 6 [French version]; ECHR, dec. of 06.02.2003, app. No. 71630/01—“Wendenburg v. Germany”, p. 23,.

  78. ECHR, dec. of 13.03.2012, app. no. 23780/08—“Malik v. the United Kingdom”, para. 89; ECHR, dec. of 27.11.2012, app. no. 21252/09—“Tipp 24 AG v. Germany”, para. 25.

  79. ECHR, dec. of 26.06.1986 app. nos. 8543/79, 8674/79, 8675/79 and 8685/79—“Van Marle and others v. the Netherlands”, para. 42; ECHR, dec. of 13.03.2012, app. no. 23780/08—“Malik v. the United Kingdom”, para. 90; ECHR, dec. of 27.11.2012, app. no. 21252/09—“Tipp 24 AG v. Germany”, para. 25.

  80. ECHR, dec. of 26.06.1986 app. nos. 8543/79, 8674/79, 8675/79 and 8685/79—“Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands”, para. 42; ECHR, dec. of 13.03.2012, app. no. 23780/08—“Malik v. the United Kingdom”, para. 90.

  81. ECHR, dec. of 25.01.2000, app. no. 37683/97—“Ian Edgar Ltd. v. the United Kingdom”, p. 7; ECHR, dec. of 26.09.2000, app. no. 37660/97—“Denimark Limited and others v. the United Kingdom”, p. 8.

  82. ECHR, dec. of 13.03.2012, app. no. 23780/08—“Malik v. the United Kingdom”, § 94; ECHR, dec. of 27.11.2012, app. no. 21252/09—“Tipp 24 AG v. Germany”, para. 25.

  83. The ECHR however does not make a clear differentiation between the protection of the licence, permit or enrolment and the protection of the underlying business or practice; see Schröder 2014 II. 2. Tendency just to protect the underlying business or practice in ECHR, dec. of 13.03.2012, app. no. 23780/08—“Malik v. the United Kingdom”, para. 94.

  84. See above 2.1.

  85. ECHR, dec. of 27.11.2012, app. no. 21252/09—“Tipp 24 AG v. Germany”, para. 32.

  86. This margin of appreciation concerns the choice the means of enforcement as well as the ascertainment whether the consequences of enforcement are justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the object of the law in question ECHR, dec. of 27.11.2012, app. no. 21252/09—“Tipp 24 AG v. Germany”, para. 32; ECHR, dec. of 24.10.1986, app. no. 9118/80—“Agosi v. the United Kingdom”, para. 52; ECHR, dec. of 07.07.1989, app. no. 10873/84—“Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden”, para. 62; ECHR, dec. of 18.02.1991, app. no. 12033/86—“Fredin v. Sweden”, para. 51.

  87. Kingreen 2013 p. 804.

  88. Ehlers 2009 para. 7 mn. 48 et seq, pp. 234 et seq.; Ehlers 2009 para. 14 mn. 47 et seqq., pp. 466 et seqq.

  89. Cf. Art. 34 TFEU.

  90. Established in ECJ, dec. of 11.07.1974, 8/74—“Dassonville”, para. 5 and ECJ, dec. of 20.02.1979, 120/78—“Cassis de Dijon”, para. 14; continuous case law, lately ECJ, dec. of 20.03.2014, C-639/11—“Commission vs. Poland”, para. 52; ECJ, dec. of 10.02.2009, C-110/05—„Commission vs. Italy“, para. 58.

  91. ECJ, dec. of 27.09.1988, 81/87—“Daily Mail”; ECJ, dec. of 9.03.1999, C-212/97—“Centros”; ECJ, dec. of 5.11.2002, C-208/00—“Überseering”; ECJ, dec. of 30.09.2003, C-167/01—“Inspire Art”; ECJ, dec. of 13.12.2005, C-411/03—“Sevic Systems”; ECJ, dec. of 16.12.2008, C-210/06—“Cartesio”; ECJ, dec. of 25.10.2012, C-378/10—“VALE Costruzioni”.

  92. ECJ, dec. of 19.02.2009, C-321/07—“Schwarz”, ECJ, dec. of 19.05.2011, C-184/10—“Grasser”; ECJ, dec. of 1.03.2012, C-467/10—“Akyüz”; ECJ, dec. of 26.04.2012, C-419/10—“Hofmann”; respectively concerning directive 91/439 or directive 2006/126: cross approval of licenses without any legal formality.

  93. For the time being, the cross approval of licenses concerning gambling and other games of chance is negated due to the lack of harmonization, ECJ, dec. of 12.09.2013, C-660/11, C-8/12, C-660/11 and C-8/12—“Goldbet”; para. 40; ECJ, dec. of 8.09.2010, C-316/07 and others—“Stoß and others”, para. 112; ECJ, dec. of 15.09.2011, C-347/09—“Dickinger and Ömer”, paras 96 and 99.

  94. For example concerning the network industries, Nihoul and Rodford 2011; Glachant et al. 2013.

  95. Especially in case the conditions for approval are not subject to harmonization, for instance concerning the approval of corporate enterprises.

  96. Ruffert 2009 p. 201 et seq.

  97. ECJ, dec. of 16.01.1992, C–373/90—“X”, paras 15 et seq.; dec. of 16.07.1998, C–210/96—“Gut Springenheide”, para. 31; ECJ, dec. of 4.05.1999, C-108 and 109/97—“Windsurfing Chiemsee”, para. 29; ECJ, dec. of 13.01.2000, C-220/98—“Estée Lauder”, para. 27; ECJ, dec. of 24.10.2002, C-99/01—“Linhart und Biffl”, para. 31; ECJ, dec. of 8.04.2003, C-44/01—“Pippig Augenoptik”, para. 55; dec. of 19.09.2006, C-356/04—“Lidl Belgium”, para. 78; critical recapitulation of the recent development by I. Scherer, WRP 2013, 705 et seqq.

  98. Recital (18) Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Coucil of 11.05.2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJEU of 11.06.2005, No. L 149 pp. 149 et seqq.

  99. Concerning the admissibility of comparative advertising Federal Court of Justice (FCJ), dec. of 5.02.1998, I ZR 211/96—“Testpreis-Angebot”, paras 40 et seqq.; FCJ, dec. of 23.04.1998, I ZR 2/96—“Preisvergleichsliste II”, paras 22 et seq.

  100. See above 2.1.4.1.

  101. Cf. the contributions in Schmidtchen et al. 2007.

  102. ECJ, dec. of 24.07.2003, C-280/00—“Altmark Trans”, para. 87; ECJ, dec. of 08.05.2013, C-197/11, paras 84 et seqq.

  103. Ruffert 2009 pp. 208 et seq.

  104. ECJ, dec. of 2.12.1974, 36/74—“Walrave and Koch”, paras 17 et seqq; ECJ, dec. of 15.12.1995, C-415/93—“Bosman”, paras 82 et seqq.; ECJ, dec. of 11.12.2007, C-438/05—“International Transport Workers’ Federation und Finnish Seamen’s Union v. Viking Line”, para. 33; ECJ, dec. of 10.03.2011, C-379/09—“Casteels”, para. 19; ECJ, dec. of 16.03.2010, C-325/08—“Olympique Lyonnais”, para. 30; ECJ, dec. of 18.07.2006, C-519/04—“Meca-Medina and Majcen v. Kommission”, para. 24; ECJ, dec. of 19.02.2002, C-309/99—Wouters and others, para. 120.

  105. ECJ, dec. of 11.12.2007, C-438/05—“International Transport Workers’ Federation und Finnish Seamen’s Union v. Viking Line”, para. 37.

  106. ECJ, dec. of 9.12.1997, C-265/95—“Commission v. France”; ECJ, dec. of 12.06.2003, C–112/00—“Schmidberger”; concerning the standardisation and certification activities of private-law bodies ECJ, dec. of 12.07.2012, C-171/11—“Fra.bo”, paras 22 et seqq.

  107. ECJ, dec. of 06.06.2000, C-281/98—“Angenose”, para. 36.

  108. ECJ, dec of 14.10.2008, C-353/06—“Grunkin and Paul”, para. 21; ECJ, dec. of 18.07.2006, C-406/04—“De Cuyper”, para. 39; ECJ, dec. of 22.05.2008, C-499/06—“Nerkowska”, para. 32.

  109. ECJ, dec. of 2.10.2003, C-148/02—“Garcia Avello”, paras 35 et seqq.

  110. ECJ, dec. of 14.10.2008, C-353/06—“Grunkin and Paul”, para. 22.

  111. Ehlers 2009 para. 14 mn. 5 et seqq., pp. 445 et seq.

  112. ECJ, dec. of 10.07.1991, C-90/90 and 91/90—“Jean Neu”, para. 13.

  113. Starting with ECJ, dec. of 14.05.1974, C-4/73—“Nold”, para. 14; ECJ, dec. of. 13.12.1979, C-44/79—“Hauer”, para. 32; moreover ECJ, dec. of 10.01.1992, C-177/90—“Kühn”; para. 16; different aspects described in detail by Wunderlich 2000) pp. 105 et seqq.

  114. ECJ, dec. of 21.05.1987, 133–136/85—“Berlin Butter v. Rau Lebensmittelwerke and others”, paras 15 et seqq.; ECJ, dec. of 5.10.1994, C-280/93—“Germany v. Council”, para. 62; ECJ, dec. of 3.10.2000, C-9/99—“Echirolles Distribution”, para. 25.

  115. Streinz 2012 Art. 16 GR-Charta, mn. 5.

  116. ECJ, dec. of 13.12.1994, C-306/93—“SW Winzersekt”; para. 22; ECJ, dec. of 17.07.1997, C-183/95—“Affish v. Rijksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees”, para. 42.

  117. ECJ, dec. of 13.7.1989, 5/88—Wachauf; ECJ, dec. of 10.01.1992, C-177/90—“Kühn”.

  118. See above 3.1.

  119. ECJ, dec. of 26.2.2013, C-617/10—“Akerberg Fransson”, paras 19 et seqq.

  120. Kingreen 2013 p. 804.

  121. See above 2.3 and 3.2.

References

  • Achatz A (2011) Grundrechtliche Freiheit im Wettbewerb. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Bäcker M (2007) Wettbewerbsfreiheit als normgeprägtes Grundrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Borrmann J, Finsinger J (1999) Markt und Regulierung Vahlen, Munich

  • Broemel R (2010) Wissensdistribution im Zivilrecht. In: Röhl H (ed) Wissen—zur kognitiven Dimension des Rechts, Die Verwaltung, Beiheft 9. Dunkcer & Humblot, Berlin, pp 89–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryde B (2012). In: von Münch I and Kunig P (eds.), Grundgesetz, 6th edition, Band 1, Beck, Munich, Art. 14:3

  • Cooter R, Ulen T (2012) Law and economics, 6th edn. Pearson Education, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehlers D (2009) Allgemeine Lehren. In: Ehlers (ed.), Europäische Grundrechte und Grundfreiheiten, 3rd edn., De Gruyter Recht, Berlin, pp 209–269 and pp 443–484

  • Engel C (2000) Geistiges Eigentum als Anreiz zur Innovation—Die Grenzen des Arguments. In: Eifert M, Hoffmann-Riem W (eds) Geistiges eigentum und innovation. Duncker & Humblot, Gießen, pp 43–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Erlei M, Leschke M, Sauerland D (2007) Neue Institutionenökonomik, 2nd edn. Schäffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Bermejo U (2014) The multilevel protection of the right of property in Europe. In: China-EU Law Journal 2014, in this issue

  • Geradin D (2004) Remedies in network industries. EC competition law vs. sector-specific regulation, Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Glachant J-M, Hallack M, Vazquez M (2013) Building competitive gas markets in the EU. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Herzmann K (2014) The complexity of fundamental rights protection against market-related information activity in a multi-level system—the case of (Europe-wide) product warnings. In: China-EU Law Journal 2014, in this issue

  • Huber PM (2003) Die Informationstätigkeit der öffentlichen Hand—ein grundrechtliches Sonderregime aus Karlsruhe? JZ 2003:290–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarass H (2013) Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union, 2nd edn. Beck, Munich

  • Kahl W (2004) Vom weiten Schutzbereich zum engen Gewährleistungsgehalt. Zur Kritik einer neuen Richtung der deutschen Grundrechtsdogmatik. In: Der Staat 43, pp 167–202

  • Kämmerer JA (2012) von Münch I and Kunig P (eds.), Grundgesetz, 6th edn., Band 1, Beck, Munich, Art. 12:33

  • Kingreen T (2013) Die Grundrechte des Grundgesetztes im europäischen Grundrechtsföderalismus. In: JZ 2013, pp 801–811

  • Knieps G (2004) Privatisation of network industries in Germany. In: Köthenbürger M, Sinn H-W, Whalley J (eds) Privatization experiences in the European union. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 199–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunig P (2012) von Münch I and Kunig P (eds), Grundgesetz, 6th edn. Band 1, Beck, Munich, Art. 2:13

  • Laffont J-J, Tirole J (2000) Competition in telecommunications. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindner FL (2003) Zur grundrechtsdogmatischen Struktur der Wettbewerbsfreiheit. In: DÖV, pp 185–192

  • Liu G (2014) On “socialist market economy” clause in Chinese constitution, In: China-EU Law Journal 2014 in this issue

  • Martin S (2001) Industrial organization, publisher, place of publication

  • Meller-Hannich C (2005) Verbraucherschutz im Schuldvertragsrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller F (1994) Strukturierende Rechtslehre. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Murswiek D (2006) Grundrechtsdogmatik am Wendepunkt? Der Staat 45:473–500

    Google Scholar 

  • Nihoul P, Rodford P (2011) EU electronic communications law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner RA (2011) Economic analysis of law, 8th edn. Harcourt Professional Publishing, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter R, Furubotn EG (2010) Neue Institutionenökonomik, 4th edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruffert M (2009) Zur Leistungsfähigkeit der Wirtschaftsverfassung. In: AöR 134, pp 197–239

  • Schmidt I, Haucap J (2013) Wettbewerbspolitik und Kartellrecht, 10th edn. Oldenbourg Verlag, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidtchen D, Albert M, Voigt S (2007) (eds.), The more economic approach to European competition law, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

  • Schoch F (2011) Die Schwierigkeiten des BVerfG mit der Bewältigung staatlichen Informationshandelns. NVwZ 2011:193–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoch F (2012) Amtliche Publikumsinformation zwischen staatlichem Schutzauftrag und Staatshaftung: das Verbraucherinformationsrecht als Modell der amtlichen Publikumsinformation. NJW 2012:2844–2850

    Google Scholar 

  • Schröder M (2014) Constitutional protection of public licenses and permits, In: China-EU Law Journal 2014, in this issue

  • Schuppert GF, Bumke C (2000) Die Konstitutionalisierung der Rechtsordnung. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Scotchmer S (2004) Innovation and incentives. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Streinz R (2012). In: Streinz R and Kruis T and Walther M (eds.), EUV/AEUV, 2nd edition, Beck, Art. 16 GR-Charta

  • Trute H (1994) Die Forschung zwischen grundrechtlicher Freiheit und staatlicher Institutionalisierung. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickers J (1995) Concempts of Competition. Oxford Economic Papers 47:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Vigneron-Maggio-Aprile S (2006) L’information des consommateurs en droit européen et en droit suisse de la consommation. Schulthess, Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  • Volkmann U (2009) Leitbildorientierte Verfassungsanwendung. In: AöR 134, pp 157–196

  • Volkmann U (2013) Grundzüge einer Verfassungslehre der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hayek FA (1969) Der Wettbewerb als Entdeckungsverfahren. In: von Hayek FA (ed) Freiburger studien. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 249–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Münch I, Kunig P (2012) In: von Münch I and Kunig P (eds.), Grundgesetz, 6th edn., Band 1, Beck, Munich, Vorb. Art. 1–19

  • Wandel J (2013) Competition and Antitrust Policy: an Austrian Economics Perspective. In: Leismuller G, Schimpf EJ (eds) Economics of competition. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Welfens Paul JJ (2011) Innovations in macroeconomis, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wunderlich N (2010) Das Grundrecht der Berufsfreiheit im Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Hamburg, Rothenbaumchaussee 33, 20148, Hamburg, Germany

    Roland Broemel

Authors
  1. Roland Broemel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roland Broemel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Broemel, R. Fundamental rights and fundamental freedoms framing market activities. China-EU Law J 4, 11–32 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-014-0049-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-014-0049-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation