Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Fundamental rights protection against market-related information activity: the case of multilevel product warnings

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

Abstract

While fundamental rights protection against market-related information activity has been a controversial issue for decades, at least within some Member States of the European Union, such as Germany, it increasingly becomes a challenge regarding the multilevel product safety administration in the EU internal market. This article addresses the requirements, the present design and remaining shortcomings of fundamental rights protection against Europe-wide product warnings, particularly, with regard to the right to conduct a business (Art. 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU). The traditional concept of fundamental rights protection, which is mainly based on the assumption that legal bases contain formal and substantive requirements to instruct and restrict the exercise of public authority, which in turn is subject to judicial review, does not any more provide effective and comprehensive fundamental rights protection in this field. Rather, comprehensive and effective fundamental rights protection in a complex system of information activities requires that numerous means complement each other: among many examples, preliminary conjunctions, damage claims as a “second best”-option and mainly adequate administrational organization and procedure are of major importance.

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. ‘Product’ shall mean a substance, preparation or good produced through a manufacturing process other than food, feed, living plants and animals, products of human origin and products of plants and animals relating directly to their future reproduction [Art. 15 para. 4 Regulation (EC) No. 765/2008 = MSR setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products].

  2. For more see Klindt and Schucht 2013, margin number 31; Langner and Klindt, in: Dauses 2013, C.VI., margin number 2 et seqq.; Streinz 2012, margin numbers 885 et seqq.

  3. See Krebber, in: Calliess and Ruffert 2011, Art. 12 AEUV, margin number 2 et seq.

  4. Langner and Klindt, in: Dauses 2013, C.VI., margin number 2, with regard to the unanimity principle under Art. 100 TEEC.

  5. Klindt and Schucht 2013, margin number 32.

  6. See Council Resolution of 7 May 1985 OJ C 136/1.

  7. Klindt and Schucht 2013, margin number 33 et seqq., for critical remarks margin number 42 et seqq. and for possible future developments margin number 45 et seqq.; Kapoor and Klindt 2008, Schieble 2007, p. 401.

  8. More specific measures as provided for in GPSD are not prevented under Art. 15 para 3 MSR. Klindt and Schucht 2013, margin number 139, expect a prompt integration of the GPSD within a regulation. See also European Commission, Working Paper on the relationship between the General Product Safety Directive 2001/95/EC and the Market Surveillance Provisions of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008.

  9. More on the PSA Kapoor and Klindt 2012, 720 et seqq.

  10. See Röhl 2008, margin number 40 et seqq.; Weiß 2008a.

  11. For the distinction between “active” and “passive information activity” see Schoch 2012, 2844 et seq.

  12. Vgl. Schoch 2005, margin number 79, 82.

  13. Schoch 2005, margin number 87.

  14. In contrast to the MSR the GPSD does not cover B2B products. For this see Schucht 2014, p. 23 et seq.

  15. Schoch 2005, margin number 85 et seqq.

  16. See Weiß 2008a, p. 391 et seq.

  17. See Tremml and Luber 2013, p. 262 et seqq. Particularly on the similar requirements of warnings under the former code (GPSG) Schieble 2007, p. 404 et seqq.

  18. Weiß 2008a, p. 196 uses the accurate term “verfügungsakzessorisch” (accompanying the order).

  19. See Gundel 2008, p. 160 et seqq.; Grube et al. 2013, p. 306 et seqq.; Kahl 2011, p. 384 et seqq.; Klindt and Schucht 2013, margin number 144 eet seqq.; for more on information networks see Augsberg 2011, margin number 52.

  20. Gundel 2008, p. 162. More on RASFF see Grube et al. 2013, p. 294 et seqq.

  21. Grube et al. 2013, p. 306 et seqq.; similar Kapoor and Klindt 2008, p. 651.

  22. On such duties to protect under EU fundamental rights see Kingreen, in: Calliess and Ruffert 2011, Art. 51 GRC, margin number 22 et seqq.

  23. On fundamental freedoms problems caused by product warnings Case C-470/03 AGM-COS.MET [2007] EJC; commented by Weiß 2008b; on the relation of both categories of rights Ehlers 2009, margin number 13.

  24. On this and on the role of national (constitutional) courts Ehlers 2009, margin number 4 and 7.

  25. On the history and development of European fundamental rights see Walter 2009; particularly on EU fundamental rights Ehlers 2009.

  26. Ehlers 2009, margin number 2 (“maßgebliche(n) Rechtsquelle“).

  27. On the issue of reviewing EU law and its implementation by member states on the grounds of national constitutional law Wollenschläger 2010, p. 377 et seq.

  28. At least this applies before the accession of the EU to the ECHR mandatory under Art. 6 para. 2 TEU (on the relation Ehlers 2009, margin number 14 et seq). Moreover, the ECHR is meant to merely provide a minimum standard.

  29. For the debate on the scope see Case 617/10 Åkerberg Fransson [2013] ECJ, para. 19 et seqq. On this see Hancox 2013, from a German point of view Kingreen 2013.

  30. For the comparable food security law Wollenschläger 2013, p. 16; see also Proelß 2011, p. 699 et seqq.

  31. Ehlers 2009, margin note 8, 15 et seq. and 28; Weiß 2013; for the ECtHR Uerpmann-Wittzack 2012, p. 181 referring to joined Cases C-92/09 and C 93/09 Schecke and Eifert [2010] ECJ.

  32. However, the scope of protection of the charter rights has to be determined autonomously (Jarass 2013, Art. 52, margin number 7 with further references).

  33. Kingreen 2013, p. 809 with regard to public information activity; for non-legal limitations Ruffert 2009, margin number 30; with regard to issues concerned here Jarass 2013, Art. 52, margin number 18.

  34. Jarass 2013, Art. 8, margin number 7; on comparable cases in food security law Proelß 2011, p. 687 et seq.

  35. Bernsdorff, in: Meyer 2011, Art. 8, margin number 15; Jarass 2013, Art. 8, margin number 5.

  36. Different in the joined Cases C-92/09 and C 93/09 Schecke and Eifert [2010] ECJ, para. 59.

  37. More (references) on this discussion Wollenschläger 2010, p. 382.

  38. The issue of industrial and business secrets is not addressed here (for special provisions with regard to product warnings see bullet 3.3.1 subpara. 2 of the RAPEX Guidelines and Art. 16 GPSD, Art. 19 para. 5 MSR and Section 24 para. 3 PSA).

  39. Michael and Morlok 2012, margin number 336 with further references.

  40. Ruffert, in: Calliess and Ruffert 2011, Art. 16, margin number 4; Jarass 2013, Art. 15 GRC, margin number. 4 and Art. 16 GRC, margin number 8.

  41. Agreeing in the outcome Jarass 2013, Art. 15, margin number 9, different opinion Schwarze, in: id. 2012, Art. 15, margin number 3.

  42. Jarass 2013, Art. 16, margin number 10; similar Schwarze, in: id 2012, Art. 16 GRC, margin number 3.

  43. See Jarass 2013, Art. 17, margin number 4 and 12 with further references.

  44. See Kingreen 2009, margin number 14.

  45. See before Case C-306/93 SMW Winzersekt [1994], ECJ, para. 30.

  46. Jarass 2013, Art. 20, margin number 2.

  47. Graser, in: Schwarze 2012, Art. 20 GRC, margin number 8 with further references.

  48. Kingreen 2009, margin number 14.

  49. See Murswiek 2003, p. 6, footnote 24.

  50. Critical Schoch 2005, margin number 112; clearly represented by Martini and Kühl 2013, p. 374.

  51. Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (below abbreviated BVerfGE) 105, p. 252 et seqq.; see Albers 2002 and Ruge 2002.

  52. See Proelß 2011, p. 706 et seq., Wieland, in Dreier 2013, Art. 12, margin number 12 et seqq.; on deficiencies in fundamental rights protection in general Jarass 2013, Art. 52, margin number 4 with further references. Particularly, the issue of limitations is still quite unclear (Kingreen, in: Calliess and Ruffert 2011, Art. 52 GRC, margin number 56 et seq.).

  53. See, among others, Dreier 2013, Vorb., margin number 124.

  54. BVerfGE 105, 279, 300. On the FRC Jarass 2013, Art. 52, margin number 17 et seq.; Proelß 2011, p. 704; Ruffert 2009, margin number 30.

  55. On the requirement of accountability of the limitation Jarass 2013, Art. 52, margin numbers 10 and 17.

  56. Michael and Morlok 2012, margin number 493 et seqq.

  57. BVerfGE 105, 252, 268 ff., for more see Schoch 2005, margin number 53 et seqq. On control effects also Bumke 2004, p. 7 et seqq.

  58. This is why Bäcker 2006, p. 96 et seqq., distinguishes this type of freedom and freedom within the “social system” competition (“soziale[n] System […] Wettbewerb“, p. 38).

  59. From a more narrow perspective Bäcker 2006, p. 343.

  60. See BVerfGE 105, 252, 265.

  61. See BVerfGE 105, 252, 265; 106, 275, 299.

  62. See BVerfGE 105, 252, 265; critical Murswiek 2003, p. 3 et seq.

  63. BVerfGE 106, 275, 302; Hoffmann-Riem 2004, p. 217 f.

  64. See BVerfGE 105, 252, 266; explained by Hoffmann-Riem 2004, p. 218 f.

  65. On situations which do not refer to the economic sphere of a person Murswiek 2003, p. 2.

  66. Schoch 2005, who—as many others (e.g. Dreier 2013, Vorb., margin number 128; Bumke 2004, p. 21—criticizes the court for its mixture of scrunity levels, margin number 112. See also the reaction by Hoffmann-Riem 2004, p. 217 f.

  67. Case C-283/11, Sky Österreich [2013] EJC, para. 42 with explicit regard to explanations relating to that article.

  68. In this direction BVerfGE 105, 252, 272.

  69. Bäcker 2006, p. 94 et seqq. (particularly on this distinction on p. 98).

  70. On this Bumke 2004, 23 et seqq.; the reservation in Art. 16 FRC could be interpreted similarly (Kingreen, in: Calliess and Ruffert 2011, Art. 52 margin number 49), but it is regularly read not as a matter of scope, but of justification (see Jarass 2013, Art. 52, margin number 85 et seq. with further references).

  71. Bäcker, p. 102; for more on such normative ideas (Leitbilder) in the application of the German constitution see Volkmann 2013, p 147 et seqq.

  72. On this normative idea Hatje, in: Schwarze 2012, Art. 119 AEUV, margin number 9 et seqq.; see also Wieland, in: Dreier (2013), Art. 12 margin number 12.

  73. Schoch 2005, margin number 56, 112; Weiß 2008a, p. 193; similar the opinion of advocate general Kokott delivered on 17 November 2005 concerning the Case C-470/03 AGM-COS.MET [2007], para 80. In favor of a general assumption as a limitation Dreier 2013, Vorb., margin number 128. On a European level requirements to a limitation are rather low (Wieland, in: Dreier (2103), Art. 12, margin number 13), which is why Proelß 2011, p. 704 argues that the correctness of the information may only be relevant on the level of justification. On the precision of control by information Bumke 2004, 8.

  74. Kingreen 2009, margin number 7.

  75. De facto Bäcker 2006, as well, does refer to such ancillary effects when arguing in favor of regarding the actual effects within competition (p. 98, as a question of scope).

  76. See BVerfGE 105, 252, which refers to the market´s self-regulation (“Selbststeuerungskraft des Marktes”, p. 267) as well as to alternative control measures (“Ersatz für eine staatliche Maßnahme”, p. 273). See on the latter Murswiek 2003, p. 4 et seq.

  77. BVerfG 105, 252, 268.

  78. BVerfGE 105, 279, 309, different opinion Wieland, in: Dreier 2013, Art. 12, margin number 72. See also Weiß 2008a, p. 197; with regard to the comparable food security law Proelß 2011, p. 707. For an overview on the different laws on a national and European level see Martini and Kühl 2013, p. 375 et seq. On unpredictability as an argument in favor of a reduction of the requirements to a legal base Bumke 2004, p. 20 et seq.

  79. Bumke 2004, p. 20. For the jurisdiction of the ECJ see Case C 133/85 Rau [1987] EJC, para. 31.

  80. Different opinion in BVerfGE 105, 252, 268. This is only undisputed for information activity without fundamental rights effect, see Schoch 2012, p. 2846 with further references.

  81. See for the FRC Jarass 2013, Art. 52, margin number 29 with further references; for the comparable food security law Proelß 2011, p. 707.

  82. Schoch 2005, margin number 134 et seq.

  83. The requirement of respecting the essence of a right of the FRC laid down in sentence 1 is usually integrated in the proportionality check (Kingreen, in: Calliess and Ruffert 2011, Art. 52 GRC, margin number 64; different in Case C-293/12 Digital Rights Ireland [2014] ECJ, para 38 et seqq.).

  84. Jarass 2013, Art. 52, margin number 85 et seq. with further references.

  85. As Murswiek 2003, p. 4 states: A sales slump of contaminated groceries is despite a publication of this fact by the state not a consequence being in need of justification, but a consequence of the contamination.

  86. BVerfGE 105, 252, 272. On this see Murswiek 2003, p. 7 et seq.

  87. BVerfGE 105, 252, 272.

  88. On this as a factor for fundamental rights protection see BVerfGE 128, 226, 244.

  89. Schoch 2005, margin number 107.

  90. See Grube et al. 2013, margin number 116; in general for warnings and recommendations Ruffert, in: Calliess and id. 2011, Art. 15 GRC, margin number 11.

  91. Schoch 2012, p. 2848.

  92. See Weiß 2008a, p. 196; Gurlit 2013, p. 890 f.

  93. On the rule of law aspect of these rights Ruffert, in: Calliess and id. 2011, Art. 41 GRC, margin number. 1; see also Nowak 2011a, margin number 4 et seqq.

  94. For an overview on the different legal protection approaches in Europe see Schwerdtfeger 2010, p. 52 et seqq.

  95. Directives can be legal bases for EU measures limiting fundamental rights (Ehlers 2009, margin number 67).

  96. See also Art. 1 para. 1, Art. 2 (b) GPSD, Art. 2 para. 2 MSR.

  97. See Schieble 2007, p. 402 et seq.; Arndt 2009, p. 107 et seqq. (also on both terms being synonymous in European Law, p. 115 et seqq.

  98. Schieble 2007, p. 402 seqq.; Gundel 2008, p. 169 et seq. with further references. Particularly on rapid warning systems Case T-177/02 Malagutti-Vezinhet [2004] CFI, para. 54; critical Arndt 2009, p. 134 et seq.

  99. Schucht 2014, p. 27 with reference to Section 2 no. 9 PSA. This also applies to European provisions [see. Art. 2 (d). and Art. 20 para. 1 MSR]. On urgency in food security surveillance Gundel 2008, p. 159 et seqq.

  100. Gurlit 2013, p. 891 (with regard to financial regulation).

  101. For Germany see Section 31 para. 1 sentence 1 PSA, which allows the publication of urgent orders before full legal protection can take effect, in comparison with Section 40b para. 1 sentence 1, para. 3 Securities Trading Act. Likewise in the case of a publication at the RAPEX website, because here the person concerned may seek legal protection against any measures taken by the national authorities (see below Sect. 3.2.2), however, when a serious risk is identified, the authorities will forward this information already when only intending to take measures (see Section 30 para. 1, sentence 1, para. 4). Since this might lead to a publication at the RAPEX website, at best, preliminary injunction may be granted against the information transfer to the European level (see below Sect. 3.2.2).

  102. Schucht 2014, p. 25 and examples at p. 26.

  103. On the guidelines Klindt and Wende 2011, p. 602 et seqq.

  104. See joined cases 41, 121 and 796/79 Testa a. o. [1980] ECJ, para. 21; more recent Case T-339/04 France Télécom [2007] CFI, para. 117 with further references.

  105. Case C-265/87 Schräder [1989] ECJ, para. 21.

  106. See also Case T-177/02 Malagutti-Vezinhet [2004] CFI, para. 54; on this problem in food security law Wollenschläger 2013, p. 13 et seq.

  107. While this is of main importance with regard to the fundamental freedoms protection (Calliess, in: id. and Ruffert 2011, Art. 5 EUV, margin number 161), the ECJ does not yet emphasize this with regard to fundamental rights (Kingreen, in: Calliess and Ruffert 2011, Art. 52 GRC, margin number 69).

  108. Langner and Klindt, in: Dauses 2013, C.VI., margin number 42, Weiß 2008a, p. 391 and Tremml and Luber 2013, 262 consider a warning the “ultima ratio”.

  109. See Tremml and Luber 2013, p. 263 et seq.

  110. Tremml and Luber 2013, p. 265.

  111. On these (at least for clear cases) undisputed further requirements see Schoch 2012, p. 2848 et seq.; particularly on product security surveillance Weiß 2013, p. 197 et seq.; on parallels between German and EU law Bumke 2004, p. 31. On reluctances of the ECJ when controlling the principle of proportionality Weiß 2013, p. 290 et seq.

  112. Schoch 2005, margin number 107.

  113. See Nowak 2011b, margin number 37 et seq.

  114. Jarass 2013, Art. 41, margin number 23.

  115. See Tremml and Luber 2013, 264.

  116. Gundel 2009, margin number 11 with further references. Particularly on the transmission of information in a rapid warning system see Case T-177/02 Malagutti-Vezinhet [2004] CFI, para. 57 et seq.

  117. On this issue Gundel 2009, margin number 68 et seqq.

  118. On RASFF see Case T-177/02 Malagutti-Vezinhet [2004] CFI, para. 51 et seq. (see Gundel 2008, p. 165 et seqq.).

  119. On RASFF see Case T-177/02 Malagutti-Vezinhet [2004] CFI, para. 52. In general see Dörr, in: Calliess and Ruffert 2011, Art. 263 AEUV, margin number 41 et seqq.

  120. Similar Wollenschläger 2013, 10 et seqq. on a comparable issue in national food safety law. Critical on the lack of effective legal control of the authority in charge of transmitting the RAPEX notification Kapoor and Klindt 2008, p. 651.

  121. Case T-177/02 Malagutti-Vezinhet [2004] CFI, para. 57 et seq.; see Gundel 2008, p. 165 et seq.

  122. A “disclaimer” is published on the RAPEX website: “The official contact points of the Member and EFTA-EEA States provide the information published in these weekly overviews. Under the terms of Annex II.10 to the General Product Safety Directive (2001/95/EC) responsibility for the information provided lies with the notifying party. The Commission does not take any responsibility for the accuracy of the information provided”.

  123. Grube et al. 2013, p. 301 call this the “normal case” (with regard to RASFF).

  124. On food safety law Grube et al. 2013, 302 ff.

  125. On such procedural possibilities see Grube et al. 2013, p. 312 et seq.; also Schucht 2014, p. 25 with further references.

  126. In similar context and with further references Wollenschläger 2013, p. 16 et seq.

  127. On the legal base in food safety law Wollenschläger 2013, p. 9 et seqq.

  128. See GPSD recital 37 and Art. 18 para. 2; more broadly Art. 21 para. 2 MSR.

  129. Wollenschläger 2013, p. 13.

  130. See the decision of the CFI (not published in the OJ) dating from 12.09.2006, Case. T-212/06—Bowland Dairy Products (referred to in margin number 18 and 31 of the later decision on damages in Case T-212/06 Bowland Dairy Products [2009], CFI, para. 37).

  131. See with regard to food security law Wollenschläger 2013, 10 et seqq.

  132. See Case T-177/02 Malagutti-Vezinhet [2004] CFI, a damage claim concerning economic consequences resulting from a transfer of an incorrect warning by a national surveillance authority to another (via RASFF); on this see Gundel 2008, p. 165 et seq.

  133. Case T-212/06 Bowland Dairy Products [2009], CFI, para. 37 with further references.

  134. See Thiele 2011, margin number 98 et seqq.

  135. Case. C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Bonifaci [1991] ECJ, para. 38 et seqq.

  136. For the competence of the Court to annul procedural provisions see Case C-269/90 Technische Universität München v. Hauptzollamt München-Mitte [1991] ECJ, para. 14.

  137. See Weiß 2008a, p. 485 et seq.; Gundel 2008, p.170 et seqq., for almost all member states see Dörr 2014.

  138. Schieble 2007, p. 407.

References

  • Albers M (2002) Rethinking the doctrinal system of fundamental rights: new decisions of the federal constitutional court. German Law J. http://www.germanlawjournal.de/index.php?pageID=11&artID=203

  • Arndt B (2009) Das Vorsorgeprinzip im EU-Recht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Augsberg S (2011) § 6 Europäisches Verwaltungsorganisationsrecht und Vollzugsformen. In: Terhechte JP, Verwaltungsrecht der Europäischen Union, Nomos, Baden-Baden

  • Bäcker M (2006) Wettbewerbsfreiheit als normgeprägtes Grundrecht. Eine dogmatische Neubestimmung am Beispiel des Abwehrrechts des Konkurrenten gegen eine Subvention, Nomos, Baden-Baden

  • Bumke C (2004) Publikumsinformationen—Erscheinungsformen, Funktionen und verfassungsrechtlicher Rahmen einer Handlungsform. In: Die Verwaltung 37/3–33

  • Calliess C, Ruffert M (eds) (2011) EUV/AEUV Kommentar, 4th edn. C. H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Dauses MA (2013) Handbuch des EU-Wirtschaftsrechts, loose leaf system. C. H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörr O (ed) (2014) Staatshaftung in Europa. Nationales und Unionsrecht, De Gruyter, Berlin

  • Dreier H (ed) (2013) Grundgesetz Kommentar, Band I, 3rd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

  • Ehlers D (2009) § 14 Allgemeine Lehren der Unionsgrundrechte. In: Ehlers (ed) Europäische Grundrechte und Grundfreiheiten, 3rd edn. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 443–484

  • Grube M, Immel M, Wallau R (2013) Verbraucherinformationsrecht. Carl Heymanns, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Gundel J (2008) Haftung für fehlerhafte Meldungen im EU-Schnellwarnsystem für Lebens- und Futtermittel?, Zeitschrift für Lebensmittelrecht, pp 159–173

  • Gundel J (2009) § 20 Justiz- und Verfahrensrechte. In: Ehlers (ed) Europäische Grundrechte und Grundfreiheiten, 3rd edn. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 685–719

  • Gurlit E (2013) Handlungsformen der Finanzmarktaufsicht. In: Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handelsrecht und Wirtschaftsrecht, pp 962–991

  • Hancox E (2013) The meaning of “implementing” EU law under Article 51(19 of the charter: Åkerberg Fransson. Common Market Law Rev 5:1411–1431

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann-Riem W (2004) Grundrechtsanwendung unter Rationalitätsanspruch. Der Staat 43:203–233

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahl W (2011) Der Staat 50/353–387

  • Kapoor A, Klindt T (2008) “New Legislative Framework“im EU-Produktsicherheitsrecht—Neue Marktüberwachung in Europa. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, pp 649–655

  • Kapoor A, Klindt T (2012) Das neue deutsche Produktsicherheitsgesetz. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht, pp 719–725

  • Kingreen T (2009) § 17 Gleichheitsgrundrechte. In: Ehlers (ed) Europäische Grundrechte und Grundfreiheiten, 3rd edn. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 619–639

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

  • Klindt T, Schucht C (2013) § 36 Internationales, europäisches und nationales Technikrecht. In: Ehlers D, Fehling M, Pünder H (eds) Besonderes Verwaltungsrecht, Band 1: Öffentliches Wirtschaftsrecht, 3rd edn. C. F. Müller, Heidelberg, pp 1280–1335

  • Klindt T, Wende S (2011) Behördliche Risikobewertung nach den RAPEX-Leitlinien. In: Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht, pp 602–604

  • Martini M, Kühl B (2013) Der informierende Staat als Katalysator der Meinungsbildung im digitalen Zeitalter. In: Die öffentliche Verwaltung, pp 573–584

  • Meyer J (2011) Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union, 3rd edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael L, Morlok M (2012) Grundrechte, 3rd edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Murswiek D (2003) Das Bundesverfassungsgericht und die Dogmatik mittelbarer Grundrechtseingriffe. Zu der Glykol- und der Osho-Entscheidung vom 26. 6. 2002. In: Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht, pp 1–8

  • Nowak C (2011a) § 13 Rechtsschutz im europäischen Verwaltungsrecht. In: Terhechte JP (ed) Verwaltungsrecht der Europäischen Union. Nomos, Baden-Baden

  • Nowak C (2011b) § 14 Europäisches Verwaltungsrecht und Grundrechte. In: Terhechte JP (ed) Verwaltungsrecht der Europäischen Union. Nomos, Baden-Baden

  • Proelß A (2011) Europarechtliche Anforderungen der Verwaltung durch Information im Lebensmittelrecht. In: Schliesky U, Ernst C, Schulz SE (eds) Die Freiheit des Menschen in Kommune, Staat und Europa, pp 693–711

  • Röhl (2008) § 30 Ausgewählte Verwaltungsverfahren. In: Hoffmann-Riem W, Schmidt-Aßmann E (eds) Grundlagen des Verwaltungsrechts, Band 1. C. H. Beck, München

  • Ruffert M (2009) § 16.3 Grundrecht der Berufsfreiheit. In: Ehlers (ed) Europäische Grundrechte und Grundfreiheiten, 3rd edn. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 574–592

  • Ruge (2002) Between law and necessity: the federal constitutional court confirms the right of the federal government to warn the public. German Law J. http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=213

  • Schieble (2007) Öffentliche Warnungen vor unsicheren Verbraucherprodukten: Behördliche Befugnisse und Haftungsrecht. Verbraucher und Recht 401–410

  • Schoch F (2005) § 37 Entformalisierung staatlichen Handelns. In: Isensee J, Kirchhof P (eds) Handbuch des Staatsrechts, Band 3, 3rd edn. C. F. Müller, Heidelberg, pp 131–227

  • Schoch F (2012) Amtliche Publikumsinformationen zwischen staatlichem Schutzauftrag und Staatshaftung. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2844–2850

  • Schucht C (2014) Grundrechtsschutz durch Verfahren. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 21–27

  • Schwarze J (2012) EU-Kommentar, 3rd edn. Nomos Baden-Baden

  • Schwerdtfeger A (2010) Der deutsche Verwaltungsrechtsschutz unter dem Einfluss der Aarhus-Konvention, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

  • Streinz R (2012) Europarecht, 9th edn. C. F. Müller, Heidelberg

  • Thiele (2011) § 39 Europäisches Haftungsrechts. In: Terhechte JP (ed) Verwaltungsrecht der Europäischen Union. Nomos, Baden-Baden

  • Tremml B, Luber M (2013) Amtshaftungsansprüche wegen rechtswidriger Produktwarnungen. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 262–267

  • Uerpmann-Wittzack (2012) Rechtsfragen und Rechtsfolgen des Beitritts der Europäischen Union zur EMRK. Europarecht Beiheft 2/167–185

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter (2009) § 1 Geschichte und Entwicklung der Europäischen Grundrechte und Grundfreiheiten. In: Ehlers (ed) Europäische Grundrechte und Grundfreiheiten, 3rd edn. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 1–23

  • Weiß HT (2008a) Die rechtliche Gewährleistung der Produktsicherheit. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weiß HT (2008b) Gemeinschaftsrecht als Determinante staatlicher Informationstätigkeit. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 74–79

  • Weiß W (2013) Grundrechtsschutz durch den EuGH: Tendenzen seit Lissabon. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 287–292

  • Wollenschläger F (2010) Budgetöffentlichkeit im Zeitalter der Informationsgesellschaft. Archiv des Öffentlichen Rechts 135/363–403

  • Wollenschläger F (2013) Effektiver Rechtsschutz bei informationellen Maßnahmen der öffentlichen Hand am Beispiel der novellierten Informationsbefugnis im Lebensmittelrecht (§ 40 LFBG). Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 7–17

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chair of Public and European Law, University of Giessen, Hein-Heckroth-Str. 5, 35390, Gießen, Germany

    Karsten Herzmann

Authors
  1. Karsten Herzmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karsten Herzmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Herzmann, K. Fundamental rights protection against market-related information activity: the case of multilevel product warnings. China-EU Law J 4, 33–64 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-014-0051-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-014-0051-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation