Abstract

This article reviews the European Court of Justice’s case-law on the so-called principle of reasonableness. Many authors represent reasonableness as the rule of reason transferred to free movement of goods, persons and services, and applied more generally to European citizenship and competition. The idea is here contended, as the Court never accepted the parties argument that reasonableness may be considered an autonomous parameter of legitimacy of national or Union acts or norms. In free movement of goods or services cases, the Court always used the proportionality test, not mentioning the reasonableness or the rule of reason invoked by the parties. The Cassis de Dijon formula is something different from the rule of reason. In competition cases, the use of the rule of reason has been expressly excluded by European judges, as the economic approach has been applied not only to Article 101 (3) but also to Article 101(1) already in early case-law. The only autonomous and specific use of reasonableness as a legitimacy parameter is related to the delay of process and administrative procedures, particularly when it is linked with the fundamental right of defence.

References

  1. Adinolfi A (2009) The principle of reasonableness in European Union Law. In: Bongiovanni G, Sartor G, Valentini C (eds) Reasonableness and law. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 383–404Google Scholar
  2. Bastianon S (2011) Diritto Antitrust dell’Unione europea. Giuffrè, MilanGoogle Scholar
  3. Corten O (1997) L’utilisation du “raisonnable” par le juge international. Bruylant, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  4. D’Attorre G (2004) Una “ragionevole” concorrenza: il ruolo della “rule of reason” dopo la riforma del diritto antitrust comunitario. Giurisprudenza Commerciale 31:80–111Google Scholar
  5. Di Via L (1996) Alcune riflessioni sulla Rule of Reason ed il concetto di consistenza di una restrizione della concorrenza. Mercato Concorrenza Regole:289–326Google Scholar
  6. Joliet R (1967) The rule of reason in antitrust law. Martinus Nijhoff, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  7. Kovar R (1987) Le droit communautaire et la règle de raison. Revue trimestrielle de droit europèen:237–254Google Scholar
  8. Picod F (2011) La jurisprudence Keck et Mithouard a-t-elle un avenir? In: Azoulai L (ed) L’entrave dans le droit du marché intérieur. Bruylant, Bruxelles, pp 47–73Google Scholar
  9. Rossi LS, Curzon SJ (2008) What rule of reason for the EU internal market? Studi sull’integrazione europea III:295–309Google Scholar
  10. Salmon J (1982) Le concept de raisonnable en droit international public. In: Mélanges offertes à Paul Reuter. Le droit international : unité et diversité. Pédone, Paris Google Scholar
  11. Schrauwen A (2005) Defence of public interest: the rule of reason. In: Schrauwen A (ed) The rule of reason, rethinking another classic of European legal doctrine. Europa Law, Groningen, pp 3–17Google Scholar
  12. Tesauro G (2010) Diritto dell’Unione europea. CEDAM, PadovaGoogle Scholar
  13. Whish R, Sufrin B (1987) Art. 85 and the rule of reason. Yearb Eur Law 7:1–38 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Instituut 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Italian Constitutional CourtRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations