Systematization of EU Product Safety Regulation and European Primary Law

  • Kai Purnhagen
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 26)


Although EU primary law generally welcomes systematization of EU product safety regulation, it also defines certain limits. The European legal culture is no obstacle to systematization of EU product safety regulation, as neither the hybrid, nor the fragmentary feature, nor the character of European law as a mixed legal system form any impediment per se. The policy objectives of the EU furthermore require the systematization of EU law, and in particular EU product safety regulation. The post-Lisbon version of Art. 13 (1) TEU provides a general duty to systematize European regulation, while environmental law as an umbrella policy stipulates the requirement to systematize EU product safety regulation. However, these policy objectives do not translate directly into competences for systematization. As systematization constitutes an ‘act’ within the meaning of Art. 5 (2) TEU, Union institutions in fact require a special competence in order to systematize EU product safety regulation. In the area of shared competences, Art. 114 TFEU read in conjunction with the doctrines of implied or resulting powers in fact provides such a competence at EU level. Within the competence area to support, coordinate or supplement, systematization is only possible within the limits of Art. 352 TFEU. The principle of proportionality, however, limits the application of these competences. In order to keep the risk of under- and overinvolvement of certain product groups and consumers at a reasonable limit, the degree of systematization of EU product safety regulation varies according to the severeness of the hazard that is to be expected. The severer the hazard, the more systematization is permitted.


Precautionary Principle Risk Regulation Civil Protection Lisbon Treaty Competence Area 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ackermann, Thomas. 2010. Buying legitimacy? The commission’s proposal on consumer rights. European Business Law Review 21: 587.Google Scholar
  2. Afilalo, Ari, Dennis Patterson, and Kai Purnhagen. 2013. Statecraft, the market state and the development of European legal culture. In Towards a European legal culture, eds. Geneviéve Helleringer and Kai Purnhagen. Munich/Oxford/Baden-Baden. Preliminary version available as EUI Working Papers LAW No. 2012/10, at (forthcoming).
  3. Alemanno, Alberto. 2001. Le principe de précaution en droit communautaire. Stratégie de gestion ou risque d’atteinte au marché intérieur. Revue du droit de l’Union Européenne 917 et seqq.Google Scholar
  4. Biervert, Bernd. 2009. Art. 249 EGV. In EU-Kommentar, ed. Jürgen Schwarze, 2nd (old) ed. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  5. Biervert, Bernd. 2012. Art. 288 AEUV. In EU-Kommentar, ed. Jürgen Schwarze, 3rd ed. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  6. Black, Julia. 2008. Forms and paradoxes of principles based regulation. LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers, No. 13.Google Scholar
  7. Böhm, Reinhard. 1985. Kompetenzauslegung und Kompetenzlücken im Gemeinschaftsrecht – ein Beitrag zur Klärung und Abgrenzung von effet utile, implied powers, resulting powers und Lückenklauseln. Frankfurt am Main/New York: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. Bungenberg, Marc. 2006. Grundrechtsdimensionen des Gesundheitsschutzes. In Handbuch der Europäischen Grundrechte, ed. Heselhaus and Nowak. Bern/München/Wien: C.H. Beck/Linde/Stämpfli, para 13 et seqq.Google Scholar
  9. Calliess, Christian. 2011. Art. 191 (ex-Art. 174 EGV). In Das Verfassungsrecht der Europäischen Union, 4th ed, ed. Christian Calliess and Ruffert. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  10. Chalmers, Damian, Gareth Davies, and Giorgio Monti. 2010. European union law, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Chieveley, Lord Goff of. 1997. The future of the common law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 46: 745 et seqq.Google Scholar
  12. Craig, Paul. 2004. The Treaty of Lisbon, process, architecture and substance. European Law Review 33: 137 et seqq.Google Scholar
  13. Curtin, Deidre. 1993. The constitutional structure of the union: A Europe of bits and pieces. Common Market Law Review 30: 17 et seqq.Google Scholar
  14. Dawson, Mark. 2011. New governance and the transformation of European Law: Coordinating EU social law and policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. de Sadeleer, Nicolas. 2001. Le statut juridique du principe de précaution en droit communautaire: du slogan à la règle. Cahiers de Droit Européen 1: 79 et seqq.Google Scholar
  16. de Sadeleer, Nicolas. 2006. The precautionary principle in EC health and environmental law. European Law Journal 12: 139 et seqq.Google Scholar
  17. Dougan, Michael. 2003. The convention’s draft constitutional treaty: Bringing Europe closer to its lawyers? European Law Review 28: 763 et seqq.Google Scholar
  18. Epiney, Astrid, and Andreas Furrer. 1992. Umweltschutz nach Maastricht – Ein Europa der drei Geschwindigkeiten? Europarecht 27: 384 et seqq.Google Scholar
  19. Faure, Michael. 2012. Private law I: Tort. In Research handbook on the economics of European union law, eds. T. Eger and H.-B. Schäfer, 201, at p. 212. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  20. Fisher, Elisabeth. 2007. Risk regulation and administrative constitutionalism. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  21. Franck, Jens-U., and Kai Purnhagen. 2013. Homo economicus, behavioural sciences, and economic regulation: On the concept of man in internal market regulation and its normative basis. In Foundations of law and economics in Europe, ed. Klaus Mathis. New York: Springer (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  22. Grundmann, Stefan. 2000. Das Thema Systembildung im Europäischen Privatrecht – Gesellschafts-, Arbeits- und Schuldvertragsrecht. In Systembildung und Systemlücken in Kerngebieten des Europäischen Privatrechts, ed. Stefan Grundmann, 1 et seqq. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  23. Harbo, Tor-Inge. 2010. The function of the proportionality principle in EU law. European Law Journal 16: 158 et seqq.Google Scholar
  24. Hartley, Trevor. 2003. The foundations of European community law, 5th (old) ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Héritier, Adrienne. 1995. Die Koordination von Interessenvielfalt im europäischen Entscheidungsprozeß und deren Ergebnis: Regulative Politik als “Patchwork”. MPIFG Discussion Papers, No. 4. Available at
  26. Hilf, Meinhard, and Eckhard Pache. 2009. Art. 3 EU. In Das Recht der Europäischen Union, eds. Grabitz and Hilf, 38th (old) delivery.Google Scholar
  27. Hodges, Christopher. 2005. European regulation of consumer product safety. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kahl, Wolfgang. 1993. Umweltprinzip und Gemeinschaftsrecht. Heidelberg: C.F. Müller.Google Scholar
  29. Kahl, Wolfgang. 1996. Hat die EG die Kompetenz zur Regelung des Allgemeinen Verwaltungsrechts? Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht, 865 et seqqGoogle Scholar
  30. Kogan, Lawrence, and Exporting Precaution. 2005. How Europe’s risk free regulatory agenda threatens American free enterprise. Washington, DC: Washington Legal Foundation.Google Scholar
  31. Krämer, Ludwig. 1997. Das hohe Schutzniveau für die Umwelt im EGV. Industrielle Norm oder politische Vorgabe? Natur und Recht, 303 et seqq.Google Scholar
  32. Krapohl, Sebastian. 2008. Risk regulation in the single market – The governance of pharmaceuticals and foodstuffs in the European Union. Houndmills: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  33. Kraußer, Hans-Peter. 1991. Das Prinzip begrenzter Ermächtigung im Gemeinschaftsrecht als Strukturprinzip des EWG-Vertrages. Berlin: Dunker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  34. Kremlis, George. 2007. The treaty establishing a constitution for Europe and its implications on environmental policy and civil protection. In Pour un droit commun de l’environnement – Mélanges en l’honneur de Michel Prieur, 756 et seqq. Paris: Dalloz.Google Scholar
  35. Kühn, Werner. 2006. Die Entwicklung des Vorsorgeprinzips im Europarecht. Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien 4: 487 et seqq.Google Scholar
  36. Legrand, Pierre. 1997. Against a European civil code. The Modern Law Review 60: 44 et seqq.Google Scholar
  37. Lock, Tobias. 2009. Why the European Union is not a state – Some critical remarks. European Constitutional Law Review 5: 407 et seqq.Google Scholar
  38. Maduro, Miguel. 2003. Contrapunctual law: Europe’s constitutional pluralism in action. In Sovereignty in transition, ed. Walker, 501 et seqq. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  39. Mann, Dennis-J, and Kai Purnhagen. 2012. The nature of union citizenship between autonomy and dependency on (member) state citizenship – A comparative analysis of the Rottmann ruling, or: How to avoid a European Dred Scott decision? Wisconsin International Law Journal 29: 101 et seqq.Google Scholar
  40. Marchant, Gary, and Kenneth Mossmann. 2004. The precautionary principle in the European courts. Washington, DC: The AEI Press.Google Scholar
  41. Martínez Soria, José. 2001. Die Kodizes für gute Verwaltungspraxis – ein Beitrag zur Kodifikation des Verwaltungsverfahrensrechts der EG. Europarecht 36: 682 et seqq.Google Scholar
  42. Micklitz, Hans-W. 2002. An expanded and systemized community consumer law as alternative or complement? European Business Law Review 13: 583 et seqq.Google Scholar
  43. Micklitz, Hans-W. 2011. Introduction – Social justice and access justice in private law. In The many concepts of social justice in European private law, ed. Hans-W Micklitz, 3 et seqq. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  44. Micklitz, Hans-W. 2013. The (Un)-systematics of (private) law as an element of European culture. In Towards a European legal culture, eds. Helleringer and Purnhagen. München/Oxford/Baden-Baden: C.H. Beck/Hart/Nomos (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  45. Molle, Willem. 2006. The economics of European integration, 5th ed. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  46. Müller-Graff, P.-C. 1993. Europäische Politische Zusammenarbeit und Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik: Kohärenzgebot aus rechtlicher Sicht. Integration, 147 et seqq.Google Scholar
  47. Pechstein, Matthias. 1995. Das Kohärenzgebot als entscheidende Integrationsdimension der Europäischen Union. Europarecht, 247 et seqq.Google Scholar
  48. Rengeling, Hans-Werner. 2009b. Europäisches Stoffrecht – Zur Harmonisierung, Systematisierung und Kodifizierung allgemeiner Regelungen. Köln: Carl Heymanns.Google Scholar
  49. Roth, Wulf-Henning. 2002. Transposing “Pointillist” EC guidelines into systematic national codes – Problems and consequences. European Review of Private Law 6: 716 et seqq.Google Scholar
  50. Rudolph, Enno. 2007. Das Recht der Kultur – Die Kultur des Rechts: von Herder zu Kant. In Rechtswissenschaft als Kulturwissenschaft?, Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, vol. 115, eds. Senn and Puskás, 135 et seqq.Google Scholar
  51. Sand, Inger-J. 2009. Hybrid law – Law in a global society of differentiation and change. In Soziologische Jurisprudenz: Festschrift für Gunther Teubner, ed. Calliess, Fischer-LescanoX, Wielsch, and Zumbansen, 871 et. seqq. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  52. Schauer, Frederick. 2003. Profiles, probabilities and stereotypes. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Schauer, Frederick, and Richard Zeckhauser. 2005. Regulation by Generalization. Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government Faculty Research Working Papers Series, No. 48.Google Scholar
  54. Schwartz, Gary. 1996. Considering the proper federal role in American Tort Law. Arizona Law Review 38: 924 et seqq.Google Scholar
  55. Scott, Joanne, and Ellen Vos. 2002. The juridification of uncertainty: Observations of the ambivalence of the precautionary principle within the EU and the WTO. In Good governance in Europe’s integrated market, ed. Joerges and Dehousse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Semmelmann, Constanze. 2005. Die Karriere des Precautionary Principle, wild card, better-safe-than-sorry oder Nährboden neuer transatlantischer Spannungen. European Law Reporter 6: 186 et seqq.Google Scholar
  57. Senden, Lisa. 2004. Soft law in European community law. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  58. Smits, Jan. 1998. A European private law as a mixed legal system. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 5: 528 et seqq.Google Scholar
  59. Smits, Jan. 2007. Law making in the European Union: On globalization and contract law in divergent legal cultures. Louisiana Law Review 67: 1181 et seqq.Google Scholar
  60. Snyder, Francis. 1993. The effectiveness of European community law: Institutions, processes, tools and techniques. Modern Law Review 56: 31 et seqq.Google Scholar
  61. Sunstein, Cass. 1997. Free markets and social justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Sydow, Gernot. 2004. Verwaltungskooperation in der Europäischen Union. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  63. Temple Lang, John. 2008. Article 10 EC: The most important ‘General Principle’ of community law. In General principles of EC law in a process of development, ed. Bernitz, Nergelius, and Cardner. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  64. Thym, Daniel. 2005. “United in diversity” – The integration of enhanced cooperation into the European constitutional order. German Law Journal 6: 1731 et seqq.Google Scholar
  65. Tröger, Tobias. 2003. Zum Systemdenken im europäischen Schuldvertragsrecht – Probleme der Rechtsangleichung durch Richtlinien am Beispiel der Verbrauchsgüterkaufrichtlinie. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 11: 525 et seqq.Google Scholar
  66. Trubek, David, Patrick Cottrell, and Marc Nance. 2005. “Soft Law,” “Hard Law,” and European Integration: Toward a theory of hybridity. NYU Jean Monnet Working Paper, No. 02.Google Scholar
  67. van den Bergh, Roger. 1998. Subsidiarity as an economic demarcation principle and the emergence of European Private Law. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 192 et seqq.Google Scholar
  68. van Zwanenberg, Patrick, and Andrew Stirling. 2004. Risk and precaution in the US and Europe. Yearbook of European Environmental Law 3: 43 et seqq.Google Scholar
  69. Voermans, Wim, Chris Moll, Nico Floijn, and Peter van Lochem. 2008. Codification and consolidation in the European Union: A means to untie red tape. Statute Law Review 29: 65 et seqq.Google Scholar
  70. Vogel, David. 1995. Trading up: Consumer and environmental regulation in the global economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  71. von Bernstorff, Carl. 2006. Einführung in das englische Recht, 3rd ed. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  72. von Bogdandy, Armin, and Maja Smrkolj. 2011. European Community and Union Law and International Law. In Max Planck encyclopedia or public international law. Oxford.Google Scholar
  73. von Schomberg, René. 2012. The precautionary principle: Its use within hard and soft law. European Journal of Risk Regulation 3: 147 et seqq.Google Scholar
  74. Vos, Ellen. 2001. Differentiation, harmonisation and governance. In The many faces of differentiation in EU law, ed. de Witte, Ellen Hanf, and Vos, 155 et seqq. Antwerpen et al.: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  75. Wagner, Gerhard. 2002. The economics of harmonization: The case of contract law. Common Market Law Review 39: 995.Google Scholar
  76. Weatherill, Stephen. 1994. Beyond preemption? Shared competence and constitutional change in the European community. In Legal issues of the Maastricht treaty, ed. O’Keeffe and Twomey. London/New York: Chancery Law Publishing. Chapter 2.Google Scholar
  77. Weatherill, Stephen. 2011. The limits of legislative harmonization ten years after tobacco advertising: How the court’s case law has become a “drafting guide”. German Law Journal 12: 827 et seqq. Available at
  78. Weatherill, Stephen. 2012. The consumer rights directive: How and why a quest for “coherence” has largely failed. Common Market Law Review 49: 1279 et seqq.Google Scholar
  79. Weber, Max. 1922. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Grundriß der verstehenden Soziologie. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck [in English: Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and society (eds: Roth and Wittich, trans: Fischoff, E. et al.). Berkeley: University of California Press 1978].Google Scholar
  80. Case 120/78, Judgment of the Court of 20 February 1979, Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon) [1979] ECR 649.Google Scholar
  81. Case 6/64, Judgment of the Court of 15 July 1964, Costa v. E.N.E.L. [1964] ECR 1251.Google Scholar
  82. Case 68/86, Judgment of the Court of 23 February 1988, United Kingdom v. Council [1988], ECR I-855.Google Scholar
  83. Case 8–55, Judgment of the Court of 29 November 1956, Fédération Charbonnière de Belgique v. High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community [1956], ECR 299.Google Scholar
  84. Case C-157/96 of 5 the Court of May 1998, National Farmers' Union and Others [1998] ECR I-2211.Google Scholar
  85. Case C-183/95, Judgment of the Court of 17 July 1997, Affish BV v Rijksdienst voor de Keuring van Vee an Vlees, [1997] ECR I-4362.Google Scholar
  86. Case C-221/10 P, Judgment of the Court of 19 April 2012, Artegodan GmbH v European Commission, [2012] ECR I-0000 (nyr), para 99.Google Scholar
  87. Case C-172/87, Judgment of the Court of 10 March 1992, Mita Industrial v Council (Gorgonzola), [1992] ECR I-1301.Google Scholar
  88. Case C-236/01, Judgment of the Court of 9 September 2003, Monsanto Agricoltura Italia v. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, [2003] ECR I-8105.Google Scholar
  89. Case C-300/89, judgment of the Court of 11 June 1991, Commission v. Council [1991] ECR I-2867.Google Scholar
  90. Case C-303/90, Judgment of the Court of 13 November 1991, France v. Commission [1991] ECR I-5315.Google Scholar
  91. Case C-312/98, Judgment of 12 September 2000, Warsteiner [2000] ECR I-9187.Google Scholar
  92. Case C-322/88, Judgment of the Court of 13 December 1989, Grimaldi v. Fonds des Maladies Professionnelles [1989] ECR 4407.Google Scholar
  93. Case C-360/93, judgment of the Court of 7 March 1996, European Parliament v. Council [1996] ECR I-1195.Google Scholar
  94. Case C-376/98, Judgment of the Court of 5 October 2000, Germany v. European Parliament (Tabacco advertising I) [2000] ECR I–8419.Google Scholar
  95. Case C-45/86, Judgment of the Court of 26 March 1987, Commission v. Council, [1987] ECR 1493.Google Scholar
  96. Case C-55/94, Judgment of the Court of 30 November 1995, Gebhard v. Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Advocati e procuratori di Milano [1995] ECR I-4165.Google Scholar
  97. Case C-66/00, Judgment of the Court of 25 June 2002, Dante Bigi (Parmigiano Reggiano) [2002] ECR I-5917.Google Scholar
  98. Case C-66/04, Judgment of the Court of 6 December 2005, United Kingdom v. European Parliament and Council (Smoke Flavourings) [2005], ECR I-10553.Google Scholar
  99. Case C-359/92, Judgment of the Court of 9 August 1994, Germany v. Council [1994] ECR I-3681.Google Scholar
  100. Case C-70/88, Judgment of the Court of 4 October 1991, European Parliament v. Council [1991] ECR I-4529.Google Scholar
  101. Case C-60/81, Judgment of the Court of 11 November 1981, IBM v. Commission [1981] ECR 2639.Google Scholar
  102. Joined Cases C-129/97 and C-130/97, Judgment of 9 June 1998, Yvon Chiciak and Fromagerie Chiciak and Jean-Pierre Fol [1998] ECR I‑3315.Google Scholar
  103. Joint Cases C-281/85, C-283/85- C-285/85, C-287/85, Judgment of the Court of 9 July 1987, Germany and Others v. Commission [1987] ECR I-3203.Google Scholar
  104. Joined Cases T-74/00, T-76/00, T-83/00 to T-85/00, T-132/00, T-137/00 and T-141/00, Judgment of 26 November 2002, Artegodan GmBH and Others v. Commission [2002] ECR II-4945.Google Scholar
  105. Case T-13/99, Judgment of the Court of 11 September 2002, Pfizer Animal Health v. Council [2002] ECR II-3305.Google Scholar
  106. Case T-70/99, Judgment of the Court of 11 September 2002, Alpharma v. Council [2002] ECR II-3495.Google Scholar
  107. Case T-113/89, Judgment of the Court of 13 December 1990, Nefarma and Others v. Commission [1990] ECR II-797.Google Scholar
  108. U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981).Google Scholar
  109. U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai Purnhagen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LawLudwig Maximilian University MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations