Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Justifications for Restrictions to Free Movement: Towards a Single Normative Framework?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Reach of Free Movement

  • 856 Accesses

Abstract

In the vast majority of internal market cases a restriction is readily identified, and it is at the level of justification that the basic judicial choices operate. This is done either by virtue of ‘objective justifications’ or by the much more limited list of express exceptions foreseen by the Treaty. These two ‘systems’ of justifications have been developed in partial contradiction with one another in terms of the types of measures upheld and the ex ante/ex post application of the justification. Throughout the years, however, the practical differences as well as the normative underpinnings of the two systems have been greatly confused. So much so that, nowadays, it seems more exact from a positivist view and more desirable from a normative point of view to view all the justification grounds as parts of a single normative framework. The proposed framework would be ‘single’ in two ways, i.e. in the sense it would/should apply (a) to all the fundamental freedoms alike (material unicity) and (b) to both discriminatory and non-discriminatory measures (restriction unicity). The present chapter exposes the incoherencies and inconsistencies of the current situation, then explains why the conditions are now ripe for a new unified approach, and finally speculates on the ways such a single justification framework could be affected by other, neighbouring, EU rules.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Indeed in a quantitative study I conducted few years ago on the Court’s case law in the field of services for the period from 1958 to (June 2009) I found that out of 466 measures which had been brought before the CJEU, only 19 had been cleared as being completely innocuous, while all the remaining have been examined under the spectre of their justification; see Hatzopoulos 2012a, Chapter 4.

  2. 2.

    Fernandez Martin and O’Leary 2002, pp. 163–95.

  3. 3.

    Hatzopoulos 1998, pp. 191–236; Martin 1998, pp. 261–318; and more recently Bertrand 2012, pp. 6–12; Hatzopoulos 2013, pp. 205–229.

  4. 4.

    See, among many, the various contributions in the volume edited by Dubout and de la Motte 2013; see also Tryfonidou 2010, pp. 36–56; and Caro de Suza 2014, pp. 499–519.

  5. 5.

    A term ‘consecrated’ by the EP and Council Directive 2006/123 on the free provision of services [2006] OJ L 376/36, Article 4(8).

  6. 6.

    See e.g. Barnard 2011, pp. 149–192 and 479–518; Hatzopoulos 2012a, pp. 146–178.

  7. 7.

    In a survey of all the services cases between 1958 and July 2009, I was able to identify 283 cases concerning some 447 restrictive measures, half of which had been held to be justified. From the 220 justified measures only 47 had been upheld on the basis of some treaty-based express exception, while the remaining was justified by some objective justification; see Hatzopoulos 2012a, pp. 146–178.

  8. 8.

    Case C-275/92, H.M. Customs and Excise v Schindler, ECLI:EU:C:1994:119.

  9. 9.

    See for instance Case C-157/99, Smits and Peerbooms, ECLI:EU:C:2001:404; Case C-372/04, Watts, ECLI:EU:C:2006:325. For the Court’s ambivalent approach in respect of the justifications used in these cases see below the text accompanying n. 14.

  10. 10.

    See for the first of a series of cases, Case C-154/89, Commission v France, ECLI:EU:C:1991:76, Case C-180/89, Commission v Italy, ECLI:EU:C:1991:78 and Case C-198/89, Commission v Greece, ECLI:EU:C:1991:79 etc.

  11. 11.

    Case C-62/79, Coditel v Ciné Vog Films, ECLI:EU:C:1980:84.

  12. 12.

    Case C-65/05, Commission v Greece (online games), ECLI:EU:C:2006:673, para 33.

  13. 13.

    See case C-788/79, Gilli and Andres, ECLI:EU:C:1980:171; Case C-130/80, Kelderman, ECLI:EU:C:1981:49; confusion dissipated already in joined cases C-1/90 and 176/90, Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior SA and Publivía SAE v Departamento de Sanidad y Seguridad Social de la Generalitat de Cataluña, ECLI:EU:C:1991:327, paras 12–13.

  14. 14.

    Case C-158/96, Köhll, ECLI:EU:C:1998:171; Smits and Peerbooms, above n. 9; Case C-385/99, Müller-Fauré and E.E.M. van Riet, ECLI:EU:C:2003:270; Watts, above n. 9; See also Case C-262/02, Commission v France (alcoholic beverages advertisement), ECLI:EU:C:2004:431.

  15. 15.

    Case C-320/91, Corbeau, ECLI:EU:C:1993:198; Case C-393/92, Gemeente Almelo ea v Energiebedrijf IJsselmij, ECLI:EU:C:1994:171; Case C-475/99, Ambulanz Glöckner, ECLI:EU:C:2001:577.

  16. 16.

    Case C-70/95, Sodemare SA ea, ECLI:EU:C:1997:301; Case C-355/00, Freskot AE, ECLI:EU:C:2003:298.

  17. 17.

    Mattera 1990, pp. 274–5.

  18. 18.

    Communication from the Commission concerning the consequences of the judgment given by the Court of Justice on 20 February 1979 in case C-120/78 ('Cassis de Dijon') [1980] OJ C 256/2, emphasis added.

  19. 19.

    See, among many, Regan 2001, pp. 1853–902; 2006, pp. 951–88.

  20. 20.

    See e.g. Müller-Fauré, above n. 14, para 68 where the Court reasons that ‘justification is based on an exception laid down by the Treaty or indeed on an overriding general-interest reason’, emphasis added.

  21. 21.

    See e.g. Case C-42/07, Liga Portuguesa, ECLI:EU:C:2008:560, para 55.

  22. 22.

    Case C-518/06, Commission v Italy (car insurance), ECLI:EU:C:2008:477, para 72, emphasis added.

  23. 23.

    Case C-347/09, Dickinger and Ömer, ECLI:EU:C:2011:582, paras 42 and 79, respectively, emphasis added.

  24. 24.

    See e.g. health cases more representatively in Köhll, above n. 14; Smits and Peerbooms, above n. 9; Müller-Fauré, above n. 14; Watts, above n. 9; See also Commission v France (alcoholic beverages advertisement), above n. 14.

  25. 25.

    Case C-250/95, Futura Participations SA & Singer v Administration des Contributions, ECLI:EU:C:1997:239; Case C-118/96, Safir v Skattemyndigheten i Dalarnas Län, ECLI:EU:C:1998:170; see also Köhll, above n. 14.

  26. 26.

    Case C-2/90, Commission v Belgium (Walloon waste), ECLI:EU:C:1992:310.

  27. 27.

    Case C-204/90, Bachmann v Belgian State, ECLI:EU:C:1992:35.

  28. 28.

    Case C-33/74, van Binsbergen, ECLI:EU:C:1974:131; Case C-120/78, Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon), ECLI:EU:C:1979:42; and more recently Case C-341/05, Laval un Partneri Ltd, ECLI:EU:C:2007:809, para 117; Case C-219/08, Commission v Belgium (posted workers), ECLI:EU:C:2009:599; Case C-153/08, Commission v Spain (gambling tax), ECLI:EU:C:2009:618.

  29. 29.

    As e.g. in the case of Walloon waste, above n. 26.

  30. 30.

    See e.g. joined Cases C-197/11 and 203/11, Libertao v Flemish Government, ECLI:EU:C:2013:288.

  31. 31.

    For a more thorough analysis on the role of the principle of mutual recognition in services see Hatzopoulos 1999; and more recently see Hatzopoulos 2010, pp. 48–93.

  32. 32.

    For a clear expression of this idea see Dickinger and Ömer, above n. 23, paras 96–98.

  33. 33.

    Cross 1992, p. 447.

  34. 34.

    For example in regard to goods see Case C-216/84, Commission v France (milk substitutes), ECLI:EU:C:1988:81, para 6; in regard to establishment see Case C-71/76, Thieffry, ECLI:EU:C:1977:65, para 16; in regard to services see Case C-14/96, Paul Denuit, ECLI:EU:C:1997:260.

  35. 35.

    See for the most prominent expressions of this idea: Case C-76/90, Säger, ECLI:EU:C:1991:331; Case C-415/93, Bosman, ECLI:EU:C:1995:463; Case C-55/94, Gebhard, ECLI:EU:C:1995:411.

  36. 36.

    Marenco 1984, pp. 291–364.

  37. 37.

    White 1989, pp. 235–80.

  38. 38.

    Joined cases C-267 and 268/91, Keck and Mithouard, ECLI:EU:C:1993:905.

  39. 39.

    See Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C-412/93, Leclerc-Siplec v TF1 and M6, ECLI:EU:C:1994:393.

  40. 40.

    See e.g. Case C-379/92, Peralta, ECLI:EU:C:1994:296; Case C-134/03, Viacom II, ECLI:EU:C:2005:94 and Case C-293/10 Stark v DAS, ECLI:EU:C:2011:355.

  41. 41.

    Barnard 2009a, pp. 575–606 and Snell 2010, pp. 437–72.

  42. 42.

    Dickinger and Ömer, above n. 23.

  43. 43.

    Case C-110/05, Commission v Italy (trailers), ECLI:EU:C:2009:66; Case C-142/05, Mickelsson and Roos, ECLI:EU:C:2009:336, para 28; as well as case C-265/06, Commission v Portugal (tinted windows), ECLI:EU:C:2008:210.

  44. 44.

    Commission v Italy (car insurance) above n. 22.

  45. 45.

    On this recent case law see Derlén and Lindholm 2010, pp. 191–231; Barnard 2009b, pp. 288–90; Spaventa 2009, pp. 914–32; Gormley 2010, pp. 1589–628; Oliver 2010, pp. 1423–71; Davies 2010, pp. 671–704; Sibony 2012, pp. 323–342; Fromont and Verdure 2011, pp. 717–48.

  46. 46.

    In regard to the three trends described, for further exploration see Snell 2005, p. 37; for an updated and different view of the issue, see Oliver 2016, pp. 147–75.

  47. 47.

    Sodemare SA ea, above n. 16.

  48. 48.

    Smits and Peerbooms above n. 9.

  49. 49.

    Köhll above n. 14 and 24.

  50. 50.

    Case C-398/95, SETTG v Ypourgos Erasias, ECLI:EU:C:1997:282.

  51. 51.

    Case C-72/83, Campus Oil, ECLI:EU:C:1984:256.

  52. 52.

    Case C-204/90, Bachmann v Belgian State, ECLI:EU:C:1992:35.

  53. 53.

    Case C-422/01, Skandia, EU: C:2003:380.

  54. 54.

    SETTG v Ypourgos Ergasias, above n. 50.

  55. 55.

    Tridimas 2006, p. 196.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., p. 139, where reference is made to further jurisprudence.

  57. 57.

    Case C-55/94, Gebhard v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano, ECLI:EU:C:1995:411, para 37.

  58. 58.

    See, among many, Snell 2000, pp. 50–7.

  59. 59.

    Above n. 35.

  60. 60.

    Case C-165/98, Mazzoleni and ISA, ECLI:EU:C:2001:162; Case C-164/99, Portugaia Construçoes Lda, ECLI:EU:C:2002:40.

  61. 61.

    Case C-438/05, The International Transport Workers’ Federation and the Finnish Seamen’s Union, ECLI:EU:C:2007:772; Case C-341/05, Laval un Partneri Ltd, ECLI:EU:C:2007:809.

  62. 62.

    Except in cases putting at stake fundamental rights, for which see Sect. 6.2.2.2.

  63. 63.

    Dickinger and Ömer, above n. 23, para 97.

  64. 64.

    Case C-243/01, Gambelli, ECLI:EU:C:2003:597. For this test see Mathisen 2010, pp. 1021–48.

  65. 65.

    Case C-169/07, Hartlauer, ECLI:EU:C:2009:141.

  66. 66.

    Case C-500/06, Corporación Dermoestética SA, ECLI:EU:C:2008:421.

  67. 67.

    See Gambelli above n. 64; joined cases C-338, 359 and 360/04, Placanica e.a., ECLI:EU:C:2007:133; and more recently joined cases C-72 and 77/10, Costa and Cifone, ECLI:EU:C:2012:80.

  68. 68.

    The term ‘hypocrisy test’ was introduced by AG Mengozzi in his Opinion in joined cases C-316/07, C-409–410/07 & C-358-360/07, Stoß, ECLI:EU:C:2010:504, para 50.

  69. 69.

    For the role of public morality in the jurisprudence of the Court concerning the free movement see Catchpole and Barav 1980, pp. 1–21; Hetsch 1982, pp. 511–25; and more recently de Witte 2013, pp. 1545–78.

  70. 70.

    Joined Cases C-115 and 116/81, Adoui and Cornuaille v Belgian State, ECLI:EU:C:1982:183.

  71. 71.

    Element raised in all the judgments concerning the Italian legislation on games of chance, cited above n. 67.

  72. 72.

    Joined Cases C-159/91 and C-160/91 Poucet and Pistre, ECLI:EU:C:1993:63.

  73. 73.

    Case C-218/00, Cisal, ECLI:EU:C:2002:36; Case C-350/07, Kattner Stahlbau GmbH, ECLI:EU:C:2009:127.

  74. 74.

    Freskot AE, above n. 16.

  75. 75.

    Sodemare SA ea, n. 16.

  76. 76.

    Cases C-67/96, Albany, ECLI:EU:C:1999:430, C-115-117/97, Brentjens, ECLI:EU:C:1999:434, and C-219/97, Drijvende, ECLI:EU:C:1999:437; on these cases see Idot 1999, pp. 4–8.

  77. 77.

    See inter alia, Von Bogdandy 2000, pp. 1307–38; Lenaerts 2000, pp. 1–25; Weuwahl and Rosas (eds) 1995; Tridimas 2006, especially Chapter 7 where further references can be found.

  78. 78.

    See e.g. Douglas-Scott 2006, pp. 629–65; on a more critical tone on relations between the two legal systems and two jurisdictions see Greer and Williams 2009, pp. 462–81.

  79. 79.

    Case C-112/00, Schmidberger, ECLI:EU:C:2003:333.

  80. 80.

    Case C-36/02, Omega, ECLI:EU:C:2004:614.

  81. 81.

    See above under Sect. 6.4.1.

  82. 82.

    EP and Council Directive on consumer rights amending Directives 93/13/EEC and 1999/44/EC and repealing Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC [2011] OJ L304/64.

  83. 83.

    EP and Council Directive 2006/123 on the free provision of services [2006] OJ L 376/36; see in particular Articles 26 and 37.

  84. 84.

    Case C-617/10, Åklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson, ECLI:EU:C:2013:105.

  85. 85.

    For a brief presentation of these new EU fiscal governance measures see the official Commission ECFIN page at http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/articles/governance/2012-03-14_six_pack_en.htm.

  86. 86.

    See above Sect. 6.1.3.2.

  87. 87.

    See e.g. Odudu 2009, pp. 225–43.

  88. 88.

    See Hatzopoulos 2012b, pp. 973–1007; the examples in the following lines are taken from this earlier article.

  89. 89.

    Case 30/87, Corinne Bodson v SA Pompes funèbres des régions libérées, ECLI:EU:C:1988:225.

  90. 90.

    Case C-49/89, Corsica Ferries France, ECLI:EU:C:1989:649.

  91. 91.

    Case C-364/92, SAT Fluggesellschaft mbH v Eurocontrol, ECLI:EU:C:1994:7; Case C-481/07 P, Selex Sistemi Integrati SpA. v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2009:461.

  92. 92.

    Case C-343/95, Diego Calì & Figli Srl v Servizi ecologici porto di Genova SpA (SEPG), ECLI:EU:C:1997:160.

  93. 93.

    See e.g. Case C-114/97, Commission v Spain (private security), ECLI:EU:C:1998:519; Case C-355/98, Commission v Belgium (private security), ECLI:EU:C:2000:113; Case C-283/99, Commission v Italy (private security), ECLI:EU:C:2001:307; Case C-171/02, Commission v Portugal (private securities), ECLI:EU:C:2004:270; Case C-189/03, Commission v Netherlands (private security firms), ECLI:EU:C:2004:597; Case C-514/03, Commission v Spain (private security), ECLI:EU:C:2006:63.

  94. 94.

    Case C-393/05, Commission v Austria (ecological labelling), ECLI:EU:C:2007:722; Case C-404/05, Commission v Germany (ecological labelling), ECLI:EU:C:2007:723.

  95. 95.

    See Hervey 2000, pp. 31–47; see also Dougan 2009, pp. 119–65; generally on the issue of solidarity, see also Houtepen and Ter Meulen 2000, pp. 329–40; White 2003, pp. 40–57; and on a more philosophical tone, see Karagiannis (ed) 2007.

  96. 96.

    Poucet and Pistre, above n. 72.

  97. 97.

    Cisal, above n. 73; Kattner Stahlbau GmbH, above n. 73.

  98. 98.

    Freskot AE, above n. 16.

  99. 99.

    Sodemare SA ea, above n. 16.

  100. 100.

    Albany, Brentjens, Drijvende, above n. 76.

  101. 101.

    Firma Ambulanz Glöckner, above n. 15; Case C-160/08, Commission v Germany (ambulance services), ECLI:EU:C:2010:230.

  102. 102.

    Poucet and Pistre, above n. 72; SAT FluggesellschaftmbH v. Eurocontrol, above n. 91; Selex Sistemi Integrati SpA. v Commission, above n. 91.

  103. 103.

    Case C-519/04 P, Meca-Medina and Majcen v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2006:492, para 31; along the same lines see joined Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97, Deliège, ECLI:EU:C:2000:199, para 43.

  104. 104.

    See e.g. Case C-26/03, Stadt Halle and RPL Lochau, ECLI:EU:C:2005:5; Case C-458/03, Parking Brixen, ECLI:EU:C:2005:605; Case C-410/04, ANAV, ECLI:EU:C:2006:237; Case C-295/05, Asociación Nacional de Empresas Forestales (Asemfo), ECLI:EU:C:2007:227; Case C-324/07, Coditel Brabant, ECLI:EU:C:2008:621; for a recent account of all the relevant case law, see Frenz and Schleissing 2009, pp. 171–87; Kaarresalo 2008, pp. 242–54; see also the various contributions in Comba and Treumer (eds) 2010.

  105. 105.

    Albany, Brentjens, Drijvende, respectively, above n. 76. On these three cases, see Idot 1999, pp. 4–8.

  106. 106.

    Ibid., para 46.

  107. 107.

    Case C-280/00, Altmark, ECLI:EU:C:2003:415.

  108. 108.

    Above n. 15.

  109. 109.

    Indeed, Article 106(2) is so closely intertwined with the case law mentioned above that some commentators suggest that it has henceforth become obsolete, see Davies 2009, pp. 51–67.

  110. 110.

    See e.g. Case C-266/96, Corsica Ferries v La Spezia, ECLI:EU:C:1998:306.

  111. 111.

    See e.g. for healthcare Smits and Peerbooms, above n. 9; and for social security Case C-136/00, Danner, ECLI:EU:C:2002:558.

  112. 112.

    Case C-309/99, Wouters, ECLI:EU:C:2002:98.

  113. 113.

    Meca-Medina and Majcen v. Commission, above n. 103.

  114. 114.

    Case C-56/64, Consten and Grundig v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1966:19.

  115. 115.

    Case C-26/76, Metro SB Grossmarkte v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1977:167, para 43 in fine.

  116. 116.

    Enchelmaier 2012, pp. 182–199.

References

  • Barnard C (2009) Restricting Restrictions: Lessons for the EU from the US? Cambridge LJ 68:575–606

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard C (2009) Trailing a New Approach to Free Movement of Goods? Cambridge LJ 68:288–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard C (2011) The Substantive Law of the EU. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand B (2012) Que reste-t-il des exigences impératives d’intérêt général? Europe 1:6–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Caro de Suza P (2014) Quest for the Holy Grail – Is a Unified Approach to the Market Freedoms and European Citizenship Justified? ELJ 4:499–519

    Google Scholar 

  • Catchpole L, Barav A (1980) The Public Morality Exception and the Free Movement of Goods: Justification of a Dual Standard in National Legislation? LIEI 7:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Comba M, Treumer S (eds) (2010) The In-House Providing in European Law. DJØF Publishing, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross V E (1992) Preemption of Member States in EEC: A framework for analysis. CMLRev 29:447

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies G (2009) What does Article 86 actually do? In: Krajewski M, Neergard U, Van de Gronden J (eds) The Changing Legal Framework for Services of General Interest. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp 51–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies G (2010) Understanding Market Access: Exploring the Economic Rationality of Different Conceptions of Free Movement Law. German Law Journal 7–8:671–704

    Google Scholar 

  • De Witte F (2013) Sex, Drugs and EU Law: The Recognition of Moral and Ethical Diversity in EU Law. CML Rev 50:1545–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derlén M, Lindholm J (2010) Article 28 EC and rules on use: A step towards a workable doctrine on measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions. Columbia J of Eur L 16:191–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougan M (2009) Expanding the Frontiers of EU Citizenship by Dismantling the Territorial Boundaries of the National Welfare States? In: Barnard C, Odudu O (eds) The Outer Limits of EU Law. Hart Publishing, Oxford/Portland, Oregon, pp 119–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas-Scott S (2006) A Tale of Two Courts: Luxembourg, Strasbourg and the Growing European Human Rights Acquis. CML Rev 43:629–665

    Google Scholar 

  • Enchelmaier S (2012) “Mandatory Requirements” under Art 101(3) TFEU? The Complementary Relationship between EU Competition and Free Movement Law. Comp Law 3:182–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez Martin J M, O’Leary S (2002) Judicial exceptions to the free provision of services. In: Andenas M, Roth W H (eds) Services and Free Movement in EU Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 163–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenz W, Schleissing P (2009) The Never Ending Story of “In-house” Procurement. In: Krajewski M, Neergard U, Van de Gronden J (eds) The Changing Legal Framework for Services of General Interest. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp 171–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Fromont A, Verdure Ch (2011) La consécration du critère de ‟l’accès au marché” en matière de libre circulation des marchandises: mythe ou réalité? RTDEur 4:717–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Gormley L (2010) Free movement of goods and their use – What is the use of it? Fordham Int’l L J 33:1589–628

    Google Scholar 

  • Greer S, Williams A (2009) Human Rights in the Council of Europe and the EU: Towards “Individual”, “Constitutional” or “Institutional” Justice? ELRev 15:462–481

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos V (1998) Exigences essentielles, impératives ou impérieuses: une théorie, des théories ou pas de théorie du tout? RTDEur 2:191–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos V (1999) Le principe communautaire d’équivalence et de reconnaissance mutuelle dans la libre prestation de services. Sakkoulas/Bruylant, Athens/Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos V (2010) Le principe de la reconnaissance mutuelle dans la libre prestation de services. CDE 45:48–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos V (2012a) Regulating Services in the EU. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos V (2012b) The Economic Constitution of the EU Treaty and the Limits between Economic and Non-economic Activities. EBLR 23:973–1007

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos V (2013) La justification des atteintes aux libertés de circulation: cadre méthodologique et spécificités matérielles. In: Dubout E, de la Motte A (eds) L’unité des libertés de circulation. Bruylant/Larcier, Brussels, pp 205–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Hervey T (2000) “Social Solidarity”: A Buttress against Internal Market Law? In: Shaw J (ed) Social Law and Policy in an Evolving EU. Hart Publishing, Oxford/Portland, Oregon, 31–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Hetsch P (1982) Émergence de valeurs morales dans la jurisprudence de la CJUE. RTDEur 18:511–525

    Google Scholar 

  • Houtepen R, Ter Meulen R (2000) New Types of Solidarity in the European Welfare State. Health Care Analysis 8:329–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Idot L (1999) Droit social et droit de la concurrence: confrontation ou cohabitation: A propos de quelques développements récents. Europe 11:4–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaarresalo T (2008) Procuring in-house: The impact of the EC procurement regime. Public Procurement L Rev 17:242–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Karagiannis N (2007) European Solidarity. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (2000) Respect for Fundamental Rights as a Constitutional Principle of the European Union. Columbia J of Eur L 6:1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Marenco G (1984) Pour une interprétation traditionnelle de la notion de mesure d’effet équivalent à une restriction quantitative. CDE 19:291–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin D (1998) “Discriminations”, “entraves” et “raisons impérieuses” dans le traité CE: Trois concepts en quête d’identité, (partie 1e). CDE 34:261–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathisen G (2010) Consistency and Coherence as Conditions for Justification of Member State Measures Restricting Free Movement. CML Rev 47:1021–1048

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattera A (1990) Le Marché Unique Européen: Ses règles, son fonctionnement. Jupiter, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Odudu O (2009) Economic Activity as a Limit to Community Law. In: Barnard C, Odudu O (eds) The Outer Limits of EU Law. Hart Publishing, Oxford/ Portland, Oregon, pp 225–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver P (2010) Of Trailers and Jet-Skis: Is the Case Law on Article 34 TFEU Hurtling in a New Direction? Fordham Int’l LJ 33:1423–1471

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver P (2016) When, If Ever, Can Restrictions on Free Movement Be Justified on Economic Grounds? ELRev 2:147-75

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan D (2001) Judicial Review of Member-State Regulation of Trade within a Federal or Quasi-federal system: Protectionism and Balancing, Da Capo. Michigan L Rev 99:1853–1902

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan D (2006) What Are Trade Agreements For? Two Conflicting Stories Told by Economists, with a Lesson for Lawyers. J Int Economic L 9:951–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibony A L (2012) Can market access be taken seriously? Revue européenne de droit de la consommation 2:323–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Snell J (2000) True Proportionality and Free Movement of Goods and Services. EBL Rev 11:50–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snell J (2005) Economic aims as justifications for restrictions to free movement. In: Schrauwen A (ed) Rule of Reason: Rethinking Another Classic of European Legal Doctrine. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 37–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Snell J (2010) The Notion of Market Access: A Concept or a Slogan? CML Rev 47:437–472

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaventa E (2009) Leaving Keck behind? The free movement of goods after the rulings in Commission v Italy and Mickelsson and Roos. EL Rev 15:914–932

    Google Scholar 

  • Tridimas T (2006) The General Principles of EU Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tryfonidou A (2010) Further Steps on the Road to Convergence Among the Market Freedoms. ELRev 1:36–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bogdandy A (2000) The European Union as a human rights organisation? Human rights and the core of the European Union. CML Rev 37:1307–1338

    Google Scholar 

  • Weuwahl N, Rosas A (eds) (1995) The EU and Human Rights. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • White E L (1989) In Search of the Limits to Article 30 of the EEC Treaty. CML Rev 26:235–280

    Google Scholar 

  • White J (2003) Rethinking Transnational Solidarity in the EU. Perspectives 20:40–57

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Ms. Sofia Roma for her valuable help in updating and editing the present chapter; any errors are mine.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Democritus University of Thrace, Komotini, Greece

    Vassilis Hatzopoulos

  2. College of Europe, Bruges, Belgium

    Vassilis Hatzopoulos

  3. University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

    Vassilis Hatzopoulos

  4. Lykavittou 39-41, 106 72, Athens, Greece

    Vassilis Hatzopoulos

Authors
  1. Vassilis Hatzopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vassilis Hatzopoulos .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Mads Andenas

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Tarjei Bekkedal

  3. Faculty of Public Management, Law and Safety, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Luca Pantaleo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hatzopoulos, V. (2017). Justifications for Restrictions to Free Movement: Towards a Single Normative Framework?. In: Andenas, M., Bekkedal, T., Pantaleo, L. (eds) The Reach of Free Movement. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-195-1_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-195-1_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-194-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-195-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation