Responsive Adjudication and the ‘Social Legitimacy’ of the Internal Market

This article is concerned with the social legitimacy of EU free movement adjudication. What does social legitimacy entail within the multi‐level ‘embedded liberalism’ construction of the internal market? How can the objective of free movement (market access) and a commitment to social diversity both be pursued without one necessarily trumping the other? This article seeks to contribute to these questions on the basis of a discussion of what has come to be known as the argument from transnational effects and the development of an adjudicative model that can be termed ‘socially responsive’. On the basis of an ‘ideal types’ analysis of the case law of the Court, it is concluded that responsiveness to Member State social context is lacking in any coherent form in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. However, a responsive model of adjudication can be (re)constructed by streamlining the identified ideal type adjudicative rationales. In the midst of this process of discovery, an operational rationale to establish the substantive (social) scope and reach of the internal market shall be submitted.     

平行进口和欧洲共同体条约第81条的关系

平行进口是欧洲法院面临的一个棘手问题 ,欧洲共同体各成员国国内知识产权立法上的差异导致商品自由流动出现障碍 ,知识产权人利用国内立法通过协议或采取统一行为限制知识产权产品进入特定的市场 ,保护自己的利益 ,减少商业风险 ,避免竞争 ,实际上分割了市场 ,导致了包含在商品中的权利用尽。商品必须处于自由流通的状态 ,任何阻碍商品自由流动 ,影响成员国贸易的行为都是违反欧洲共同体条约第 81条的反竞争行为     

What Does Free Movement Mean in Theory and Practice in an Enlarged EU?

Abstract The purpose of this article is to review the main challenges to the principle of free movement of persons in theory and practice in an enlarged European Union. The right to move freely represents one of the fundamental freedoms of the internal market as well as an essential political element of the package of rights linked to the very status of EU citizenship. The scope ratione personae and the current state of the principle of free movement of persons is assessed by looking at the most recent case law of the Court of Justice and the recently adopted Directive on the rights of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. But what are the hidden and visible obstacles to free movement of persons in Europe? How can these barriers be overcome to make free movement and residence rights more inclusive? This article addresses these issues along with the following questions: Who are the beneficiaries of the free movement of persons in an enlarged Europe? What is the impact of the recent legal developments in the freedom of movement dimension, such as the European Court of Justice case law and the new Directive? And to what extent are pro‐security policies such as the Schengen Information System II and an enhanced interoperability between European databases fully compatible with the freedom of movement paradigm?     

欧盟法中的商标权权利穷竭原则

欧盟的货物自由流动原则与商标权的地域保护存在内在冲突。为了解决冲突 ,欧洲法院通过诸多判例在欧共体条约第 30条和欧共体商标指令第 7条法律框架下导入、发展、完善了商标权权利穷竭原则。欧洲法院在货物自由流动原则和权利穷竭原则下分别开设了两个例外 ,对原则和例外的解释旨在寻求商标所有权人合法权益与欧共体共同市场内的自由流动这一基本利益的平衡。贯穿在法院判决思路中的是对商标的完整性与主要功能的呵护和对欧洲一体化的极力推进。     

From worker to self‐entrepreneur: The transformation of homo economicus and the freedom of movement in the European Union

This paper seeks to make a contribution to the study of personhood in EU free movement law by linking a historical and doctrinal analysis with the internal transformation of the homo economicus in economic liberalism. It is argued that a shift can be observed in the government of mobility from “freeing up” the ability of the worker as a relatively passive subject tied to external economic mechanisms to the targeting of the individual him/herself as a responsible, active bearer of economic capability or “human capital”, whereby past socio‐economic conduct and prospective economic activity serve as the thresholds for the entitlement to rights. The essence of the “new” homo economicus of EU free movement law is situated at the intersection of the social and economic, serving as a rational frame for the government of the European mover on the basis of a mutual responsibility between the Union citizen and his/her host Member State towards social and economic activity, self‐sufficiency and integration.     

Geographical indications outside the European Regulation on PGIs, and the rule of the free movement of goods: lessons from cases judged by the Court of Justice of the European Communities

Several recent cases judged by the Court of Justice of the European Communities (the Court) have raised interesting issues related to the possibility for operators of food chains to use national quality signs to indicate territory of origin, which are different from the regulatory European ??Protected Geographical Indications??. The various attempts by France (a list of quality signs), Germany (??Markenqualit?t aus deutschen Landen?? sign) and Belgium (??Walloon?? sign) have all been condemned as protectionist policies contradicting the free movement of goods in the European Market. These national quality signs can be seen as attempt to defend the viability of specific kinds of activities (involving small enterprises) in specific places (rural areas). These cases are a good illustration of the difficulties that a Member State of the European Communities (Member State) faces in trying to protect its traditional activities and/or rural areas in a way that is compatible with free markets. The paper analyses the recent court decisions underlining economic aspects such as information delivery and the cost of alternative protection mechanisms for these activities. We highlight in particular the collective trademarks and the kind of intellectual property right they form by the economic theory of clubs, and make some comparisons with protected geographical indications.     

Cross-border public care and adoption proceedings in the European Union

The free movement of persons within the EU has meant that children at risk of harm from family members may be living in a Member State of which they are not a national. The child may be made subject to legal measures under the national law of the host State for the protection of their welfare. This article explores the competence of the EU to protect children in these circumstances, and the scope of the Brussels IIa Regulation in governing jurisdiction over child protection proceedings. It discusses the difference between national child protection systems and the political controversy surrounding English law on adoption following care proceedings issued over a child who is a national of a different Member State. It suggests that further information sharing on national systems and cooperation between courts is necessary for the effectiveness of the law and to encourage understanding of legitimate variation in Member State national family law.     

Reforming the Market or the State? Article 30 and the European Constitution: Economic Freedom and Political Rights

This article takes as its starting-point the relationship between Article 30 of 30 of the EC Treaty (general rule on the free movement of goods) and the European Constitution. On the one hand, it examines Article 30 in the context of the constitutional dilemmas facing the European Union, particularly the balance of powers to be defined between Member States and the Union, between public power and the market, and between the legitimacy of Community law vis à vis that of national law. On the other hand, it reviews different conceptions of the European Economic Constitution by analysing the role of Article 30 in the review of market regulation.     

Motive Unmasked: The European Court of Justice, the Free Movement of Goods, and the Search for Legitimacy

Abstract: In exempting from scrutiny under Article 30 EC certain measures constituting 'selling arrangements', the author examines whether the European Court of Justice in Keck and Mithouard and its progeny sought more than mere clarification of its jurisprudence on the free movement of goods. To wit, he claims that the Court was motivated by a sense of waning faith in its institutional legitimacy, initiating in Keck an attempt to more vigorously police the Community-Member State jurisdictional divide in favour of Member State prerogatives, banishing the Community judicial and legislative branches from the realm of 'selling arrangements'. After critical assessment of this hypothesis and of the Court's success, a final section queries whether the ECJ has adopted similar strategies in the Competition law and services realms.     

The Constitutional Relevance of Citizenship and Free Movement in an Enlarged Union

Abstract The concept of citizenship is analysed on three seemingly contradictory levels: its integration by the recent case law of the European Court of Justice into the existing free movement acquis, its restriction in the accession treaties with new Member States concerning free movement of workers, and its redefinition by new Member States themselves. The result is a somewhat blurred picture: While the European Court of Justices uses citizenship to fill gaps left by primary and secondary law mostly with regard to non‐discrimination, the accession treaties have allowed a ‘re‐nationalisation’ of free movement, against the promises of equality inherent in the citizenship concept, which also includes nationals from new Member countries. The concept of citizenship itself in new Member countries, as the examples of Latvia and Estonia on the one hand, and Hungary on the other demonstrate, is very much related to the (somewhat sad) lessons of the past and therefore highly politicised; it has not been shaped with regard to free movement in the EU. The author suggests a gradual ‘communitarisation’ of citizenship itself even though the EU seems to miss competence in this area, for example, by paying greater attention to residence as basis for Community rights.     

A Disabled Market: Free Movement of Goods and Services in the EU and Disability Accessibility

Individuals with a disability who wish to use goods and services can have a variety of specific needs, ranging from accessible written information to standard products and services which have disability accessibility features built into them. In light thereof, this article focuses on the impact which Community law has had, and could potentially have, on ensuring an EU‐wide market in products and services which are accessible to consumers with a disability. The article examines the (possible) impact of a variety of provisions, including the rules relating to the free movement of goods and services (Articles 28 and 49 EC, respectively), the internal market (Articles 94 and 95 EC), non‐discrimination (Article 13 EC), EU citizenship provisions, and the work of the European standardisation bodies such as CEN. The central question throughout the article is does EC law allow for, or discourage, the establishment of mandatory disability accessibility standards at the national or EU level, and have the provisions been used to permit or establish such standards to date?     

A New Fundamental Freedom beyond Market Integration: Union Citizenship and its Dynamics for Shifting the Economic Paradigm of European Integration

The development of European integration from an economic to a political community has become manifest not just in the continuous addition of non‐economic policy areas to the treaties. The introduction of Union citizenship (and its controversial subsequent development in the European Court of Justice's jurisprudence) has also triggered a paradigm shift in one of the community's core areas, the concept of negative integration hitherto intrinsically linked to the internal market. Thus, neither the individual's quality as a market actor nor his/her involvement in a transnational economic activity is a condition for enjoyment of the market freedoms' core guarantees, these being a right of residence and a far‐reaching claim to national treatment in other Member States, as well as a prohibition on restrictions to the free movement of persons. A new fundamental freedom beyond market integration (‘Grundfreiheit ohne Markt’) has emerged. This process, whose consequences for the welfare systems of the wealthier Member States have been fiercely discussed for some time, however, also threatens to curtail severely the regulatory autonomy at the national level.     

The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicines and European Regulation of Pharmaceuticals

Abstract: The new European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products is the focus of the EC's new regulatory framework for approval of pharmaceuticals for human and veterinary use. This article considers past efforts at European pharmaceutical regulation, discusses the new 'centralised' and 'decentralised' procedures, and offers a functional analysis of the new system. It addresses European regulation of biotechnology, including Parliament's 1995 rejection of the proposed biotechnology directive using its codecision powers. It also reviews European case law and suggests that the Court of Justice's decision in Keck provides a useful way to analyse pharmaceuticals' place in the free movement of goods. While the new framework will likely improve approval of pharmaceuticals and over time lead to greater centralisation of the process, Member States will still retain some autonomy over the actual use of approved drugs, particularly through their continued control of conditions of reimbursement in national health systems.     

The Free Movement of Goods as a Possible 'Community' Limitation on Industrial Conflict

The aim of this essay is to underline the fact that the process of achieving single market integration is very likely to influence the regulation of industrial conflict. In this perspective, the Commission v France judgment is analysed, in which the ECJ—through a combined interpretation of Article 30 (now 28) and Article 5 (now 10) of the Treaty—states that a Member State is obliged to adopt all 'appropriate measures' to remove any 'obstacles' impeding the free circulation of goods caused by private persons. A new Regulation (n. 2679/98) has followed the ECJ decision, instituting a system of notification of such obstacles arising, or the threat of them, and the right of the Commission to demand a formal reply from a State on whether it has taken, or will be taking the necessary and proportionate measures.
The analysis of the principles adopted by the ECJ and of the Regulation shows that, at Community level, pressure is exerted on States to prevent the exercise of collective action as effectively as possible, if this damages inter-State trade. A transnational limit on industrial conflict thus emerges in the Community order, which may well affect the equilibria of national industrial relations in various ways.     

Trade mark use in transit: EU-phony or cacophony?

Legal context The present article discusses the opinion of Advocate-GeneralJacobs in Case C-405/05 Class International BV v Unilever NVand others, according to which trade mark owners cannot opposethe entry into the European Union of grey market non-Communitygoods placed in external transit, on the grounds of Article5(1) of the Trade Mark Directive, or any equivalent provision,as such entry does not constitute trade mark use. Key points We examine the consistency of this approach withprior case law of the European Court of Justice, namely in theCommission v France, Rioglass, The Polo/Lauren and Rolex casesand draw a parallelism with Council Regulation (EC) 1383/2003. Practical significance We conclude that trade mark owners shouldbe allowed to prohibit the placing in transit of goods whichwould infringe an intellectual property right under the lawof the transit country, unless the owner or consignor of thelitigious goods can undeniably prove that the goods are notdestined for the internal market. Stop press. At the end of the article the authors provide abrief analysis of the European Court of Justice's decision of18th October 2005 in this case.     

Automated decision-making in the EU Member States: The right to explanation and other “suitable safeguards” in the national legislations

The aim of this paper is to analyse the very recently approved national Member States’ laws that have implemented the GDPR in the field of automated decision-making (prohibition, exceptions, safeguards): all national legislations have been analysed and in particular 9 Member States Law address the case of automated decision making providing specific exemptions and relevant safeguards, as requested by Article 22(2)(b) of the GDPR (Belgium, The Netherlands, France, Germany, Hungary, Slovenia, Austria, the United Kingdom, Ireland).The approaches are very diverse: the scope of the provision can be narrow (just automated decisions producing legal or similarly detrimental effects) or wide (any decision with a significant impact) and even specific safeguards proposed are very diverse.After this overview, this article will also address the following questions: are Member States free to broaden the scope of automated decision-making regulation? Are ‘positive decisions’ allowed under Article 22, GDPR, as some Member States seem to affirm? Which safeguards can better guarantee rights and freedoms of the data subject?In particular, while most Member States refers just to the three safeguards mentioned at Article 22(3) (i.e. subject's right to express one's point of view; right to obtain human intervention; right to contest the decision), three approaches seem very innovative: a) some States guarantee a right to legibility/explanation about the algorithmic decisions (France and Hungary); b) other States (Ireland and United Kingdom) regulate human intervention on algorithmic decisions through an effective accountability mechanism (e.g. notification, explanation of why such contestation has not been accepted, etc.); c) another State (Slovenia) require an innovative form of human rights impact assessments on automated decision-making.     

Using the Citizen to Bring the Refugee In: Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l'emploi (ONEM)

The decision of the CJEU in Zambrano was seen as another example of an over‐active judiciary in Luxembourg. This comment suggests, on the contrary, that the case has too little reasoning to open any ‘floodgates’ but that in setting out a new logic for EU citizenship, the Opinion offers an approach which limits the global approach to free movement case law and uses citizenship status to include rather than exclude the refugee.     

Family Reunification Rights of (Migrant) Union Citizens: Towards a More Liberal Approach

Over the years, in the case‐law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) determining the availability of family reunification rights for migrant Member State nationals, the pendulum has swung back and forth, from a ‘moderate approach’ in cases such as Morson and Jhanjan (1982) and Akrich (2003), towards a more ‘liberal approach’ in cases such as Carpenter (2002) and Jia (2007). Under the Court's ‘moderate approach’, family reunification rights in the context of the Community's internal market policy are only granted in situations where this is necessary for enabling a Member State national to move between Member States in the process of exercising one of the economic fundamental freedoms; in other words, where there is a sufficient link between the exercise of one of those freedoms and the need to grant family reunification rights under EC law. Conversely, under the Court's ‘liberal approach’, in order for family reunification rights to be bestowed by EC law, it suffices that the situation involves the exercise of one of the market freedoms and that the claimants have a familial link which is covered by Community law; in other words, there is no need to illustrate that there is a link between the grant of such rights and the furtherance of the Community's aim of establishing an internal market. The recent judgments of the ECJ in Eind and Metock (and its order in Sahin) appear to have decidedly moved the pendulum towards the ‘liberal approach’ side. In this article, it will be explained that the fact that the EU is aspiring to be not only a supranational organisation with a successful and smoothly functioning market but also a polity, the citizens of which enjoy a number of basic rights which form the core of a meaningful status of Union citizenship, is the major driving force behind this move. In particular, the move towards a wholehearted adoption of the ‘liberal approach’ seems to have been fuelled by a desire, on the part of the Court, to respond to a number of problems arising from its ‘moderate approach’ and which appear to be an anomaly in a citizens' Europe. These are: a) the incongruity caused between the (new) aim of the Community of creating a meaningful status of Union citizenship and the treatment of Union citizens (under the Court's ‘moderate approach’) as mere factors of production; and b) the emergence of reverse discrimination. The article will conclude with an explanation of why the adoption of the Court's liberal approach does not appear to be a proper solution to these problems.     

欧盟商标法律制度的协调机制及其对我国的启示

在欧盟,既有各成员国国内的商标法律制度,又有欧盟的跨国商标法律制度即共同体商标条例,并设有将这两种商标法律制度协调运行的机制。该机制的核心主要有三个方面：一是优先注册权制度,即在一成员国有效的商标,或者同时又是共同体商标,权利人可以享有将同一商标在相同商品或服务上优先注册共同体商标的权利,或者优先注册其他成员国国内商标的权利;二是转换申请制度,即共同体商标的申请人或所有人在其申请失败或其商标失效时请求将该申请或商标转换成国内商标申请的情况;三是共同体商标特有的诉讼管辖和法律适用制度。欧盟所建立的这种复式商标法律制度及其协调机制,对于“一国两制”下的中国大陆、香港、澳门和台湾四法域商标法律制度的协调具有重要的借鉴作用。     

Quest for the Holy Grail—Is a Unified Approach to the Market Freedoms and European Citizenship Justified?

The case law of the CJEU on the economic free movement of people has departed from the traditional requirement that a nexus must be established between individual free movement and cross‐border economic activity, which has led to an extension of its scope. It is submitted that concerns with the protection of fundamental rights of European citizens are driving this process, and that the CJEU has sought to protect these fundamental rights through the market freedoms in two ways: by arguing that market freedoms are fundamental right themselves, and/or that European Citizenship has changed their normative underpinnings and status. This Article criticises both lines of argument, and defends a third: that the protection of these fundamental rights must be achieved at European level, if at all, through a conception of European Citizenship able to stand on its own.