text:
European Single Market
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Internal market" redirects here. For other uses, see Internal market (disambiguation).
European Single Market
EU member states Non-EU states that participate with exceptions
(see integration of non-EU states)
Policy of
European Union
Type
Single market
Member states
28 EU states[show]
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
4 non-EU
states[show]
Iceland
Liechtenstein
Norway
Switzerland
Establishment
1 January 1993
Area
• Total
4,986,038 km2 (1,925,120 sq mi)
• EU
4,324,782 km2
1,669,808 sq mi
Population
• Total 2015 estimate
522,000,000
• EU 2015
estimate
508,191,116
GDP (nominal)
2015 estimate
• Total
$19 trillion
• Per capita
$36,000
European Union
This article is part of a series on the
politics and government of
European Union
Executive[show]
Juncker Commission
President Juncker (EPP)
Vice Presidents
College
Civil Service
Secretary-General Selmayr
Legislature[show]
President Tajani (EPP)
Largest groups
EPP (Manfred Weber)
S&D (Gianni Pittella)
8th session (2014–19)
751 MEPs
Bureau
Vice Presidents
Quaestor
Conference
Legislative procedure
Council of the EU
Presidency
Configurations
General
Foreign
Justice and Home
Economic
Euro
Legislative procedure
Voting
Secretariat
Secretary-General
Uwe Corsepius
Directorates-general
COREPER
Judiciary[show]
Court of Justice
Members
Rulings
General Court
Central Bank[show]
President Draghi
ESCB
Euro
EMU
Eurozone
Court of Auditors[show]
Budget
OLAF
Other bodies[show]
Agencies
Investment Bank
CoR
EESC
Ombudsman
National parliaments
Policies and issues[show]
Foreign relations
High Representative
Federica Mogherini
Ext. Action Service
Foreign Policy
Defence Policy
Customs Union
Enlargement
Budget
Four Freedoms
Economic Area
Area of FS&J
Schengen Area
Policies
Agricultural
Energy
Fisheries
Regional
Citizenship
Identity
Pro-Europeanism
Euroscepticism
Integration
Supranationalism
Federalism
United States of Europe
Multi-speed
Opt-outs
Enhanced co-op
Withdrawal
Elections[show]
1979, 1984, 1989
1994, 1999, 2004, 2009
2014 (last election)
Political parties
Constituencies
Referendums
Law[show]
Treaty on European Union
Acquis
Primacy
Subsidiarity
Treaties
Rome
Single European Act
Maastricht
Amsterdam
Nice
Lisbon
Article 50
Fundamental Rights
Membership
Treaties of Accession
1972, 1979, 1985, 1994, 2003, 2005, 2011
European Council[show]
President Tusk (EPP)
Parties
List of meetings
Other countries
Atlas
v
t
e
The European Single Market, Internal Market or Common Market is a single market which seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour – the "four freedoms" – within the European Union (EU).[1][2][3][4] The market encompasses the EU's 28 member states, and has been extended, with exceptions, to Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the Agreement on the European Economic Area and to Switzerland through bilateral treaties. Through the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA), three post-Soviet countries Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine were given access to the Single Market in selected sectors.[5] Turkey has access to the free movement of goods via its membership in the European Union Customs Union.[6]
The market is intended to be conducive to increased competition, increased specialisation, larger economies of scale, allowing goods and factors of production to move to the area where they are most valued, thus improving the efficiency of the allocation of resources. It is also intended to drive economic integration whereby the once separate economies of the member states become integrated within a single EU-wide economy. Half of the trade in goods within the EU is covered by legislation harmonised by the EU.[7] The creation of the internal market as a seamless, single market is an ongoing process, with the integration of the service industry still containing gaps.[8] It also has an increasing international element, with the market represented as one in international trade negotiations.
Contents
[hide]
1 History
2 The four freedoms of the Single Market
2.1 Free movement of goods
2.1.1 Customs duties and taxation
2.1.1.1 Customs duties
2.1.1.2 Charges having equivalent effect to customs duties
2.1.1.3 Taxation
2.1.2 Quantitative and equivalent restrictions
2.2 Free movement of capital
2.3 Freedom to establish and provide services
2.3.1 Establishment
2.3.2 Services
2.3.3 Digital Single Market
2.4 Free movement of persons
2.4.1 Free movement of workers
2.4.2 Free movement of citizens
2.4.3 The Schengen Area
3 Public sector procurement of goods and services
4 Integration of non-EU states
5 Further developments
5.1 Brexit
6 See also
7 Notes
8 References
9 External links
History[edit]
One of the original core objectives of the European Economic Community (EEC) was the development of a common market offering free movement of goods, service, people and capital (see below). Free movement of goods was established in principle through the customs union between its then-six member states.
However the EEC struggled to enforce a single market due to the absence of strong decision-making structures. It was difficult to remove intangible barriers with mutual recognition of standards and common regulations due to protectionist attitudes.
In the 1980s, when the economy of the EEC began to lag behind the rest of the developed world, Margaret Thatcher sent Arthur Cockfield, Baron Cockfield, to the Delors Commission to take the initiative to attempt to relaunch the common market. Cockfield wrote and published a White Paper in 1985 identifying 300 measures to be addressed in order to complete a single market.[9][10][11] The White Paper was well received and led to the adoption of the Single European Act, a treaty which reformed the decision-making mechanisms of the EEC and set a deadline of 31 December 1992 for the completion of a single market. In the end, it was launched on 1 January 1993.[12]
The new approach, pioneered at the Delors Commission, combined positive and negative integration, relying upon minimum rather than exhaustive harmonisation. Negative integration consists of prohibitions imposed on member states banning discriminatory behaviour and other restrictive practices. Positive integration consists of approximating laws and standards. Especially important (and controversial) in this respect is the adoption of harmonising legislation under Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
The Commission also relied upon the European Court of Justice's Cassis de Dijon[13] jurisprudence, under which member states were obliged to recognise goods which had been legally produced in another member state, unless the member state could justify the restriction by reference to a mandatory requirement. Harmonisation would only be used to overcome barriers created by trade restrictions which survived the Cassis mandatory requirements test, and to ensure essential standards where there was a risk of a race to the bottom. Thus harmonisation was largely used to ensure basic health and safety standards were met.
By 1992 about 90% of the issues had been resolved[14] and in the same year the Maastricht Treaty set about to create an Economic and Monetary Union as the next stage of integration. Work on freedom for services did take longer, and was the last freedom to be implemented, mainly through the Posting of Workers Directive (adopted in 1996)[15] and the Directive on services in the internal market (adopted in 2006).[16]
In 1997 the Amsterdam Treaty abolished physical barriers across the internal market by incorporating the Schengen Area within the competences of the EU. The Schengen Agreement implements the abolition of border controls between most member states, common rules on visas, and police and judicial cooperation.[17]
Even as the Lisbon Treaty came into force in 2009 however, some areas pertaining parts of the four freedoms (especially in the field of services) had not yet been completely opened. Those, along with further work on the economic and monetary union, would see the EU move further to a European Home Market.[14]
The four freedoms of the Single Market[edit]
Free movement of goods[edit]
Customs duties and taxation[edit]
Main article: European Union Customs Union
The European Union is also a customs union. This means that member states have removed customs barriers between themselves and introduced a common customs policy towards other countries. The overall purpose of the duties is "to ensure normal conditions of competition and to remove all restrictions of a fiscal nature capable of hindering the free movement of goods within the Common Market".[18]
By agreement between the Union and the states concerned, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and Turkey also participate in the EU Customs Union.
Customs duties[edit]
Article 30 TFEU prohibits member states from levying any duties on goods crossing a border and covers both goods produced within the EU and those produced outside. Once a good has been imported into the EU from a third country and the appropriate customs duty paid, Article 29 TFEU dictates that it shall then be considered to be in free circulation between the member states.
Neither the purpose of the charge, nor its name in domestic law, is relevant.[19]
Since the Single European Act, there can be no systematic customs controls at the borders of member states. The emphasis is on post-import audit controls and risk analysis. Physical controls of imports and exports now occur at traders' premises, rather than at the territorial borders.
Charges having equivalent effect to customs duties[edit]
Article 30 of the TFEU prohibits not only customs duties but also charges having equivalent effect. The European Court of Justice defined "charge having equivalent effect" in Commission v Italy.
[A]ny pecuniary charge, however small and whatever its designation and mode of application, which is imposed unilaterally on domestic or foreign goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier, and which is not a customs duty in the strict sense, constitutes a charge having equivalent effect... even if it is not imposed for the benefit of the state, is not discriminatory or protective in effect and if the product on which the charge is imposed is not in competition with any domestic product.[20]
A charge is a customs duty if it is proportionate to the value of the goods; if it is proportionate to the quantity, it is a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty.[21]
There are three exceptions to the prohibition on charges imposed when goods cross a border, listed in Case 18/87 Commission v Germany. A charge is not a customs duty or charge having equivalent effect if:
it relates to a general system of internal dues applied systematically and in accordance with the same criteria to domestic products and imported products alike,[22]
if it constitutes payment for a service in fact rendered to the economic operator of a sum in proportion to the service,[23] or
subject to certain conditions, if it attaches to inspections carried out to fulfil obligations imposed by Union law.[24]
Taxation[edit]
Article 110 of the TFEU provides:
No Member State shall impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other member states any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products.
Furthermore, no Member State shall impose on the products of other member states any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products.
In the taxation of rum case, the ECJ stated that:
The Court has consistently held that the purpose of Article 90 EC [now Article 110], as a whole, is to ensure the free movement of goods between the member states under normal conditions of competition, by eliminating all forms of protection which might result from the application of discriminatory internal taxation against products from other member states, and to guarantee absolute neutrality of internal taxation as regards competition between domestic and imported products".[25]
Quantitative and equivalent restrictions[edit]
[show]
v
t
e
Free movement of goods
TFEU arts 28-36
Procureur du Roi v Dassonville (1974) Case 8/74
Commission v France (1997) C-265/95
Schmidberger v Austria (2003) C-112/00
Rewe-Zentral AG v BMV für Branntwein (1979) Case 170/78
Rau Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PVBA (1983) Case 261/81
Commission v Italy (2003) C-14/00
Commission v Italy (2009) C-110/05
Keck and Mithouard (1993) C-267/91
Konsumentombudsmannen v De Agostini (1997) C-34/95
Konsumentombudsmannen v Gourmet AB (2001) C-405/98
Deutscher Apothekerverband v 0800 DocMorris (2003) C-322/01
Commission v Germany (1987) Case 178/84
Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005
See EU law
Free movement of goods within the European Union is achieved by a customs union and the principle of non-discrimination.[26] The EU manages imports from non-member states, duties between member states are prohibited, and imports circulate freely.[27] In addition under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union article 34, ‘Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States’. In Procureur du Roi v Dassonville[28] the Court of Justice held that this rule meant all "trading rules" that are "enacted by Member States" which could hinder trade "directly or indirectly, actually or potentially" would be caught by article 34.[29] This meant that a Belgian law requiring Scotch whisky imports to have a certificate of origin was unlikely to be lawful. It discriminated against parallel importers like Mr Dassonville, who could not get certificates from authorities in France, where they bought the Scotch. This "wide test",[30] to determine what could potentially be an unlawful restriction on trade, applies equally to actions by quasi-government bodies, such as the former "Buy Irish" company that had government appointees.[31] It also means states can be responsible for private actors. For instance, in Commission v France French farmer vigilantes were continually sabotaging shipments of Spanish strawberries, and even Belgian tomato imports. France was liable for these hindrances to trade because the authorities "manifestly and persistently abstained" from preventing the sabotage.[32] Generally speaking, if a member state has laws or practices that directly discriminate against imports (or exports under TFEU article 35) then it must be justified under article 36. The justifications include public morality, policy or security, "protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants", "national treasures" of "artistic, historic or archaeological value" and "industrial and commercial property". In addition, although not clearly listed, environmental protection can justify restrictions on trade as an overriding requirement derived from TFEU article 11.[33] More generally, it has been increasingly acknowledged that fundamental human rights should take priority over all trade rules. So, in Schmidberger v Austria[34] the Court of Justice held that Austria did not infringe article 34 by failing to ban a protest that blocked heavy traffic passing over the A13, Brenner Autobahn, en route to Italy. Although many companies, including Mr Schmidberger's German undertaking, were prevented from trading, the Court of Justice reasoned that freedom of association is one of the "fundamental pillars of a democratic society", against which the free movement of goods had to be balanced,[35] and was probably subordinate. If a member state does appeal to the article 36 justification, the measures it takes have to be applied proportionately. This means the rule must be pursue a legitimate aim and (1) be suitable to achieve the aim, (2) be necessary, so that a less restrictive measure could not achieve the same result, and (3) be reasonable in balancing the interests of free trade with interests in article 36.[36]
In Schmidberger v Austria, protests blocked trucks for goods through the Austrian Alps on the Brenner Autobahn. The Court of Justice recognised fundamental rights take priority over free trade.[37]
Often rules apply to all goods neutrally, but may have a greater practical effect on imports than domestic products. For such "indirect" discriminatory (or "indistinctly applicable") measures the Court of Justice has developed more justifications: either those in article 36, or additional "mandatory" or "overriding" requirements such as consumer protection, improving labour standards,[38] protecting the environment,[39] press diversity,[40] fairness in commerce,[41] and more: the categories are not closed.[42] In the most famous case Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopol für Branntwein,[43] the Court of Justice found that a German law requiring all spirits and liqueurs (not just imported ones) to have a minimum alcohol content of 25 per cent was contrary to TFEU article 34, because it had a greater negative effect on imports. German liqueurs were over 25 per cent alcohol, but Cassis de Dijon, which Rewe-Zentrale AG wished to import from France, only had 15 to 20 per cent alcohol. The Court of Justice rejected the German government's arguments that the measure proportionately protected public health under TFEU article 36,[44] because stronger beverages were available and adequate labelling would be enough for consumers to understand what they bought.[45] This rule primarily applies to requirements about a product's content or packaging. In Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PVBA[46] the Court of Justice found that a Belgian law requiring all margarine to be in cube shaped packages infringed article 34, and was not justified by the pursuit of consumer protection. The argument that Belgians would believe it was butter if it was not cube shaped was disproportionate: it would "considerably exceed the requirements of the object in view" and labelling would protect consumers "just as effectively".[47] In a 2003 case, Commission v Italy[48] Italian law required that cocoa products that included other vegetable fats could not be labelled as "chocolate". It had to be "chocolate substitute". All Italian chocolate was made from cocoa butter alone, but British, Danish and Irish manufacturers used other vegetable fats. They claimed the law infringed article 34. The Court of Justice held that a low content of vegetable fat did not justify a "chocolate substitute" label. This was derogatory in the consumers' eyes. A "neutral and objective statement" was enough to protect consumers. If member states place considerable obstacles on the use of a product, this can also infringe article 34. So, in a 2009 case, Commission v Italy, the Court of Justice held that an Italian law prohibiting motorcycles or mopeds pulling trailers infringed article 34.[49] Again, the law applied neutrally to everyone, but disproportionately affected importers, because Italian companies did not make trailers. This was not a product requirement, but the Court reasoned that the prohibition would deter people from buying it: it would have "a considerable influence on the behaviour of consumers" that "affects the access of that product to the market".[50] It would require justification under article 36, or as a mandatory requirement.
In contrast to product requirements or other laws that hinder market access, the Court of Justice developed a presumption that "selling arrangements" would be presumed to not fall into TFEU article 34, if they applied equally to all sellers, and affected them in the same manner in fact. In Keck and Mithouard[51] two importers claimed that their prosecution under a French competition law, which prevented them selling Picon beer under wholesale price, was unlawful. The aim of the law was to prevent cut throat competition, not to hinder trade.[52] The Court of Justice held, as "in law and in fact" it was an equally applicable "selling arrangement" (not something that alters a product's content[53]) it was outside the scope of article 34, and so did not need to be justified. Selling arrangements can be held to have an unequal effect "in fact" particularly where traders from another member state are seeking to break into the market, but there are restrictions on advertising and marketing. In Konsumentombudsmannen v De Agostini[54] the Court of Justice reviewed Swedish bans on advertising to children under age 12, and misleading commercials for skin care products. While the bans have remained (justifiable under article 36 or as a mandatory requirement) the Court emphasised that complete marketing bans could be disproportionate if advertising were "the only effective form of promotion enabling [a trader] to penetrate" the market. In Konsumentombudsmannen v Gourmet AB[55] the Court suggested that a total ban for advertising alcohol on the radio, TV and in magazines could fall within article 34 where advertising was the only way for sellers to overcome consumers' "traditional social practices and to local habits and customs" to buy their products, but again the national courts would decide whether it was justified under article 36 to protect public health. Under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, the EU harmonised restrictions on restrictions on marketing and advertising, to forbid conduct that distorts average consumer behaviour, is misleading or aggressive, and sets out a list of examples that count as unfair.[56] Increasingly, states have to give mutual recognition to each other's standards of regulation, while the EU has attempted to harmonise minimum ideals of best practice. The attempt to raise standards is hoped to avoid a regulatory "race to the bottom", while allowing consumers access to goods from around the continent.
Free movement of capital[edit]
[show]
v
t
e
Freedom of capital sources
TFEU arts 63-65
Capital Movement Directive 1988
Baars v Inspecteur der Belastingen Particulieren (2000) C-251/98
Commission v Belgium (2000) C-478/98
Commission v Germany (2007) C-112/05
Commission v Portugal (2010) C-171/08
TFEU arts 119, 282-284
See EU law
See also: Payment Services Directive, Capital control, Single Euro Payments Area, and Economic and Monetary Union of the EU
Free movement of capital was traditionally seen as the fourth freedom, after goods, workers and persons, services and establishment. The original Treaty of Rome required that restrictions on free capital flows only be removed to the extent necessary for the common market. From the Treaty of Maastricht, now in TFEU article 63, "all restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited". This means capital controls of various kinds are prohibited, including limits on buying currency, limits on buying company shares or financial assets, or government approval requirements for foreign investment. By contrast, taxation of capital, including corporate tax, capital gains tax and financial transaction tax, are not affected so long as they do not discriminate by nationality. According to the Capital Movement Directive 1988, Annex I, 13 categories of capital which must move free are covered.[57] In Baars v Inspecteur der Belastingen Particulieren the Court of Justice held that for investments in companies, the capital rules, rather than freedom of establishment rules, were engaged if an investment did not enable a "definite influence" through shareholder voting or other rights by the investor.[58] That case held a Dutch Wealth Tax Act 1964 unjustifiably exempted Dutch investments, but not Mr Baars' investments in an Irish company, from the tax: the wealth tax, or exemptions, had to be applied equally. On the other hand, TFEU article 65(1) does not prevent taxes that distinguish taxpayers based on their residence or the location of an investment (as taxes commonly focus on a person's actual source of profit) or any measures to prevent tax evasion.[59] Apart from tax cases, largely following from the opinions of Advocate General Maduro,[60] a series of cases held that government owned golden shares were unlawful. In Commission v Germany the Commission claimed the German Volkswagen Act 1960 violated article 63, in that §2(1) restricted any party having voting rights exceeding 20% of the company, and §4(3) allowed a minority of 20% of shares held by the Lower Saxony government to block any decisions. Although this was not an impediment to actual purchase of shares, or receipt of dividends by any shareholder, the Court of Justice's Grand Chamber agreed that it was disproportionate for the government's stated aim of protecting workers or minority shareholders.[61] Similarly, in Commission v Portugal the Court of Justice held that Portugal infringed free movement of capital by retaining golden shares in Portugal Telecom that enabled disproportionate voting rights, by creating a "deterrent effect on portfolio investments" and reduing "the attractiveness of an investment".[62] This suggested the Court's preference that a government, if it sought public ownership or control, should nationalise in full the desired proportion of a company in line with TFEU article 345.[63]
Capital within the EU may be transferred in any amount from one country to another (except that Greece currently has capital controls restricting outflows, and Cyprus imposed capital controls between 2013 and April 2015). All intra-EU transfers in euro are considered as domestic payments and bear the corresponding domestic transfer costs.[64] This includes all member States of the EU, even those outside the eurozone providing the transactions are carried out in euro.[65] Credit/debit card charging and ATM withdrawals within the Eurozone are also charged as domestic; however, paper-based payment orders, like cheques, have not been standardised so these are still domestic-based. The ECB has also set up a clearing system, TARGET, for large euro transactions.[66]
The final stage of completely free movement of capital was thought to require a single currency and monetary policy, eliminating the transaction costs and fluctuations of currency exchange. Following a Report of the Delors Commission in 1988,[67] the Treaty of Maastricht made economic and monetary union an objective, first by completing the internal market, second by creating a European System of Central Banks to coordinate common monetary policy, and third by locking exchange rates and introducing a single currency, the euro. Today, 19 member states have adopted the euro, while 9 member states have either determined to opt-out or their accession has been delayed, particularly since the Eurozone crisis. According to TFEU articles 119 and 127, the objective of the European Central Bank and other central banks ought to be price stability. This has been criticised for apparently being superior to the objective of full employment in the Treaty on European Union article 3.[68]
Freedom to establish and provide services[edit]
See also: European company law and European labour law
As well as creating rights for "workers" who generally lack bargaining power in the market,[69] the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union also protects the "freedom of establishment" in article 49, and "freedom to provide services" in article 56.[70]
Establishment[edit]
[show]
v
t
e
Freedom of establishment cases
TFEU arts 49-55
R (Daily Mail and General Trust plc) v Treasury (1988) Case 81/87
Gebhard v Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano (1995) C-55/94
Centros Ltd v Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen (1999) C-212/97
Überseering BV v Nordic Construction GmbH (2002) C-208/00
Kamer van Koophandel v Inspire Art Ltd (2003) C-167/01
Cartesio Oktató és Szolgáltató bt (2008) C-210/06
Commission v Germany (2007) C-112/2005
The Rosella or ITWF v Viking Line ABP (2007) C-438/05
Demir and Baykara v Turkey [2008] ECHR 1345
See EU law
In Gebhard v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano[71] the Court of Justice held that to be "established" means to participate in economic life "on a stable and continuous basis", while providing "services" meant pursuing activity more "on a temporary basis". This meant that a lawyer from Stuttgart, who had set up chambers in Milan and was censured by the Milan Bar Council for not having registered, should claim for breach of establishment freedom, rather than service freedom. However, the requirements to be registered in Milan before being able to practice would be allowed if they were non-discriminatory, "justified by imperative requirements in the general interest" and proportionately applied.[72] All people or entities that engage in economic activity, particularly the self-employed, or "undertakings" such as companies or firms, have a right to set up an enterprise without unjustified restrictions.[73] The Court of Justice has held that both a member state government and a private party can hinder freedom of establishment,[74] so article 49 has both "vertical" and "horizontal" direct effect. In Reyners v Belgium[75] the Court of Justice held that a refusal to admit a lawyer to the Belgian bar because he lacked Belgian nationality was unjustified. TFEU article 49 says states are exempt from infringing others' freedom of establishment when they exercise "official authority", but this did an advocate's work[clarification needed] (as opposed to a court's) was not official.[76] By contrast in Commission v Italy the Court of Justice held that a requirement for lawyers in Italy to comply with maximum tariffs unless there was an agreement with a client was not a restriction.[77] The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice held the Commission had not proven that this had any object or effect of limiting practitioners from entering the market.[78] Therefore, there was no prima facie infringement freedom of establishment that needed to be justified.
The Court of Justice in Centros Ltd held that people can establish a UK company or any other, to do business EU-wide, but must comply with proportionate requirements in the public interest,[79] such as the basic labour right to a voice at work.[80]
In regard to companies, the Court of Justice held in R (Daily Mail and General Trust plc) v HM Treasury that member states could restrict a company moving its seat of business, without infringing TFEU article 49.[81] This meant the Daily Mail newspaper's parent company could not evade tax by shifting its residence to the Netherlands without first settling its tax bills in the UK. The UK did not need to justify its action, as rules on company seats were not yet harmonised. By contrast, in Centros Ltd v Erhversus-og Selkabssyrelsen the Court of Justice found that a UK limited company operating in Denmark could not be required to comply with Denmark's minimum share capital rules. UK law only required £1 of capital to start a company, while Denmark's legislature took the view companies should only be started up if they had 200,000 Danish krone (around €27,000) to protect creditors if the company failed and went insolvent. The Court of Justice held that Denmark's minimum capital law infringed Centros Ltd's freedom of establishment and could not be justified, because a company in the UK could admittedly provide services in Denmark without being established there, and there were less restrictive means of achieving the aim of creditor protection.[82] This approach was criticised as potentially opening the EU to unjustified regulatory competition, and a race to the bottom in standards, like in the US where the state of Delaware attracts most companies and is often argued to have the worst standards of accountability of boards, and low corporate taxes as a result.[83] Similarly in Überseering BV v Nordic Construction GmbH the Court of Justice held that a German court could not deny a Dutch building company the right to enforce a contract in Germany on the basis that it was not validly incorporated in Germany. Although restrictions on freedom of establishment could be justified by creditor protection, labour rights to participate in work, or the public interest in collecting taxes, denial of capacity went too far: it was an "outright negation" of the right of establishment.[84] However, in Cartesio Oktató és Szolgáltató bt the Court of Justice affirmed again that because corporations are created by law, they are in principle subject to any rules for formation that a state of incorporation wishes to impose. This meant that the Hungarian authorities could prevent a company from shifting its central administration to Italy while it still operated and was incorporated in Hungary.[85] Thus, the court draws a distinction between the right of establishment for foreign companies (where restrictions must be justified), and the right of the state to determine conditions for companies incorporated in its territory,[86] although it is not entirely clear why.[87]
Services[edit]
[show]
v
t
e
Freedom of services cases
TFEU arts 56-62
Services in the Internal Market Directive 2006
Säger v Dennemeyer & Co Ltd (1991) C-76/90
Alpine Investments BV v Minister van Financiën (1995) C-384/93
Geraets-Smits v Stichting Ziekenfonds (2001) C-157/99
Omega GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin Bonn (2004) C-36/02
Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska BAF (2007) C-319/05
Josemans v Burgemeester van Maastricht (2010) C‑137/09
see EU law
The "freedom to provide services" under TFEU article 56 applies to people who provide services "for remuneration", especially commercial or professional activity.[88] For example, in Van Binsbergen v Bestuur van de Bedrijfvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid a Dutch lawyer moved to Belgium while advising a client in a social security case, and was told he could not continue because Dutch law said only people established in the Netherlands could give legal advice.[89] The Court of Justice held that the freedom to provide services applied, it was directly effective, and the rule was probably unjustified: having an address in the member state would be enough to pursue the legitimate aim of good administration of justice.[90] The Court of Justice has held that secondary education falls outside the scope of article 56,[91] because usually the state funds it, though higher education does not.[92] Health care generally counts as a service. In Geraets-Smits v Stichting Ziekenfonds[93] Mrs Geraets-Smits claimed she should be reimbursed by Dutch social insurance for costs of receiving treatment in Germany. The Dutch health authorities regarded the treatment unnecessary, so she argued this restricted the freedom (of the German health clinic) to provide services. Several governments submitted that hospital services should not be regarded as economic, and should not fall within article 56. But the Court of Justice held health was a "service" even though the government (rather than the service recipient) paid for the service.[94] National authorities could be justified in refusing to reimburse patients for medical services abroad if the health care received at home was without undue delay, and it followed "international medical science" on which treatments counted as normal and necessary.[95] The Court requires that the individual circumstances of a patient justify waiting lists, and this is also true in the context of the UK's National Health Service.[96] Aside from public services, another sensitive field of services are those classified as illegal. Josemans v Burgemeester van Maastricht held that the Netherlands' regulation of cannabis consumption, including the prohibitions by some municipalities on tourists (but not Dutch nationals) going to coffee shops,[97] fell outside article 56 altogether. The Court of Justice reasoned that narcotic drugs were controlled in all member states, and so this differed from other cases where prostitution or other quasi-legal activity was subject to restriction.
If an activity does fall within article 56, a restriction can be justified under article 52 or overriding requirements developed by the Court of Justice. In Alpine Investments BV v Minister van Financiën[98] a business that sold commodities futures (with Merrill Lynch and another banking firms) attempted to challenge a Dutch law that prohibiting cold calling customers. The Court of Justice held the Dutch prohibition pursued a legitimate aim to prevent "undesirable developments in securities trading" including protecting the consumer from aggressive sales tactics, thus maintaining confidence in the Dutch markets. In Omega Spielhallen GmbH v Bonn[99] a "laserdrome" business was banned by the Bonn council. It bought fake laser gun services from a UK firm called Pulsar Ltd, but residents had protested against "playing at killing" entertainment. The Court of Justice held that the German constitutional value of human dignity, which underpinned the ban, did count as a justified restriction on freedom to provide services. In Liga Portuguesa de Futebol v Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa the Court of Justice also held that the state monopoly on gambling, and a penalty for a Gibraltar firm that had sold internet gambling services, was justified to prevent fraud and gambling where people's views were highly divergent.[100] The ban was proportionate as this was an appropriate and necessary way to tackle the serious problems of fraud that arise over the internet. In the Services Directive[101] a group of justifications were codified in article 16 that the case law has developed.
Digital Single Market[edit]
Main article: Digital Single Market
See also: European Union roaming regulations
In May 2015 the Juncker Commission[102] announced a plan to reverse the fragmentation of internet shopping and other online services by establishing a Single Digital Market that would cover digital services and goods from e-commerce to parcel delivery rates, uniform telecoms and copyright rules.[103]
Free movement of persons[edit]
See also: Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to move and reside freely
The free movement of persons means EU citizens can move freely between member states to live, work, study or retire in another country. This required the lowering of administrative formalities and more recognition of professional qualifications of other states.[104] Fostering the free movement of persons has been a major goal of European integration since the 1950s.[105]
Broadly defined, this freedom enables citizens of one Member State to travel to another, to reside and to work there (permanently or temporarily). The idea behind EU legislation in this field is that citizens from other member states should be treated equally to domestic citizens – they should not be discriminated against.
The main provision of the freedom of movement of persons is Article 45 of the TFEU, which prohibits restrictions on the basis of nationality.
Free movement of workers[edit]
[show]
v
t
e
Free movement of workers
TFEU arts 45-48
Free Movement of Workers Regulation 2011
Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg (1986) Case 66/85
Steymann v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (1988) Case 196/87
Trojani v Centre public d’aide sociale (2004) C-456/02
Belgian Football Association v Bosman (1995) C-415/93
Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA (2000) C-281/98
Finanzamt Köln Altstadt v Schumacker (1995) C-279/93
Weigel v Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg (2004) C-387/01
Hendrix v Employee Insurance Institute (2007) C-287/05
Geven v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (2007) C-213/05
Citizens Rights Directive 2004 2004/38/EC
Gravier v City of Liege (1985) Case 293/83
Metock v Minister for Justice (2008) C-127/08
See EU law and free movement
Main article: Freedom of movement for workers
Since its foundation, the Treaties sought to enable people to pursue their life goals in any country through free movement.[106] Reflecting the economic nature of the project, the European Community originally focused upon free movement of workers: as a "factor of production".[107] However, from the 1970s, this focus shifted towards developing a more "social" Europe.[108] Free movement was increasingly based on "citizenship", so that people had rights to empower them to become economically and socially active, rather than economic activity being a precondition for rights. This means the basic "worker" rights in TFEU article 45 function as a specific expression of the general rights of citizens in TFEU articles 18 to 21. According to the Court of Justice, a "worker" is anybody who is economically active, which includes everyone in an employment relationship, "under the direction of another person" for "remuneration".[109] A job, however, need not be paid in money for someone to be protected as a worker. For example, in Steymann v Staatssecretaris van Justitie, a German man claimed the right to residence in the Netherlands, while he volunteered plumbing and household duties in the Bhagwan community, which provided for everyone's material needs irrespective of their contributions.[110] The Court of Justice held that Mr Steymann was entitled to stay, so long as there was at least an "indirect quid pro quo" for the work he did. Having "worker" status means protection against all forms of discrimination by governments, and employers, in access to employment, tax, and social security rights. By contrast a citizen, who is "any person having the nationality of a Member State" (TFEU article 20(1)), has rights to seek work, vote in local and European elections, but more restricted rights to claim social security.[111] In practice, free movement has become politically contentious as nationalist political parties appear to have utilised concerns about immigrants taking jobs and benefits.
In Angonese the Court of Justice gave "horizontal direct effect" to free movement, so a bank could not refuse employment to a worker who lacked a Bolzano language certificate.[112]
The Free Movement of Workers Regulation articles 1 to 7 set out the main provisions on equal treatment of workers. First, articles 1 to 4 generally require that workers can take up employment, conclude contracts, and not suffer discrimination compared to nationals of the member state.[113] In a famous case, the Belgian Football Association v Bosman, a Belgian footballer named Jean-Marc Bosman claimed that he should be able to transfer from R.F.C. de Liège to USL Dunkerque when his contract finished, regardless of whether Dunkerque could afford to pay Liège the habitual transfer fees.[114] The Court of Justice held "the transfer rules constitute[d] an obstacle to free movement" and were unlawful unless they could be justified in the public interest, but this was unlikely. In Groener v Minister for Education[115] the Court of Justice accepted that a requirement to speak Gaelic to teach in a Dublin design college could be justified as part of the public policy of promoting the Irish language, but only if the measure was not disproportionate. By contrast in Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA[116] a bank in Bolzano, Italy, was not allowed to require Mr Angonese to have a bilingual certificate that could only be obtained in Bolzano. The Court of Justice, giving "horizontal" direct effect to TFEU article 45, reasoned that people from other countries would have little chance of acquiring the certificate, and because it was "impossible to submit proof of the required linguistic knowledge by any other means", the measure was disproportionate. Second, article 7(2) requires equal treatment in respect of tax. In Finanzamt Köln Altstadt v Schumacker[117] the Court of Justice held that it contravened TFEU art 45 to deny tax benefits (e.g. for married couples, and social insurance expense deductions) to a man who worked in Germany, but was resident in Belgium when other German residents got the benefits. By contrast in Weigel v Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg the Court of Justice rejected Mr Weigel's claim that a re-registration charge upon bringing his car to Austria violated his right to free movement. Although the tax was "likely to have a negative bearing on the decision of migrant workers to exercise their right to freedom of movement", because the charge applied equally to Austrians, in absence of EU legislation on the matter it had to be regarded as justified.[118] Third, people must receive equal treatment regarding "social advantages", although the Court has approved residential qualifying periods. In Hendrix v Employee Insurance Institute the Court of Justice held that a Dutch national was not entitled to continue receiving incapacity benefits when he moved to Belgium, because the benefit was "closely linked to the socio-economic situation" of the Netherlands.[119] Conversely, in Geven v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen the Court of Justice held that a Dutch woman living in the Netherlands, but working between 3 and 14 hours a week in Germany, did not have a right to receive German child benefits,[120] even though the wife of a man who worked full-time in Germany but was resident in Austria could.[121] The general justifications for limiting free movement in TFEU article 45(3) are "public policy, public security or public health",[122] and there is also a general exception in article 45(4) for "employment in the public service".
Free movement of citizens[edit]
[show]
v
t
e
Citizen rights sources
TEU arts 18-21
Citizens Rights Directive 2004
Metock v Minister for Justice (2008) C-127/08
Sala v Freistaat Bayern (1998) C-85/96
Baumbast and R v SS for the Home Department (2002) C-413/99
Zhu and Chen v SS for the Home Department (2004) C-200/02
Ruiz Zambrano v ONEM (2011) C-34/09
Grzelczyk v Centre Public d’Aide Sociale (2001) C-184/99
R (Bidar) v London Borough of Ealing (2005) C-209/03
Commission v Austria (2005) C-147/03
Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig (2014) C‑333/13
See EU law
See also: Citizenship of the European Union
Beyond the right of free movement to work, the EU has increasingly sought to guarantee rights of citizens, and rights simply by being a human being.[123] But although the Court of Justice stated that ‘Citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States’,[124] political debate remains on who should have access to public services and welfare systems funded by taxation.[125] In 2008, just 8 million people from 500 million EU citizens (1.7 per cent) had in fact exercised rights of free movement, the vast majority of them workers.[126] According to TFEU article 20, citizenship of the EU derives from nationality of a member state. Article 21 confers general rights to free movement in the EU and to reside freely within limits set by legislation. This applies for citizens and their immediate family members.[127] This triggers four main groups of rights: (1) to enter, depart and return, without undue restrictions, (2) to reside, without becoming an unreasonable burden on social assistance, (3) to vote in local and European elections, and (4) the right to equal treatment with nationals of the host state, but for social assistance only after 3 months of residence.
The Berlin Wall (1961-1989) symbolised a bordered globe, where citizens of the Soviet Union had no right to leave, and few could enter. The EU has progressively dismantled barriers to free movement, consistent with economic development.
First, article 4 of the Citizens Rights Directive 2004 says every citizen has the right to depart a member state with a valid passport. This has historical importance for central and eastern Europe, when the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall denied its citizens the freedom to leave.[128] Article 5 gives every citizen a right of entry, subject to national border controls. Schengen Area countries (not the UK and Ireland) abolished the need to show documents, and police searches at borders, altogether. These reflect the general principle of free movement in TFEU article 21. Second, article 6 allows every citizen to stay three months in another member state, whether economically active or not. Article 7 allows stays over three months with evidence of "sufficient resources... not to become a burden on the social assistance system". Articles 16 and 17 give a right to permanent residence after 5 years without conditions. Third, TEU article 10(3) requires the right to vote in the local constituencies for the European Parliament wherever a citizen lives.
All EU citizens have the right to child support, education, social security and other assistance in EU member states. To ensure people contribute fairly to the communities they live in, there can be qualifying periods of residence and work up to five years.
Fourth, and more debated, article 24 requires that the longer an EU citizen stays in a host state, the more rights they have to access public and welfare services, on the basis of equal treatment. This reflects general principles of equal treatment and citizenship in TFEU articles 18 and 20. In a simple case, in Sala v Freistaat Bayern the Court of Justice held that a Spanish woman who had lived in Germany for 25 years and had a baby was entitled to child support, without the need for a residence permit, because Germans did not need one.[129] In Trojani v Centre public d’aide sociale de Bruxelles, a French man who lived in Belgium for two years was entitled to the "minimex" allowance from the state for a minimum living wage.[130] In Grzelczyk v Centre Public d’Aide Sociale d’Ottignes-Louvain-la-Neuve[131] a French student, who had lived in Belgium for three years, was entitled to receive the "minimex" income support for his fourth year of study. Similarly, in R (Bidar) v London Borough of Ealing the Court of Justice held that it was lawful to require a French UCL economics student to have lived in the UK for three years before receiving a student loan, but not that he had to have additional "settled status".[132] Similarly, in Commission v Austria, Austria was not entitled to restrict its university places to Austrian students to avoid "structural, staffing and financial problems" if (mainly German) foreign students applied, unless it proved there was an actual problem.[133] However, in Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig, the Court of Justice held that the German government was entitled to deny child support to a Romanian mother who had lived in Germany for 3 years, but had never worked. Because she lived in Germany for over 3 months, but under 5 years, she had to show evidence of "sufficient resources", since the Court reasoned the right to equal treatment in article 24 within that time depended on lawful residence under article 7.[134]
The Schengen Area[edit]
Main article: Schengen Area
Within the Schengen Area 22 of 28 EU member states (excluding Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Ireland, Romania and the United Kingdom) and the four EFTA members (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland) have abolished physical barriers across the single market by eliminating border controls. In 2015, limited controls were temporarily re-imposed at some internal borders in response to the migrant crisis.In November 2017, the German Ministry of Interior decided to subject flights from Greece to advanced checks, retracting from the Schengen Area processing by invoking Article 25 of the Schengen Agreement.[135]
Public sector procurement of goods and services[edit]
Main article: Government procurement in the European Union
Public procurement legislation [136] and guidance,[137] based on the four freedoms, require equal treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency to be maintained when purchasing goods and services for EU public sector bodies.
Integration of non-EU states[edit]
European Union member states Non-EU states that participate in the EU Single Market with exceptions: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland (see also EFTA) Non-EU states with a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the EU allowing for participation in selected sectors of the Single Market: EU accession candidates Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia; potential EU accession candidates: Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo Non-EU states with a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area agreement with the EU allowing for participation in selected sectors of the Single Market: Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine Non-EU states which have a bilateral Customs Union arrangement with the EU: Turkey, Andorra, Monaco and San Marino
See also: Future enlargement of the European Union
Only EU's 28 member states are fully within the European Single Market, while several other countries have been granted various degrees of access to it. The Single Market has been extended, with exceptions, to Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) and to Switzerland through bilateral treaties. The exceptions, where these EEA states do not participate in the EU Single Market, are:[138]
the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy (although the agreement contains provisions on trade in agricultural and fishery products);
the customs union;
the common trade policy;
the common foreign and security policy;
the field of justice and home affairs (although all the EFTA countries are part of the Schengen area); or
the economic and monetary union (EMU).
Stabilisation and Association Agreement states have a "comprehensive framework in place to move closer to the EU and to prepare for [their] future participation in the Single Market".[139]
Turkey has been a member of the European Union Customs Union since 1995, which enables it to participate in the free movement of goods with the EU.[6]
See also: European Union–Turkey relations
Through the agreement of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA), three post-Soviet countries Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine were given access to the "four freedoms" of the EU Single Market: free movement of goods, services, capital, and people. Movement of people however, is in form of visa free regime for short stay travel, while movement of workers remains within the remit of the EU Member States.[5] The DCFTA is an "example of the integration of a Non-EEA-Member into the EU Single Market".[140]
Further developments[edit]
Since 2015, the European Commission has been aiming to build a single market for energy.[141] and for the defence industry.[142]
On 2 May 2017 the European Commission announced a package of measures intended to enhance the functioning of the Single Market within the EU:[143]
Single Digital Gateway (a proposal for a single digital access point for information and administrative services)
Single Market Information Tool (a proposed regulation under which the Commission could require EU businesses to provide information in relation to the internal market and related areas where there is a suspicion that businesses are blocking the operation of the single market rules)[144]
SOLVIT Action Plan (aiming to reinforce and improve the functioning of the existing SOLVIT network).
Brexit[edit]
Since the UK's 2016 decision to withdraw from the EU, Britain has been in negotiations with the European Commission on terms for its future relationship with the Union. As of February 2018[update], both sides are working on the basis that the UK will also withdraw from the EU's single market (and its Customs Union),[145] at least after a transition phase.
See also[edit]
European Union law
Union State, a similar free movement zone for Russian and Belarusian citizens
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ "General policy framework". Europa web portal. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
Jump up ^ "The European Single Market". Europa web portal. Retrieved 28 May 2016.
Jump up ^ "Internal Market". European Commission. Retrieved 2015-06-17.
Jump up ^ Barnard, Catherine (2013). "Competence Review: The Internal Market" (PDF). Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Retrieved 2015-06-17.
^ Jump up to: a b The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area What’s it all about?. European External Action Service.
^ Jump up to: a b "Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the Customs Union" (PDF).
Jump up ^ European Commission. "A Single Market for goods". Europa web portal. Archived from the original on 21 June 2007. Retrieved 27 June 2007.
Jump up ^ Completing the Single Market, European Commission
Jump up ^ Cockfield, Arthur (1994). "European Union: Creating The European Single Market". Wiley Chancery Law. Retrieved 28 March 2017.
Jump up ^ Barnes, John. "Lord Cockfield". The Independent. Retrieved 28 March 2017.
Jump up ^ "EU Archives" (PDF). European Union. Retrieved 28 March 2017.
Jump up ^ "EU glossary: Jargon S-Z". Retrieved 17 June 2016.
Jump up ^ "? - EUR-Lex". Retrieved 17 June 2016.
^ Jump up to: a b "Introduction - EU fact sheets - European Parliament". Retrieved 17 June 2016.
Jump up ^ Directive 96/71/EC
Jump up ^ Directive 2006/123/EC
Jump up ^ "Justice policies at a glance - European Commission". Retrieved 17 June 2016.
Jump up ^ Case 27/67 Fink-Frucht
Jump up ^ Case 7/68 Commission v Italy
Jump up ^ "? - EUR-Lex". Retrieved 17 June 2016.
Jump up ^ "? - EUR-Lex". Retrieved 17 June 2016.
Jump up ^ "? - EUR-Lex". Retrieved 17 June 2016.
Jump up ^ "? - EUR-Lex". Retrieved 17 June 2016.
Jump up ^ "? - EUR-Lex". Retrieved 17 June 2016.
Jump up ^ Case 323/87 Commission v Italy (Taxation of rum) , 1989 ECR 2275.
Jump up ^ P Craig and G de Búrca, EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (6th edn 2015) chs 18-19. C Barnard, The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms (4th edn 2013) chs 2-6
Jump up ^ TFEU arts 28-30
Jump up ^ (1974) Case 8/74, [1974] ECR 837
Jump up ^ Previously TEEC article 30.
Jump up ^ See D Chalmers et al, European Union Law (1st edn 2006) 662, "This is a ridiculously wide test."
Jump up ^ Commission v Ireland (1982) Case 249/81
Jump up ^ Commission v France (1997) C-265/95. See further K Muylle, ‘Angry famers and passive policemen’ (1998) 23 European Law Review 467
Jump up ^ PreussenElektra AG v Schleswag AG (2001) C-379/98, [2001] ECR I-2099, [75]-[76]
Jump up ^ (2003) C-112/00, [2003] ECR I-5659
Jump up ^ (2003) C-112/00, [79]-[81]
Jump up ^ c.f. Leppik (2006) C-434/04, [2006] ECR I‑9171, Opinion of AG Maduro, [23]-[25]
Jump up ^ (2003) C-112/00, [2003] ECR I-5659, [77]. See ECHR articles 10 and 11.
Jump up ^ Oebel (1981) Case 155/80
Jump up ^ Mickelsson and Roos (2009) C-142/05
Jump up ^ Vereinigte Familiapresse v Heinrich Bauer (1997) C-368/95
Jump up ^ Dansk Supermarked A/S (1981) Case 58/80
Jump up ^ See C Barnard, The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms (4th edn 2013) 172-173, listing the present state.
Jump up ^ (1979) Case 170/78
Jump up ^ At the time, TEEC article 30
Jump up ^ (1979) Case 170/78, [13]-[14]
Jump up ^ (1983) Case 261/81
Jump up ^ (1983) Case 261/81, [17]
Jump up ^ (2003) C-14/00, [88]-[89]
Jump up ^ (2009) C-110/05, [2009] ECR I-519
Jump up ^ (2009) C-110/05, [2009] ECR I-519, [56]. See also Mickelsson and Roos (2009) C-142/05, on prohibiting jet skis, but justified if proportionate towards the aim of safeguarding health and the environment.
Jump up ^ (1993) C-267/91
Jump up ^ See also Torfaen BC v B&Q plc (1989) C-145/88, holding the UK Sunday trading laws in the former Shops Act 1950 were probably outside the scope of article 34 (but not clearly reasoned). The "rules reflect certain political and economic choices" that "accord with national or regional socio-cultural characteristics."
Jump up ^ cf Vereinigte Familiapresse v Heinrich Bauer (1997) C-368/95
Jump up ^ (1997) C-34/95, [1997] ECR I-3843
Jump up ^ (2001) C-405/98, [2001] ECR I-1795
Jump up ^ Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC
Jump up ^ Capital Movement Directive 1988 (88/361/EEC) Annex I, including (i) investment in companies, (ii) real estate, (iii) securities, (iv) collective investment funds, (v) money market securities, (vi) bonds, (vii) service credit, (viii) loans, (ix) sureties and guarantees (x) insurance rights, (xi) inheritance and personal loans, (xii) physical financial assets (xiii) other capital movements.
Jump up ^ (2000) C-251/98, [22]
Jump up ^ e.g. Commission v Belgium (2000) C-478/98, holding that a law forbidding Belgian residents getting securities of loans on the Eurobond was unjustified discrimination. It was disproportionate in preserving, as Belgium argued, fiscal coherence or supervision.
Jump up ^ See Commission v Netherlands (2006) C‑282/04, AG Maduro's Opinion on golden shares in KPN NV and TPG NV.
Jump up ^ (2007) C-112/05
Jump up ^ (2010) C-171/08
Jump up ^ TFEU art 345
Jump up ^ "Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payments in euro". EUR-lex - European Communities, Publications office, Official Journal L 344, 28 December 2001 P. 0013 - 0016. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
Jump up ^ "Cross border payments in the EU, Euro Information, The Official Treasury Euro Resource". United Kingdom Treasury. Archived from the original on 1 December 2008. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
Jump up ^ European Central Bank. "TARGET". Archived from the original on 23 October 2007. Retrieved 25 October 2007.
Jump up ^ See Delors Report, Report on Economic and Monetary Union in the EC (1988)
Jump up ^ e.g. J Stiglitz, 'Too important for bankers' (11 June 2003) The Guardian and J Stiglitz, The Price of Inequality (2011) ch 9 and 349
Jump up ^ See Asscher v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1996) C-107/94, [1996] ECR I-3089, holding a director and sole shareholder of a company was not regarded as a "worker" with "a relationship of subordination".
Jump up ^ See P Craig and G de Búrca, EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (6th edn 2015) ch 22. C Barnard, The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms (4th edn 2013) chs 10-11 and 13
Jump up ^ (1995) C-55/94, [1995] ECR I-4165
Jump up ^ Gebhard (1995) C-55/94, [37]
Jump up ^ TFEU art 54 treats natural and legal persons in the same way under this chapter.
Jump up ^ ITWF and Finnish Seamen’s Union v Viking Line ABP and OÜ Viking Line Eesti (2007) C-438/05, [2007] I-10779, [34]
Jump up ^ (1974) Case 2/74, [1974] ECR 631
Jump up ^ See also Klopp (1984) Case 107/83, holding a Paris avocat requirement to have one office in Paris, though "indistinctly" applicable to everyone, was an unjustified restriction because the aim of keeping advisers in touch with clients and courts could be achieved by ‘modern methods of transport and telecommunications’ and without living in the locality.
Jump up ^ (2011) C-565/08
Jump up ^ (2011) C-565/08, [52]
Jump up ^ Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd (2003) C-167/01
Jump up ^ cf Employee Involvement Directive 2001/86/EC
Jump up ^ (1988) Case 81/87, [1988] ECR 5483
Jump up ^ (1999) C-212/97, [1999] ECR I-1459. See also Überseering BV v Nordic Construction GmbH (2002) C-208/00, on Dutch minimum capital laws.
Jump up ^ The classic arguments are found in WZ Ripley, Main Street and Wall Street (Little, Brown & Co 1927), Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U.S. 517 (1933) per Brandeis J and W Cary, 'Federalism and Corporate Law: Reflections on Delaware' (1974) 83(4) Yale Law Journal 663. See further S Deakin, 'Two Types of Regulatory Competition: Competitive Federalism versus Reflexive Harmonisation. A Law and Economics Perspective on Centros' (1999) 2 CYELS 231.
Jump up ^ (2002) C-208/00, [92]-[93]
Jump up ^ (2008) C-210/06
Jump up ^ See further National Grid Indus (2011) C-371/10 (an exit tax for a Dutch company required justification, not justified here because it could be collected at the time of transfer) and VALE Epitesi (2012) C-378/10 (Hungary did not need to allow an Italian company to register)
Jump up ^ cf P Craig and G de Burca, EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials (2015) 815, "it seems that the CJEU's rulings, lacking any deep understanding of business law policies, have brought about other corporate law changes in Europe that were neither intended by the Court nor by policy-makers".
Jump up ^ TFEU arts 56 and 57
Jump up ^ (1974) Case 33/74
Jump up ^ cf Debauve (1980) Case 52/79, art 56 does not apply to ‘wholly internal situations’ where an activity are all in one member state.
Jump up ^ Belgium v Humbel (1988) Case 263/86, but contrast Schwarz and Gootjes-Schwarz v Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach (2007) C-76/05
Jump up ^ Wirth v Landeshauptstadt Hannover (1993) C-109/92
Jump up ^ (2001) C-157/99, [2001] ECR I-5473
Jump up ^ (2001) C-157/99, [48]-[55]
Jump up ^ (2001) C-157/99, [94] and [104]-[106]
Jump up ^ See Watts v Bedford Primary Care Trust (2006) C-372/04 and Commission v Spain (2010) C-211/08
Jump up ^ (2010) C‑137/09, [2010] I-13019
Jump up ^ (1995) C-384/93, [1995] ECR I-1141
Jump up ^ (2004) C-36/02, [2004] ECR I-9609
Jump up ^ (2009) C‑42/07, [2007] ECR I-7633
Jump up ^ 2006/123/EC
Jump up ^ "Digital Single Market". Retrieved 17 June 2016.
Jump up ^ Ian Traynor. EU unveils plans to set up digital single market for online firms. The Guardian. 6 May 2015.
Jump up ^ European Commission. "Living and working in the Single Market". Europa web portal. Archived from the original on 13 June 2007. Retrieved 27 June 2007.
Jump up ^ Maas, Willem (2007). Creating European Citizens. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-5485-6.
Jump up ^ P Craig and G de Búrca, EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (6th edn 2015) ch 21. C Barnard, The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms (4th edn 2013) chs 8-9 and 12-13
Jump up ^ See P Craig and G de Burca, European Union Law (2003) 701, there is a tension ‘between the image of the Community worker as a mobile unit of production, contributing to the creation of a single market and to the economic prosperity of Europe’ and the ‘image of the worker as a human being, exercising a personal right to live in another state and to take up employment there without discrimination, to improve the standard of living of his or her family’.
Jump up ^ Defrenne v Sabena (No 2) (1976) Case 43/75, [10]
Jump up ^ Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg (1986) Case 66/85, [1986] ECR 2121
Jump up ^ (1988) Case 196/87, [1988] ECR 6159
Jump up ^ Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig (2014) C‑333/13
Jump up ^ Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA (2000) C-281/98, [2000] ECR I-4139
Jump up ^ Free Movement of Workers Regulation 492/2011 arts 1-4
Jump up ^ (1995) C-415/93
Jump up ^ (1989) Case 379/87, [1989] ECR 3967
Jump up ^ (2000) C-281/98, [2000] ECR I-4139, [36]-[44]
Jump up ^ (1995) C-279/93
Jump up ^ (2004) C-387/01, [54]-[55]
Jump up ^ (2007) C-287/05, [55]
Jump up ^ (2007) C-213/05
Jump up ^ Hartmann v Freistaat Bayern (2007) C-212/05. Discussed in C Barnard, The Substantive Law of the European Union (2013) ch 9, 293-294
Jump up ^ See Van Duyn v Home Office Case 41/74, [1974] ECR 1337
Jump up ^ See NN Shuibhne, ‘The Resilience of EU Market Citizenship’ (2010) 47 CMLR 1597 and HP Ipsen, Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht (1972) on the concept of a ‘market citizen’ (Marktbürger).
Jump up ^ Grzelczyk v Centre Public d’Aide Sociale d’Ottignes-Louvain-la-Neuve (2001) C-184/99, [2001] ECR I-6193
Jump up ^ See T Marshall, Citizenship and Social Class (1950) 28-9, positing that ‘citizenship’ passed from civil rights, political rights, to social rights, and JHH Weiler, ‘The European Union belongs to its citizens: Three immodest proposals’ (1997) 22 European Law Review 150
Jump up ^ 5th Report on Citizenship of the Union COM(2008) 85. The ‘’First Annual Report on Migration and Integration’’ COM(2004) 508, found by 2004, 18.5m third country nationals were resident in the EU.
Jump up ^ CRD 2004 art 2(2) defines ‘family member’ as a spouse, long term partner, descendant under 21 or depednant elderly relative that is accompanying the citizen. See also Metock v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (2008) C-127/08, holding that four asylum seekers from outside the EU, although they did not lawfully enter Ireland (because their asylum claims were ultimately rejected) were entitled to remain because they had lawfully married EU citizens. See also, R (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh [1992] 3 CMLR 358
Jump up ^ See also the Communist Manifesto
Jump up ^ (1998) C-85/96, [1998] ECR I-2691
Jump up ^ (2004) C-456/02, [2004] ECR I-07573
Jump up ^ (2001) C-184/99, [2001] ECR I-6193
Jump up ^ (2005) C-209/03, [2005] ECR I-2119
Jump up ^ (2005) C-147/03
Jump up ^ (2014) C‑333/13
Jump up ^ "Europe in 12 lessons - Activities of the institutions and bodies - EU Bookshop". europa.eu.
Jump up ^ European Commission, Legal rules and implementation, accessed 16 May 2017
Jump up ^ Commission Interpretative Communication on the Community law applicable to contract awards not or not fully subject to the provisions of the Public Procurement Directives, 23 June 2006
Jump up ^ The European Economic Area (EEA), Switzerland and the North
Jump up ^ EU and Serbia: enhanced cooperation rules enter into force. European Commission Press Release Databease. Published on 31 August 2013.
Jump up ^ EU-Ukraine Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area. European External Action Service.
Jump up ^ [1]
Jump up ^ http://www.dw.com/en/eu-to-support-common-defense-market-boost-joint-spending/a-36593660
Jump up ^ European Commission, New steps to enhance the functioning of the EU Single Market, accessed 16 May 2017
Jump up ^ Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting out the conditions and procedure by which the Commission may request undertakings and associations of undertakings to provide information in relation to the internal market and related areas, accessed 16 May 2017
Jump up ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38641208
References[edit]
Books
Barnard, Catherine (2010). The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms (3rd ed.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-929839-6.
Chalmers, D.; et al. (2010). European Union Law: Text and Materials (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-12151-4.
Vaughan, David, Robertson, Aidan (eds) (2003 (looseleaf since)). Law of the European Union. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-1-904501-11-4. Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list (link)
Articles
Easson (1980). "The Spirits, Wine and Beer Judgments: A Legal Mickey Finn?". European Law Review. 5: 318.
Easson (1984). "Cheaper wine or Dearer Beer?". European Law Review. 9: 57.
Hedemann-Robinson (1995). "Indirect Discrimination: Article 95(1) EC Back to Front and Inside Out". European Public Law. 1: 439.
Danusso and Denton (1990). "Does the European Court of Justice Look for a Protectionist Motive under Article 95?". Legal Issues in European Integration. 1: 67.
Gormley, Laurence W (2008). "Silver Threads among the Gold: 50 years of the free movement of goods". Fordham International Law Journal. 31: 601.
Szczepanski, Marcin (2013). Further steps to complete the Single Market (PDF). Library of the European Parliament.
External links[edit]
European Union: internal market
[show]
v
t
e
Economy of the European Union
Market
European Single Market
Lisbon Strategy
Europe 2020
2008 European Union stimulus plan
Sapir Report
Aho report
European Employment Strategy
Institutions
& Offices
Euro Group
Ecofin
Central Bank
Investment Bank
Investment Fund
Economic and Financial Affairs Commissioner
Taxation and Customs Union Commissioner
EFSF
EFSM
European Economic and Social Committee
Policies
Agricultural (CAP)
Energy
Fisheries
Regional development
Law
Competition
Labour
Merger
Finance
NYSE Euronext
London Stock Exchange
Deutsche Börse
Currencies
British pound sterling (inc. Gibraltar pound)
Bulgarian lev
Croatian kuna
Czech koruna
Danish krone
Euro
Hungarian forint
Polish złoty
Romanian leu
Swedish krona
State economies
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Dependencies
of Denmark
Faroe Islands
Greenland
of France
French Polynesia
Mayotte
New Caledonia
Saint Barthélemy
Saint Martin
Saint Pierre and Miquelon
Wallis and Futuna
of the Netherlands
Aruba
Curaçao
Sint Maarten
of the United Kingdom
Anguilla
Bermuda
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Falkland Islands
Gibraltar
Montserrat
Pitcairn Islands
Saint Helena
Turks and Caicos Islands
R&D
EU patent
EIIT
Knowledge triangle
International
Largest trading partners
Free trade agreements
Third-country economic relationships
European Economic Area
Customs Union
Transatlantic Economic Council
Associations
BUSINESSEUROPE
European Trade Union Confederation
Euro Banking Association
Economics Portal
European Union Portal
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Internal Market
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Single_Market&oldid=831212281"
Categories:
European Single Market
Economic integration
Economy of the European Union
European Union law
Hidden categories:
Use dmy dates from March 2013
Wikipedia articles needing clarification from August 2016
Articles containing potentially dated statements from February 2018
All articles containing potentially dated statements
CS1 errors: dates
CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list
CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Español
Français
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Íslenska
Italiano
Македонски
Nederlands
Norsk
Polski
Română
Русский
Suomi
Svenska
Українська
中文
12 more
Edit links
This page was last edited on 19 March 2018, at 11:51.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

values:
/wiki/Internal_market_(disambiguation)
mw-disambig
Internal market (disambiguation)

values:
note
hatnote navigation-not-searchable

value: span

attrs: colspan class style

values: EU member states     Non-EU states that participate with exceptions(see integration of non-EU states)

values: border:#003399 solid 1px;; background-color:#003399; color:#003399

values: margin:0px; padding-bottom:1px; font-size:90%; text-align:left; display:block;

values: border:#2782bb solid 1px;; background-color:#2782bb; color:#2782bb

values: list-style: none none; margin-left: 0px; text-align: left; font-size: 105%; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; line-height: inherit; display: none;

values:
NavFrame collapsed
border: none; padding: 0;
NavFrame1

values:
NavFrame collapsed
border: none; padding: 0;
NavFrame2

values:
/wiki/Politics_of_European_Union
mw-redirect
Politics of European Union

values: Vice-President of the European Commission

values: Secretary-General of the European Commission

values: font-size: 105%; padding: 0px 0px 0.4em; text-align: left; display: none;

values: Political groups of the European Parliament

values:
/wiki/European_People%27s_Party_Group
mw-redirect
European People's Party Group

values: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats

values:
/wiki/8th_European_Parliament
mw-redirect
8th European Parliament

values: Members of the European Parliament 2014–19

values:
/wiki/Bureau_(European_Parliament)
mw-redirect
Bureau (European Parliament)

values: Vice President of the European Parliament

values: Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament

values: Presidency of the Council of the European Union

values:
/wiki/Justice_and_Home_Affairs_council
mw-redirect
Justice and Home Affairs council

values: Voting in the Council of the European Union

values: General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union

values: Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union

values: List of directorates-general of the council of the european union

values: List of members of the European Court of Justice

values: List of European Court of Justice rulings

values: Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union

values:
/wiki/File:Eurozone.svg
image
Eurozone since 2015

values:
/wiki/European_Anti-fraud_Office
mw-redirect
European Anti-fraud Office

values:
/wiki/Committee_of_the_Regions
mw-redirect
Committee of the Regions

values: National parliaments of the European Union

values: High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy

values:
/wiki/Federal_Europe
mw-redirect
Federal Europe

values:
/wiki/Enhanced_co-operation
mw-redirect
Enhanced co-operation

values:
/wiki/File:EP-constituencies.svg
image
Parliamentary constituencies

values: Referendums related to the European Union

values:
/wiki/Supremacy_(European_Union_law)
mw-redirect
Supremacy (European Union law)

values:
/wiki/Amsterdam_Treaty
mw-redirect
Amsterdam Treaty

values:
/wiki/Nice_Treaty
mw-redirect
Nice Treaty

values:
/wiki/Article_50_of_the_Lisbon_Treaty
mw-redirect
Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty

values: Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

values:
/wiki/Parties_in_the_European_Council
mw-redirect
Parties in the European Council

values:
/wiki/List_of_European_Councils
mw-redirect
List of European Councils

values: padding:0.3em 0.4em 0.3em;font-weight:bold;border-top: 1px solid #aaa; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaa;

values: Template talk:Politics of the European Union

values: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%

values:
/wiki/Good_(economics)
mw-redirect
Good (economics)

values: Freedom of movement for workers in the European Union

values: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

values:
/wiki/Cassis_de_Dijon_(court_case)
mw-redirect
Cassis de Dijon (court case)

values:
/wiki/Economic_and_Monetary_Union
mw-redirect
Economic and Monetary Union

values:
/wiki/Posted_Workers_Directive
mw-redirect
Posted Workers Directive

values: Directive on services in the internal market

values:
/wiki/Lisbon_Treaty
mw-redirect
Lisbon Treaty

values: Edit section: The four freedoms of the Single Market

values: Edit section: Customs duties and taxation

values: Edit section: Charges having equivalent effect to customs duties

values: Edit section: Quantitative and equivalent restrictions

values: Template talk:Clist goods movement (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Procureur_du_Roi_v_Dassonville
mw-redirect
Procureur du Roi v Dassonville

values: Deutscher Apothekerverband v 0800 DocMorris

values: Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: width: 350px; text-align: center; font-size: 80%; line-height: 1.5em; background-color: #fafafa; float: right; clear: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;;padding:3px

values:
/wiki/Measures_having_equivalent_effect
mw-redirect
Measures having equivalent effect

values:
/wiki/Austrian_Alps
mw-redirect
Austrian Alps

values:
/wiki/Labour_standards
mw-redirect
Labour standards

values: Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopol für Branntwein

values:
/wiki/Cassis_de_Dijon
mw-redirect
Cassis de Dijon

values: Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PVBA

values:
/wiki/Vegetable_fat
mw-redirect
Vegetable fat

values:
/wiki/Mutual_recognition
mw-redirect
Mutual recognition

values: Template talk:Clist capital movement (page does not exist)

values: Capital Movement Directive 1988 (page does not exist)

values: Baars v Inspecteur der Belastingen Particulieren (page does not exist)

values: Commission v Belgium (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Treaty_of_Maastricht
mw-redirect
Treaty of Maastricht

values:
/wiki/Capital_controls
mw-redirect
Capital controls

values:
/wiki/Company_shares
mw-redirect
Company shares

values:
/wiki/Advocate_General_Maduro
mw-redirect
Advocate General Maduro

values:
/wiki/Golden_shares
mw-redirect
Golden shares

values:
/wiki/Volkswagen_Act_1960
mw-redirect
Volkswagen Act 1960

values:
/wiki/Portugal_Telecom
mw-redirect
Portugal Telecom

values:
/wiki/Single_currency
mw-redirect
Single currency

values:
/wiki/Eurozone_crisis
mw-redirect
Eurozone crisis

values: Edit section: Freedom to establish and provide services

values:
/wiki/European_company_law
mw-redirect
European company law

values: R (Daily Mail and General Trust plc) v Treasury

values: Gebhard v Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano

values: Centros Ltd v Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen

values: Überseering BV v Nordic Construction GmbH

values:
/wiki/The_Rosella
mw-redirect
The Rosella

values:
/wiki/ITWF_v_Viking_Line_ABP
mw-redirect
ITWF v Viking Line ABP

values: clause makes no sense: something missing? Source would help, the ref at end is not. (August 2016)

values:
noprint Inline-Template
margin-left:0.1em; white-space:nowrap;

values: Centros Ltd v Erhversus-og Selkabssyrelsen

values:
/wiki/UK_company_law
mw-redirect
UK company law

values:
/wiki/Voice_at_work
mw-redirect
Voice at work

values: R (Daily Mail and General Trust plc) v HM Treasury

values:
/wiki/Insolvency_(law)
mw-redirect
Insolvency (law)

values: Services in the Internal Market Directive 2006

values: Säger v Dennemeyer & Co Ltd (page does not exist)

values: Alpine Investments BV v Minister van Financiën

values:
/wiki/Omega_Spielhallen_GmbH_v_Bonn
mw-redirect
Omega Spielhallen GmbH v Bonn

values:
/wiki/Human_dignity
mw-redirect
Human dignity

values: Liga Portuguesa de Futebol v Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa

values:
/wiki/Services_Directive
mw-redirect
Services Directive

values: Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to move and reside freely

values: Template talk:Clist worker movement (page does not exist)

values: Free Movement of Workers Regulation 2011

values: Steymann v Staatssecretaris van Justitie

values: Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA

values: Weigel v Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg

values:
/wiki/Citizens_Rights_Directive_2004
mw-redirect
Citizens Rights Directive 2004

values:
/wiki/Gravier_v_City_of_Liege
mw-redirect
Gravier v City of Liege

values:
/wiki/Metock_v_Minister_for_Justice
mw-redirect
Metock v Minister for Justice

values:
/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_for_workers
mw-redirect
Freedom of movement for workers

values:
/wiki/European_Community
mw-redirect
European Community

values:
/wiki/Factor_of_production
mw-redirect
Factor of production

values:
/wiki/Direct_effect
mw-redirect
Direct effect

values:
/wiki/R.F.C._de_Li%C3%A8ge
mw-redirect
R.F.C. de Liège

values: Template talk:Clist citizen rights (page does not exist)

values: Baumbast and R v SS for the Home Department

values: Zhu and Chen v SS for the Home Department (page does not exist)

values: Ruiz Zambrano v ONEM (page does not exist)

values: Grzelczyk v Centre Public d’Aide Sociale

values:
/wiki/Equal_treatment
mw-redirect
Equal treatment

values: Trojani v Centre public d’aide sociale de Bruxelles

values:
/wiki/Migrant_crisis
mw-redirect
Migrant crisis

values: Edit section: Public sector procurement of goods and services

values: Government procurement in the European Union

values: Edit section: Integration of non-EU states

values: border:#3F48CC solid 1px;; background-color:#3F48CC; color:#3F48CC

values: border:#3dc1ed solid 1px;; background-color:#3dc1ed; color:#3dc1ed

values: border:#48cc3f solid 1px;; background-color:#48cc3f; color:#48cc3f

values: border:DarkOrange solid 1px;; background-color:DarkOrange; color:DarkOrange

values: border:#FFD833 solid 1px;; background-color:#FFD833; color:#FFD833

values: Future enlargement of the European Union

values: plainlinks noexcerpt noprint asof-tag update

values:
/wiki/Russian_citizenship
mw-redirect
Russian citizenship

values: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

values: Mickelsson and Roos (page does not exist)

values: Vereinigte Familiapresse v Heinrich Bauer (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Dansk_Supermarked_A/S
mw-redirect
Dansk Supermarked A/S

values: Torfaen BC v B&Q plc (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Shops_Act_1950
mw-redirect
Shops Act 1950

values: Commission v Netherlands (page does not exist)

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.euro.gov.uk/crossborder.asp

values: Asscher v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Employee_Involvement_Directive
mw-redirect
Employee Involvement Directive

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 288

values: National Grid Indus (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Business_law
mw-redirect
Business law

values: Schwarz and Gootjes-Schwarz v Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach (page does not exist)

values: Wirth v Landeshauptstadt Hannover (page does not exist)

values: Watts v Bedford Primary Care Trust (page does not exist)

values: Commission v Spain (page does not exist)

values: Hartmann v Freistaat Bayern (page does not exist)

values: Metock v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

values:
/wiki/Communist_Manifesto
mw-redirect
Communist Manifesto

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values: Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list

values: Category:CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list

values: European Law Review (page does not exist)

values: European Public Law (page does not exist)

values: Legal Issues in European Integration (page does not exist)

values: Template talk:Economy of the European Union

values: European Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs

values: European Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union, Audit and Anti-Fraud

values: European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism

values:
/wiki/European_Community_merger_law
mw-redirect
European Community merger law

values: Special member state territories and the European Union

values:
/wiki/Economy_of_Saint_Barth%C3%A9lemy
mw-redirect
Economy of Saint Barthélemy

values:
/wiki/Economy_of_Saint_Martin_(France)
mw-redirect
Economy of Saint Martin (France)

values:
/wiki/Economy_of_Sint_Maarten
mw-redirect
Economy of Sint Maarten

values:
/wiki/Economy_of_the_Pitcairn_Islands
mw-redirect
Economy of the Pitcairn Islands

values: European Institute of Innovation and Technology

values: List of the largest trading partners of the European Union

values: Third-country economic relationships with the European Union

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible collapsed navbox-inner

values: wikisource:Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

values: Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification from August 2016

values: Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from February 2018

values: Category:All articles containing potentially dated statements

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/European_Single_Market
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: Mercat interior de la Unió Europea – Catalan

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ca
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-cs
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-da
display: none;

values: Mustand:Euroopa Liidu neli põhivabadust – Estonian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-et
display: none;

values: Mercado interior de la Unión Europea – Spanish

values: Marché intérieur (Union européenne) – French

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-hr
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-is
display: none;

values: Внатрешен пазар (Европска Унија) – Macedonian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-mk
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-no
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-pl
display: none;

values: Cele patru libertăți de circulație – Romanian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ro
display: none;

values: Европейский единый рынок – Russian

values: Euroopan unionin sisämarkkinat – Finnish

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-fi
display: none;

values: Внутрішній ринок Європейського Союзу – Ukrainian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-uk
display: none;

values: 歐洲單一市場 – Chinese

values: All languages (initial selection from common choices by you and others)

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-European_Single_Market rootpage-European_Single_Market skin-vector action-view