Regulating the EU internal market
What is the controversy of article 114?
1) Competence competence 2) Subsidiarity. Where in this law do we ensure that the EU does not have competence competence? And 2) Subsidiarity? How do we ensure the principle of subsidiarity?
Main goals of the Internal Markets
"The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance." These are the main goals of the Internal Markets - what we see is that there is allot of conflicts, "growth and environment", "price stability and full employment". These conflicts gives the commission extensive power to develop the internal market that you want.
WHY IS THE NOTIFICATION DIRECTIVE SUCCESFULL?
1) Member states have an interest in sustaining it - they will act as guardians against each-other - but this applies to some extent. 2) But most importantly: It is a DRAFT - its just an attempt by a government to introduce a law, it is not actually a law, and thus reform and revise makes it much easier for member states. OVERALL ITS A PEER-REVIEW SYSTEM
Humanplasma case:
A question about the public procurement of Hospitals, and how you will manage to sell blood to Hospitals. According to procurement rules, you could not trade blood if donors was paid, and a company had done this, so they argued that blood was a good so the freedoms protecte them. The question was is blood a good? The answer was yes.
Soft Law:
All we have seen up until now is hard law - regulations, directives, etc - something that is legally binding. However, there is also the possibility to regulate the EU internal market through "soft-law", such as guidelines. How do you create this soft-law? You have two possibilities: Coregulation or self regulation. Coregulation is when guidelines are written at the same time by representatives of public authorities and firms - imagine we want to stop cars killing people when hitting them - there are few car producers so you can sit together with them to develop guidelines. Self-regulation is when the firm "regulates itself", aka facebook. This has been critiqued because there is no way of independently justifying if the system works. Aka: banks regulating themselves and trusting credit agencies. Why has the use of co-regulation and self-regulation stopped working? Council and Parliament not being involved.
Article 114
Article 114 is the most important article for the internal market - it did not exist in the Rome Treaty. Articles 114 and 115 TFEU allow the EU to regulate those elements of private law which create obstacles to trade in the internal market. The most frequently used legal form is that of a directive. Paragraph 3 sets out the importance of taking into account various more socio-environmental elements when proposing a law - this was largely the result of the importance of the standards being high during harmoinsation, states were worried that the EU would otherwise harmonize based on the lowest denominator. This matters allot as it gives the EU an excuse to set very high standards in its harmonization. Paragraph 4 sets out the process by which member states can have exceptions and maintain their national law, albeit with reference to higher standards and a change in material circumstances. Paragrpah Article 114 TFEU constitutes the main Treaty article used to enact harmonisation measures, and can be used to adopt measures at EU level whose object is the 'establishment and functioning of the internal market'. There are however limitations, 1) resort to Article 114 TFEU can only be made where no other specific legal basis applies (eg Article 113 TFEU, Article 192 TFEU). 2) the measures adopted under Article 114 TFEU must be for approximation of laws (also known as harmonization) ie create a single standard; if the effect of the national rule is to leave national laws remain unchanged then Article 114 TFEU cannot be used. 3) Article 114(2) TFEU expressly provides that Article 114(1) TFEU cannot be used to adopt fiscal measures, nor measures relating to the free movement of persons, nor measures relating to the rights and interests of employed persons—areas considered to be too sensitive to be the subject of QMV. 4) Article 115 TFEU could be used instead.
Council Directive 1992:
Both pentachlorophenol (CAS No 87-86-5) and its compounds are substances that are dangerous to man and the environment, and in particular the aquatic environment, but restrictions which have already been imposed by certain Member States on the use of marketing of the above mentioned substances or of preparations affect the establishment and functioning of the internal market - therefore it is necessary to harmonize the area - which this directive seeks to do. The latest amendment concerns prohibiting the marketing and use of pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters in a concentration equal to or greater than 0,1 % by mass in substances and preparations. However, four exceptions are given. The use of pentachlorophenol and its compounds in industrial installations is permitted : (a) for wood preservation ; (b) for the impregnation of fibres and heavy-duty textiles (c) as a synthesizing and/or processing agent in industrial processes (d) for the in situ treatment of buildings of cultural and historic interest (subject to individual authorization by the Member State concerned).
CIA Security Case:
CIA security is a Belgian company dealing with alarms for houses for individuals. Belgium wanted to introduce a legislation regarding alarms that you can use for house - the idea being to protect consumers - and the Belgians decided to skip notification. The facts are abit complex, you have two companies, one of which advertised that CIA security was not following the new legislation. The case eventually reached prliminary reference, and ruled that in case the member state was expected to notify about a legislation - and member states don't do - all the technical rules in the legislation in question is not applicable. As a consequence all legislation not notified has the risk of not applying. This ofc had huge effects on the incentive of member states (and firms in then) to push for drafts to go through the notification procedure - else risk that the technical details are determined void by a national (or European) court.
Commission v Italy:
Case concerned Italy, whom wanted to stop art leaving the country, the court therefore defined goods as 1) a product which can be valued in money, and 2) which are capable of forming a subject of a commercial transaction.
Classical approach of harmonization:
Classical Approach (Still used, don't let the name fool you). Let's say you have a water bottle, the classical approach seeks to harmonize EVERY single aspect of the water bottle. It is a very detailed method. The positives of this: - Legal certainty. - Companies love this type of the directive, because then they will have this legal certainty. The negative side: - It hampers innovation (in the product) and competition: especially given the very, very, long legislation time. - A good example of this is the definition of jam. It took the EU over 12 years of negotiation to decide how to define jam, which is important for your product because "jam" is more appealing than "Squeezed fruit". However, then Portugal joined, and they make jam out of vegetables (they love carrot jam). Issue is the negotiation definition for jam meant it had to be fruit, so the EU had to go through a long process to define carrots as a vegetables in all cases except fruit. The point is that it does not need to be a technical prodcut. Why did it take 12 years to define what is jam? Because every country wanted their own definition.
Ex-ante control of national legislation:
Controls of national legislation are essential. Either we harmonise through directives, or we let member states create laws that must coalign with the articles (which is cumbersome, inflexible, and leavs to different interpretations -all leading to uncertainty). To ensure correct controls of national legislation, a multitude of directves have been created, the first of which is the directive 83/189 "the notification directive". It aplies if it is a non-harmonized area and it states that if a law proposal contains technical rules and concerns a product, the DRAFT must be sent to the Commission. The commission then translates it into 28 different languages (as long as the draft is not longer than 50 pages), which is made available on the website "Iris" (Which is public, so firms and indviduals can get the information), sent to relevant Commission DGs, and to every member state. Then a few things can happen (all of which is NON-PUBLIC): 1) Nothing happens: then after 3 months the concerned member state can pass the draft text. 2) Questions: another member state can ask for abit of clarification. 3) Objection: Commission and Member States 4) Detailed opinion: A more througough critque of the law proposal, which can be sent by either member states or the commission. 25 000 government texts have been sent - very succesful but I don't know why? What will happen if you have a substantial reform? You send it again for notification. Also, of course there is an emergency clause to speed through this process if need be. Swedish fire-extinguisher case (You have read this one). The Notification Directive (83/189) was incredibly successful, so it has been extended to information society law (though it is quicker and was the first definition for information law), fisheries, and commerical policy.
Emergency Clause:
Every harmonisation act must have an "emergency" clause - in case people suddenly die because of a product there must be a quick legal way to act. For example, in France there was a massive issue of breast implants, which meant they could call for an emergency procedure.
Commission decision concerning Germany 2:
Following the application submitted by the French Republic, the Court of Justice, in its judgment of 17 May 1994 Q), annulled the (previous) commission decision because of the failure to provide the statement of reasons laid down by Article 190 of the EC Treaty, without ruling on the other points raised by the applicant. What follows is a much more thorough statement of reason concerning the same case, with the same result (endorsing the German decision to continue to apply national legislation instead of the directive). Concluding that German authorities to continue to apply the national provisions on PCP examined above instead of Directive 91 /173/EEC is justified by the specific circumstances relating to health protection and the environment in Germany. The Commission considers moreover that on the basis of the foregoing, the provisions should be regarded as both necessary and proportionate to the objectives that they seek to achieve.
France V Commission
France contesetes the validity of the previous commission decision, and the court largely decided the case on procedual grounds: The commissions decision neeeded to be annulled for infringement of an essential procedural requirement as it did not satisfy the obligation to state reasons: The commission had failed to give the statement of the reasons which led to institution to adopt them, so the court court could not excersise the power of review. It was the first time that the derogation procedure in (what is now) article 114 TFEU had been applied and given the "numerous interpreative doubts arising from that provision, an adequate statement of reason was particularly neccessary". The judgment reveals a pressing concern to respect the percieved procedural parameteters of the notification mechanism. The court took the opportunity to emphasise that hormonisation norms would be rendered ineffective if the member states retained the right to apply unliteral rules derogatitating from thoise meassurs. They must recieve formal approval by the commission before doing so. Basically it raised the importance of the notification procedure and the commission.
Important Definitions
Free Trade Area: Tariffs and quotas are eliminated on trade between participating countries but are maintained with third countries (as example NAFTA agreements); may allow the free movement of all goods within the territory of participating States, or only of specific categories of goods. Custom Union: Countries remove barriers to trade and adopt a Common External Tariff vis-à-vis third countries. It requires a common customs policy. Common Market/Internal Market A custom union in which all goods enjoy the freedom of movement and where the free movement of workers/people, capital and services are guaranteed. The realisation of the four freedoms requires harmonisation of further policy areas (i.e. competition policy or regional policy). Monetary Union: This is an Internal Market with a single currency. This implies a common currency plus co-ordination of some macro-economic policies.
Ordinary Legislative Procedure in the internal market
In order with the ordinary legislative procedure, the Com Final is sent to A) Parliament and B) Council, C) national parliaments (to check if the law conforms with subsidiarity). You know how it works between the EP and the Council after this, and 4) WTO (Which can comment on the legislation and a state can bring the EU to the Appelite body if they deem it a trade barrier in relation to the WTO). In the Parliament the Com Final is sent to the EP, first to Comittees (whom pick Shadow rapoteur and rapoteurs). However, the EP suffers from having NO technical staff, so when it comes to really technical aspects Lobbies are very influential in the parliament process. in the Council it is sent to the current 6-month presidency (currently Finland), whom are assisted by the staff of the Council and adviced by a council such as the Social and Economic Council. Likewise, Lobbies are very influential in the council process. Over this entire process, the ECJ provides overview, if any institution fails to comply with any of these steps (with a legal basis), they can be sued. Provided the ordinary legislative procedure accepts a Com Final, it is translated to the official languages and then it is published in the official journal of the European Union, and then it becomes a directive (or regulation). C) Transposition: If it is a directive, then it needs to be transposed into national law (often one directive means a 100 national legislations must be changed). The national governments then need to send it over to the commission, whom then need to supervise the process. In general, the entire process takes between 3-4 years..... 12-18 Months to make a Com Final, 2 years in ordinary legislative procedure. and 12-18 months of transposition.
Thompson Case:
In the UK there is very strict legislation regarding exports and imports of gold, silver, etc. Mr Thompson has engaged in the export and import of gold and silvers, he had exported alloy from previous UK coins, which he metled and sold. Likewise, he had imported gold coins from Latin America. Customs blocks the entry of this gold and silver, presses charges, and Mr Thompson defends himself with reference to the Free Movement of Goods. The issue was weather the export and import can be about legal tender or primarily goods. The court said that if - they have a legal tender, its a coin - then its not a good (at the time, freedom of capital was very limited).
Methods of harmonization:
Let's do something abit harder: we've discussed the intensity of harmonistation, but now we will move onto something more difficult: Methods of harmonisation.
Ex-post control of national legislation:
Let's talk Ex-post (this is a shorter system of control over national legislation). As a result, we are seeing the introduced of this new decision to introduce ex post controls - which worked better. Let's imagine a law-draft has gone through the ex ante notification process and now has been passed and reached legal force. During the National Implementation of the law member states often have the power to make an "indvidual decision" again companies whom are not deemed to follow the new law. However, before sending this individual decision, member states have a legal obligation to consult with the company and give them 20 days to adapt to the new laws. Basically, this is a system that is identical with the TBT system of the GATT/WTO (but with more teeth!).
After transposition:
Once you have transposed a new act (directive/regulation), you have to make sure firms/citizens are aware of the act & regulation. Information: This is done through YourEurope Advice site, the Europe Consumer Network (providing infomration), then the Enable: Method exists to enable companies to know about new legsilation (member states have a responsbility to create a single point of contact that can communicate in two languages). Connect: One of the main challenges is informing national administration about these acts -> to do this the EU has created the "internal market information system" where different national administators can communicate. Problem-solving: Use Solveit or EU Pilot or (at desperate times) use the EU pilot. Evaluate: You evolve the activites of transposition, information, enable, connect, evaluation -> if you notice issues you create new legislation through the same legislative procedure (taking many more years). Basically, the process of internal market regulation is a CONSTANT proccess.
The commissions role in the internal market:
Proposes legislation: If it concerns old legislation these proposals arrive from comittees (often comitology process). If it concerns a new law, than lobbies, European councils, trialouge (Parliament, member states), or citizen innitiatives can push the commission to introduce legislation. They can ask the commission to write a "green paper", a discussion paper, or a "White paper", which is a more direct way of asking key questions, and then the commission holds a "consultation" which involves asking key stakeholders about the area to gain legitimacy/gain information. The Commission then sends the outcomes of these productions (Green paper/White Paper/Consultation) to a specific unit of the commission tasked with introducing a draft of the legislation and conduct an impact assessment (concerning social, economic, environmental, proportionality, and subsidiarity effects of the draft legislation). Often the economic parts of the impact assessment are made by external consulting agencies (such as PWC), as it adds legitimacy and capacity. The impact assessments are then reviewed by external boards (independent personal at the commission), which are actually quite harsh (40% are rejected or revise and resubmited). Once the unit delivers an impact asessments and draft legislation, other relevant DGs are consulted (alongside the secretary general and legal services) in an internal discussion. If the internal discussion works well, than the commission makes the draft legislation into a formal commission proposal "called Com Final". The College of Commissioners then need to rubber stamp the proposal.
Evaluation of the new approach:
The New Approach is easier at the beginning, but you cannot avoid the nitpicking. One of the largest defenses of the New Approach is that you can choose not to follow the standard, and therefore it does not stiffen innovation like the classical approach. However, if you decide to not join the standard, then you must instead create your own standard (meeting the requirements of the directive) and taking it through the because the costs are quite high (therefore de facto stifftening innovation). Notified Bodies are competing. It usually takes two years to create standards by standard agencies, so there is not a time period. It costs money to pay standard agencies, notified bodies, etc. This likely gives large firms an advantage (though the EU finances SMEs applying for standards). Standard agencies consists of industry experts, which have some lobbying powers.
Competence and the Internal market:
The Union shall share competence with the Member States where the Treaties confer on it a competence which does not relate to the areas referred to in Articles 3 and 6. The competences of the EU are essential, because they reveal the holy rule of EU law: The union does not have competence competence, it cannot give itself competence. As a result, for the EU to legislate, it must always refer back to one of the competencies it has been given. When we are referring to shared competencies, it means member states and the union both have the power to legislate, but in practice it means member states are not allowed to legislate in conflict with union legislation.
Commission V Italy:
The case concerned electricity (which is clearly a good) - which means that today electricity is not a service.
The issue with a Solveit judgment (even a positive one)
The issue with a Solveit judgment (even a positive): National Administrations (not the EU) will interpret EU legislation, and this might be an incorrect interpretation. In some ways. A positive judgment will actually be worse because there is then no guarantee that the EU doesn't check it then.
Intensity of Harmonisation:
The key thing to understand is that when you harmonise you have different 1) levels of intensity and 2) methods. Regarding the intensity you have three levels: Full harmonisation, limited harmonisation, and minimum harmonisation. Full harmonisation, such as the Cosmetic Directive and related provide case, entail that you must entirely harmonise. In the case, a German company wanted an Italian delivery, with the Italian refusing to deliver the good because it did not comply with national law. Germany pointed out that the cosmetics directive is full harmonisation directive which means you have a pan-european definition of the product which you cannot add to. The positives of full harmonisation is unifrom application, easier for businesses & consumers to comply/understand. Negatives are that it can (but not must as you can refer to paragraph 5 in Article 114) make it harder for member states to legislate for a higher level, and it is also harder to reach an agreement as you need to have a high level of detail in order to encompass laws. Minimum harmonisation means you set a minimum requirement, but with room for higher requirements if you want. A good example of minimum harmonisation is advertising on tobaco, the directive says you need to have 15% of the package that consists of the warning. But, of course, you could also have 80% of the package consisting of this. What you are not allowed to do is have a cigarette which goes below 15%. Positive elements of minimum harmonisations is that it allows for the possibility of member states to seek higher standards, but the problem is that it allows for the distortion of competition (If it costs more money to kill a cow in the UK then Spain because of animal protection) - it raises allot of questions. Optional Harmonisation is something that has been barely used, it is very special and was used in the beginning of the EU. Basically these directives makes it optional for member states to harmonise, but not legally obligatory (this has recently been used on the internet).
Commission decision concerning Germany 1:
The permanent Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany notified the Commission pursuant to Article 100a (4) of the EEC Treaty, of his Government's decision to continue to apply (more stringent) national provisions concerning pentachlorophenol (PCP) instead of Council Directive 91 /173/EEC (') The Commission essentially endorsed the German regulation of 12 December 1989 prohibiting the manufacture, marketing and use of pentachlorophenol, its salts and compounds, preparations containing more than 0,01 % of the said substances and products.
Joseman case:
This case concerns Mr Joseman in Maastricht, whom is running an interesting shop which is called "easy going", where you can buy Cannabis. In the Netherlands, if you sell canabis you can have police charges brought against you, but there is a "policy of tolerance" if it is sent within the coffee shops. The issue for cities on borders (such as Maastricht) is that foreigners come and buy cannabis, and injuring this policy of tolerance. Maastricht asked the city council to pass a law where it allowed the policy of tolerance for coffee shops, but that it would only apply for Dutch people. The consequence for mr Joseman is that it costs him custommers, and so he argued in favor of freedom movement of goods. However, in the Netherlands Canabis is still technically illegal (it is just tolerated), and so the court argued that it could not be a discussion about goods. However, the court did find that it concerned Services (because in a coffee shop you also sell drinks and pastries).
Germany V Parliament:
This case discussed various interesting aspects of EU law. Concerned the successful challenge by Germany to the Union's competence to adopt the Tobacco Advertising Directive 98/43. This Directive, which banned tobacco advertising and sports sponsorship by tobacco companies, was adopted under Article 114 TFEU. Germany argued that this measure really concerned public health and, as we have seen, Article 168(5) TFEU expressly excluded EU competence to harmonise. The Court appeared to agree: it said other Articles of the Treaty could not be used 'as a legal basis in order to circumvent the express exclusion of harmonization laid down in [Article 168(5) TFEU]'. Moreover, the court made clear that the measures referred to in Article [114 TFEU] are intended to improve the conditions for the establishment and functioning of the internal market. To construe that Article as meaning that it vests in the [Union] legislature a general power to regulate the internal market would not only be contrary to the express wording of the provisions cited above but would also be incompatible with the principle embodied in Article [5(1) TEU] that the powers of the [Union] are limited to those specifically conferred on it. Instead, it found that article 144 could be used when 1) The legislation contributes to the elimination of likely obstacles to the exercise of fundamental freedoms. - In the concerned directive it would go to far to prohibit static advertising media' (eg posters, parasols, ashtrays, and other articles used in hotels, restaurants, and cafés) because the effect on free movement of goods was too uncertain and indirect. 2) where the legislation contributes to the removal of appreciable distortions of competition which are likely to arise from the diverse national rules. - In the concerned directive, the court ruled that the EU had no power to regulate in respect of advertising agencies and producers of advertising media established in Member States (the argument being that those agencies established in states which imposed fewer restrictions on tobacco advertising were at an advantage in terms of economies of scale and increase in profits), because the effects of such advantages on competition were 'remote and indirect' and did not 'constitute distortions which could be described as appreciable'. But it was allowed concerning sport sponsorship. Overall, decision in Tobacco Advertising I was the high water mark of the Court's recognition of the outer limits of Article 114 TFEU on positive integration.
Commission V Belgium
This case is very important, also known as "The Waste Case". Its about the free movement of waste. In Belgium, specifically walognia, had become the wasteland of the Netherlands,due to the high waste standards in the Netherlands and low ones in Walgonia. As a result, they introduced a very strict law regulating the free movement of waste. Commission sued Belgium because they considered the case contrary to the freedom of good. Belgium was smart and questioned the notion that waste was a good. The court spent the first ten pages asking if existing directives on waste were applicable (illustrating that the first QUESTION IS ALWAYS IS IT HARMONIZED). In this case, despite the exsitence of secondary legislation, some questions were not harmonized: one of which was "what was waste" and Belgium argued that Waste clearly has no value in money (it actually has a negative). And since waste could not be considered free movement of anything else, it does not belong to EU law. The Court argued it was a good.
New approach of harmonization:
This is very important - its called the new approach but it is rather old - it arose from the Single European Act: its part of the package to launch the European Internal Market. The New Approach has regulated 20 different topics - the most important are the toy directive and the Medical Device directive. Let's look at the case of toys (the Toy directive) to illustrate. The directive defines what a toy is, and the directive states that if a product reaches the requirement of the directive, it can flow freely in the internal market. In order for this toy to be allowed to circulate freely, it must be "safe". In order to be "safe", you must fufill some essential requirements (which can be found in the annex) such as being safe when using electrical power, ediblity, etc. In order for a requirement to be qualified a standard (a more elaborate explanation of the requirements) must be created by a standard agency (so to reach a standard for " safe to use with electricity" need to be created by a standard agency like Cen 1961, Cenelec, and ETSE). To become a standard it must be crated by a standard agency - which consists of national standardization bodies. Using a standard is not compulsory, and you do have to pay to use it. If you follow a standard you then know you are complying with the directives requirements. If you decide to follow the standard, then you (as a prodct producer) must do a confirmatory procedure (8 different procedures, starting with a check yourself to an indpendent body (alo known as a notified body) checking every product). To give an example, medical devices go from crunches to pace makers, and the confirmatory procedure varies. If you have a crunch, then you do not need an indepdnent regulatory body cheking every product, but a pace maker must be checked by an independent body (a notfified body).When it comes to toys, the confirmatory process is quite simple: you simply need to check yourself that you reach the standard. The notfied bodies (the independent bodies that engage in the confirmatory process) are competing. The notified body tests weather a product reaches all of the standards set out by the standard agency. If the independent body (notified body) tests the product and finds that standards are reached, then it gives it a CE marking (certificate europe). In order to ensure that the notified body follows the system, the EU has created the EA (to supervise the notified bodies) and their are also control procedures of the Notified Body. Moreover the notified body is supervised by member states. Then the company can place the CE marking on the product and it will be allowed to travel freely in the Single Market. There is an issue with the New Approach, member states basically check if the standards are reached, there is little involvement by the EU.
The evolution of the internal market:
We have seen the development of the single market with time. In the Treaty of Rome (1957) the Common Market was developed first as a customs union, they wanted free movement of goods and services, and the free movement of persons (workers). In terms of implementation of this aim, there were some successes: The establishment of the Customs Union was a success story. Why? The GATT had basically worked on this since the early 1940's, so allot of the work had already been done.Likewise, the freedom of workers was a fairly succesful development. Why? Because Europe was looking for workers. There was also an elimination of the Quota and the VAT. However, there were also some failures: There was no success in terms of regulating quantiative restrictions (Like my bottle can only be this large), which negativitely affected freedom of goods. Likewise, allot of goods were produced by state-owned enterprises, which made freedom of goods implemntation difficult. Likewise freedom of services went nowhere. So there was some failures, some successes, as always it was ups and downs - but by the end of the 1970's, there were multiple actors whom viewed the creation of the common market as a failure, fueled by the recession of the oil crisis. Instead, the EU started developing in other fields, and there was a waiting. In 1985, the idea of the Single Europe Act was in full order, some member states were against, but an intergovernmental conference was called. The Commission, under president Delors, published the legendary white paper in 1985, which argued that the only way to achieve the Single Market required a massive amount of legislation (over 300+ pieces of legislation). The member states adopt a definition of what a single market is (article 26, VERY IMPORTANT). Then, what the states did was to set a deadline in December 1993, and they (crucially) they changed the voting procedure on the single market from unaminity to qualified majority. Most of these 300 measures were adopted, but the member states whom did not support the legislation decided to increasingly delay transpositions. The lesson from this is that the story of the EU single market is very long story.
Definition of Good:
You have the free movement of good, services (and freedom of establishment), workers, and capital. You have specific rules for each freedom of movement, but to use the rule you first need to know what is a "good", a "service", and an "establishment". These definitions are not entirely different, but they are still somewhat different. The definition of goods (unlike services) is not defined in the treatise, but through jurisprudence.
SOLVEIT
new mechanism (SOLVIT) to ensure that you have the correct implementation of EU law (concerning the Internal Market and protecting all the freedoms). Let's imagine that we have an Irish student/company, they want to go to start their studies/business in France, when they want to register (at the university or business), and then the French government says you're not allowed to register. You have the choice of either going through the French legal systems, or complain to the commission through the infringement proceeding (takes allot of time though). However through this decision - we also have a system called "SOLVIT" through a home centre. The home centre can then contact the lead centre in France (which is under the French government) go to the administrative body in charge of the decision. This should take NO MORE THAN 10 weeks, then the lead centre sends back the decision to the home centre, which in turn contacts the irish students or businessman. It has a (roughly) 75% solution rate. However, it is up to the states to decide on how the system works (some member states staff their home center better than others). Why does the system work? There are multiple reasons, but most probably the most important reason is because they are nationally located and have an easier time contacting affected parties or regulatory bodies. Solvit concerns cases where there is a wrong application of national law, not cases when EU law is in conflict with national law. Also, it can only be used when it concerns that state in someway, it cannot be used if you demand compensation and/or have started a case in court. The Commissions role in Solvit is to monitor the cases, and they actually check all cases where there is negative decision. But why is it worthwhile to check the solveit cases that were positive? That could be an exam question...
