Consistency and coherence as conditions for justification of member state measures restricting free movement

Common Market Law Review

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 1021-1048

  Mathisen, Gjermund ^a  

^a Legal Secretary ^*  (Luxembourg)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77957260195     PISSN: 01650750     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Case C-169/07, Hartlauer, [2009] ECR I-1721, para 55; Case C-42/07, Liga Portuguesa, judgment of 8 Sept. 2009, nyr, para 61; and Case C-153/08, Commission v. Spain, judgment of 6 Oct. 2009, nyr, para 38. Italics added.
2. See also Case C-169/08, Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri, judgment of 17 Nov. 2009, nyr, para 42; Case 341/08, Petersen, judgment of 12 Jan. 2010, nyr, para 53, concerning age discrimination; and Case C-348/08, Attanasio Group, judgment of 11 March 2010, nyr, para 51. Similarly, in Joined Cases C-171/07 & C-172/07, Apotheker kammer des Saarlandes, judgment of 19 May 2009, nyr, para 42, and in Case C-531/06, Commission v. Italy, judgment of 19 May 2009, nyr, para 66, national legislation is said to be (differences in formulation italicized here) "appropriate for securing attainment of the objective relied upon only if it genuinely reflects a concern to attain that objective in a consistent and systematic manner...".
3. See also Joined Cases C-570 & 571/07, Blanco Pérez and Chao Gómez, judgment of 1 June 2010, nyr, para 94.
4. Also A.G. Poiares Maduro, ibid., speaks cautiously of a "requirement of consistency and coherence" (italics added).
5. Others have referred to a consistency requirement as a "great novelty", see Zimmer and Dejmek, "Wheel of Fortune for the EEA States or Game Over for national gaming and betting monopolies?", 10 ERT (2007), 902-925, at 913.
6. Perhaps more fittingly, such a requirement has also been referred to as "une exigence clé", see Ritaine and Lein, "La notion de proportionnalité appliqué au droit des jeux de hasard...", 4 AnnSDE (2006/2007), 355-371, at 361.
7. For instance, both a principle of consistency and a principle of coherence do seem to appear in the field of EU external relations, see Franklin, Consistency in EC External Relations Law (University of Bergen, 2010).
8. Compare Tridimas, The General Principles of EU Law, 2nd ed. (OUP, 2006), pp. 59-135, at pp. 61-62.
9. See also e.g. Dworkin, Law's Empire (Hart, 1998), pp. 219-224, discussing consistency as a matter of "deciding like cases alike".
10. See e.g. Craig and de Búrca, EU Law, 4th ed. (OUP, 2007), pp. 544-546 and 549-551; and the Opinion of A.G. Poiares Maduro in Case C-434/04, Ahokainen and Leppik, [2006] ECR I-9171, at points 23-26.
11. Similarly, A.G. Poiares Maduro, cited supra note 2, focuses on whether a measure is "consistent in light of the stated goal" (point 23) and whether there are inconsistencies or "exceptions" such as to "undermine" that goal (points 36 and 37).
12. Cf. also A.G. Mengozzi, inter alia, in his Opinion of 4 March 2010 in Joined Cases C-316/07, C-358-360/07, C-409 & 410/07, Stoß and Others, at point 33, speaking of "la cohérence de la législation en cause par rapport aux objectifs allégués".
13. Reference may also be made to statements in the case law of the ECJ, such as in the recent Attanasio Group judgment (cited supra note 1), para 53, discussing "the consistency of the rule at issue in the main proceedings in relation to the... objectives".
14. Cf. Bengoetxea, The Legal Reasoning of the European Court of Justice (OUP, 1993), p. 144.
15. Mathisen, "From Rendezvous to Relationship" in Sunde and Skodvin (Eds.), Rendezvous of European Legal Cultures (Fagbokforlaget, 2010), pp. 195-208, at pp. 199-200.
16. Similarly, A.G. Poiares Maduro, cited supra note 2, focuses on whether a measure is "coherent... in light of the stated goal" (point 23) and whether the measure "makes sense" in that regard (point 31).
17. Italics added. Similarly, the term used by the ECJ in Dutch has been "coherent", in Italian "coerente" and in Spanish "coherente".
18. See infra at note 17 and e.g. a basic French dictionary such as Le Robert Micro (Paris, 1998) in which cohérence is defined inter alia as "absence de contradiction".
19. This would also fit with the "Gebot konsequenter Durchsetzung des Allgemeinin teresses" alluded to by Roth, "Das Allgemeininteresse im europäischen Internationalen Versicherungsrecht", 44 VersR (1993), 129 at footnote 77. Italics added.
20. Case C-243/01, Gambelli, [2003] ECR I-13031.
21. Joined Cases C-338/04, C-359/04 & C-360/04, Placanica, [2007] ECR I-1891.
22. Case C-67/98, Zenatti, [1999] ECR I-7289.
23. Case C-124/97, Läärä, [1999] ECR I-6067.
24. Italics in original. Further reference may be made to the Opinion of A.G. Alber in Gambelli, cited supra note 18, at points 119-123, for a vivid illustration.
25. Case 178/84, Beer Purity, [1987] ECR 1227, paras. 48-49.
26. See Barnard, The Substantive Law of the EU, 2nd ed. (OUP, 2007), p. 75; and infra point 5.3.
27. Case 40/82, Commission v. United Kingdom, [1982] ECR 2793. Compare Barnard, op. cit. supra note 23, p. 80.
28. Case 215/87, Schumacher, [1989] ECR 617.
29. Joined Cases C-13/91 & C-113/91, Debus, [1992] ECR I-3617.
30. Case C-362/88, GB-INNO-BM, [1990] ECR I-667; and Case C-126/91, Yves Rocher, [1993] ECR I-2361.
31. See also Stuyck in his annotation of Cases C-262/02, Loi Evin and C-429/02, Bacardi France, 42 CML Rev. (2005), 783-801, at 797.
32. Case C-212/97, Centros, [1999] ECR I-1459.
33. See also Bull, Det indre marked for tjenester og kapital (Universitetsforlaget, 2002), pp. 603-604.
34. Ritaine and Lein, "Les jeux de hasard dans l'Union européenne", 3 AnnSDE (2005/2006), 465-478, at 477-478.
35. Gambelli, cited supra note 18, paras. 67-69 may, however, also be read as emphasizing consistency in connection with the suitability test, compare Johansson, "The EC Court of Justice and the Swedish Monopolies: An analysis of the case law on State monopolies", 2 SSEL (2007), 207-251, at 246 and infra point 4.2 on consistency as an issue under the suitability test.
36. For a reading of Gambelli in line with the present article, see e.g. Lein, "Quo vadis Luxembourg? Die europäische Rechtsprechung zum Glücksspielrecht", 8 ERA Forum (2007), 373-403, at 382 or Ritaine and Lein, op. cit. supra note 29, at 472-473.
37. A.G. Kokott had dealt with the issue differently in her Opinion, at points 91-96, emphasizing that said threats to public health were "connected with deterioration of the environment", and concluding that "therefore, citing the protection of public health in justification must lead to the same result as pleading the protection of the environment" (point 93); whereupon she added a series of remarks (points 94-95) on inconsistencies also undermining justification of the disputed tax measure on grounds of public health.
38. Case E-2/06, EFTA Surveillance Authority v. Norway [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep. 164.
39. In effect, the Court also substituted Norway's purported objective with its own assessment of the aim of the concession regime, namely that this was rather "aimed at achieving a certain level of public control of the relevant sector of the economy" (para 77 in fine).
40. See Straetmans' annotation inter alia to Gambelli, 41 CML Rev. (2004), 1409-1428, at 1424 (note 59).
41. On this burden of proof, see e.g. Case C-110/05, Commission v. Italy, judgment of 10 Feb. 2009, nyr, paras. 59, 62 and 66.
42. Joined Cases C-49/98, C-50/98, C-52/98 to C-54/98 & C-68/98 to C-71/98, Finalarte and Others, [2001] ECR I-7831; and Case C-164/99, Portugaia Construções, [2002] ECR I-787. These were cases previous to the Posted Workers Directive (PWD) 96/71/EC.
43. See also the post-PWD Case C-60/03, Wolff & Müller, [2004] ECR I-9553, para 38.
44. The measure might still be justified on other public interest objectives, though.
45. See his Opinion in Case C-159/90, SPUC v. Grogan, [1991] ECR I-4685, at point 27.
46. Case C-500/06, Corporación Dermoestética, judgment of 17 July 2008, nyr.
47. Italics added
48. See further paras. 35 and 40 of the judgment.
49. Corporación Dermoestética, cited supra note 42, paras. 39-40, Placanica, cited supra note 19, paras.
50. See also Case C-258/08, Ladbrokes, judgment of 3 June 2010, nyr, para 21. It is noted that Petersen concerned age discrimination and Directive 2000/78/EC, and that the ECJ wished to assess (para 53) whether a discriminatory measure was "necessary" on the basis of the standard formulation set out above.
51. However, the assessment actually undertaken by the Court (paras. 53-64) is linked to the special provision of Art. 2(5) of the Directive; and in terms of proportionality as understood in the present article, the assessment in substance constitutes a suitability assessment, cf. also the Opinion of A.G. Bot, at points 59-65.
52. Case C-88/08, Hütter, judgment of 18 June 2009, nyr, concerning age discrimination and Directive 2000/78/EC. The ECJ's remarks on "internal consistency" in this judgment fell as part of an assessment under Art. 6(1) of the Directive.
53. Case E-3/06, Ladbrokes, [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep. 86.
54. Also A.G. Bot, at point 296 of his Opinion in Liga Portuguesa (cited supra note 1), has presented consistency and context as necessarily connected, in emphasizing that "la condition selon laquelle la restriction litigieuse doit être mise en œuvre au moyen d'une politique cohérente et systématique doit être appréciée dans le contexte auquel l'État membre se trouve confronté".
55. More generally, see the Opinion of A.G. Capotorti in Case 114/76, Bela-Mühle (Skimmed-milk powder), [1977] ECR 1211, at point 6.
56. Another embodiment of these contextual aspects is the prohibition on so-called duplication, compare e.g. Tridimas, op. cit. supra note 5, pp. 218-220 and Bull, op. cit. supra note 28, pp. 620-624.
57. For further thoughts relating to contextual aspects of the proportionality principle, see Jans, "Proportionality Revisited", 27 LIEI (2000), 239-265, at 255-259.
58. In a similar vein, compare Hartlauer, cited supra note 1, paras. 60-61 and 63; Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes, cited supra note 1, paras. 29-40 and 41-51; and Case C-531/06, Commission v. Italy, cited supra note 1, paras. 53-64 and 65-81.
59. Reflections of such an approach may also be seen in the Opinion of A.G. Bot of 17 Dec. 2009 in Case C-203/08, Sporting Exchange, at points 64-94; and in his Opinion of 23 Feb. 2010 in Joined Cases C-447/08 & C-448/08, Sjöberg, at point 70.
60. Case C-262/02, Loi Evin, [2004] ECR I-6569 and Case C-429/02, Bacardi France, [2004] ECR I-6613.
61. Loi Evin, cited supra note 51, paras. 32-33 and Bacardi France, cited supra note 51, paras. 39-40. Italics added.
62. The opposite view is apparently taken by Stuyck, loc. cit. supra note 27, arguing that "the Court seems to leave France a broader margin of discretion [than in Gambelli] on whether the measure is appropriate" and concluding that "the greater the margin of discretion left to the Member States, the smaller is the ECJ's control of inconsistencies". Compare infra.
63. Mathisen, "Om proporsjonalitet som skranke for tiltak som gjør inngrep i EØS-avtalens fire friheter", 42 Norwegian University Law Review (2007), 80-92, at 90-91; and infra.
64. Case C-110/05, Commission v. Italy, judgment of 10 Feb. 2009, nyr, para 61.
65. Account must be taken of the requirements of free movement, though (ibid.).
66. Minimum harmonization allows a Member State to opt for a higher but not a lower level of protection, see Jans, "Minimum Harmonisation and the Role of the Principle of Proportionality" in Führ, Wahl and von Wilmowsky (Eds.), Umweltrecht und Umweltwissenschaft. Festschrift für Eckard Rehbinder (Erich Schmidt Verlag, 2007), pp. 705-717.
67. Case C-79/01, Payroll, [2002] ECR I-8923.
68. A.G. Poiares Maduro, cited supra note 7, at point 26, citing Alexy, "On balancing and subsumption. A structural comparison", 16 Ratio Juris (1990), 433-449, at 436.
69. See Case C-169/91, Stoke-On-Trent, [1992] ECR I-6635, para 15, and Mathisen, op. cit. supra note 54, at 87-89.