Regulatory Competition after Laval

Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies

Volumn 10, Issue , 2008, Pages 581-609

  Deakin, Simon ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85008234060     PISSN: 15288870     EISSN: 20497636     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1528887000000823     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Comité Intergouvernemental créé par la conférence de Messine, Rapport des Chefs de Délégation aux Ministres des Affaires Etrangères, Brussels, 21.4.1956 (the 'Spaak Report'), 60 (the author's translation).
2. Case C-341/05, Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet [2007] ECR I-11767 (hereinafter, 'Laval').
3. Case C-438/05, International Transport Workers' Federation v Viking Line ABP, judgment of 11 December 2007 (hereinafter, 'Viking');
4. Case C-346/06, Dirk Rüffert v Land Niedersachsen, judgment of 3 April 2008 (hereinafter, 'Rüffert');
5. and Case C-319/06 Commission v. Luxembourg, judgment of 19 June 2008 (hereinafter 'Luxembourg').
6. Case C-113/89, Rush Portuguesa v Office Nationale d'Immigration [1990] ECR I-1417.
7. N Reich, 'Free movement versus social rights in an enlarged Union: the Laval and Viking cases before the European Court of Justice' (2008) 9 German Law Journal 125, available at accessed 28 August 2008.
8. C Barnard, The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms (2nd edn, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007) ch 14.
9. As in, eg Joined Cases C-369 & 376/96, Arblade [1999] ECR I-8453.
10. See C Barnard, 'Employment rights, free movement under the EC Treaty and the Services Directive' in M Rönnmar (ed), EU Industrial Relations and National Industrial Relations: Comparative and Interdisciplinary Perspectives (Deventer, Kluwer, 2008).
11. Case 52/79, Procureur du Roi v Debauve [1980] ECR 833, para 9.
12. Regulation (EC) 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 [2008] OJ L177/6
13. Case C-208/00, Überseering v Construction Co Baumanagement GmbH (NCC) [2002] ECR I-9919;
14. Case C-167/01, Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd [2003] ECR I-10115;
15. Case C-411/03, SEVIC Systems AG [2005] ECR I-10805.
16. See M Becht, C Mayer and H Wagner, 'Where do Firms Incorporate? Deregulation and the Cost of Entry', ECGI-Law Working Paper No 70/2006.
17. See, eg S Deakin and G Morris, Labour Law (4th edn, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2005) 111-13.
18. Bossa v Nordstress Ltd [1998] IRLR 284.
19. A law and economics perspective on Centros' 2 CYELS (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2000) 231.
20. P Davies, 'Posted workers: single market or protection of national labour law systems?' (1997) 43 CML Rev 571;
21. On this, see, generally, Lord Wedderburn, The Social Charter, European Company and Employment Rights: An Outline Agenda (London, Institute of Employment Rights, 1990);
22. S Deakin, 'Labour law as market regulation: the economic foundations of European social policy' in P Davies, A Lyon-Caen, S Sciarra and S Simitis (eds), Principles and Perspectives on EC Labour Law: Liber Amicorum for Lord Wedderburn (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996) 63.
23. S Deakin, 'Regulatory competition and legal diversity: which model for Europe?' (2006) 12 European Law Journal 440.
24. See generally J Kenner, EU Employment Law: From Rome to Amsterdam and Beyond (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2003).
25. J Cohen and C Sabel, 'Directly-deliberative polyarchy' (1997) 3 European Law Journal 313.
26. C Sabel and J Zeitlin, 'Learning from difference: the new architecture of experimentalist governance in the European Union' (2008) 14 ELJ 271.
27. Unite Press Release, accessed 28 August 2008.
28. Most importantly, in the context of free movement of goods, in Joined Cases C-267 & 268/91, Keck and Mithouard [1993] ECR I-1697.
29. Case C-387/01, Weigel v Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg [2004] ECR I-4981
30. Case C-365/02, Lindfors [2004] ECR I-7183.
31. Case C-190/98, Volker Graf v Filzmoser Machinenbau GmbH [2000] ECR I-493.
32. C Barnard and S Deakin, 'Market access and regulatory competition' in C Barnard and J Scott (eds), The Law of the Single Market: Unpacking the Premises (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2002).
33. See R Epstein and M Greve, 'Conclusion: preemption doctrine and its limits' in R Epstein and M Greve (eds), Federal Preemption. States' Powers, National Interests (Washington DC, AEI Press, 2008) 318-23.
34. Rice v Santa Fe Elevator, 331 US 218, 230 (Douglas J).