Regulatory Trust in EU Free Movement Law – Adopting the Level of Protection of the Other?

Xavier Groussot, G. Petursson, Henrik Wenander
{"title":"Regulatory Trust in EU Free Movement Law – Adopting the Level of Protection of the Other?","authors":"Xavier Groussot, G. Petursson, Henrik Wenander","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2840172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The principles of mutual trust and mutual recognition are well established features of EU law. On a technical level, it is clear that the principles may require adoption of foreign levels of protection in individual cases as well as in legislation. At a closer look, however, the principles through “the rule of reason” also may imply quite the opposite: the imposing of domestic requirements on foreign goods, services etc. The CJEU case law following the Cassis judgement may be seen as striking a balance between cooperation and Member State self-determination, or between trust and distrust, in different fields. This contribution aims at looking into the regulatory function of the legal principle of trust in EU law. Taking this wider regulatory perspective, the mutual recognition regimes of EU must be seen from a holistic perspective. Rather than dwelling upon harmonized and non-harmonized fields separately, we will approach mutual trust as one, albeit multi-faceted, concept, where harmonization, proportionality assessments and Member State actions in various fields of law form part of the same wider picture. In this regulatory perspective, the law on mutual trust and mutual recognition may be seen as a balancing between the regulatory interests of the EU (promoting free movement and cooperation) and the various Member States (promoting their interests of – alleged – protection of safety of various kinds). Through this perspective, we will be able to address the tension between regulation and deregulation, between integration and disintegration, and between unity and diversity present in EU law on a very general level. The first section of this contribution will look at the constitutional life of mutual trust within the CJEU case law: looking at its origins and main logic. The second section will attempt to clarify why the principle of mutual trust is mostly invisible in the free movement jurisprudence. This section also argues for understanding mutual recognition in terms of Regulatory Trust. The last section focuses on the thorny issue of the levels of protection and attempts to understand which are the key factors used by the CJEU in reviewing the (host) States measures that restrict free movement law and thus may constitute a break to the application of the principles of mutual trust and mutual recognition.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2840172","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

The principles of mutual trust and mutual recognition are well established features of EU law. On a technical level, it is clear that the principles may require adoption of foreign levels of protection in individual cases as well as in legislation. At a closer look, however, the principles through “the rule of reason” also may imply quite the opposite: the imposing of domestic requirements on foreign goods, services etc. The CJEU case law following the Cassis judgement may be seen as striking a balance between cooperation and Member State self-determination, or between trust and distrust, in different fields. This contribution aims at looking into the regulatory function of the legal principle of trust in EU law. Taking this wider regulatory perspective, the mutual recognition regimes of EU must be seen from a holistic perspective. Rather than dwelling upon harmonized and non-harmonized fields separately, we will approach mutual trust as one, albeit multi-faceted, concept, where harmonization, proportionality assessments and Member State actions in various fields of law form part of the same wider picture. In this regulatory perspective, the law on mutual trust and mutual recognition may be seen as a balancing between the regulatory interests of the EU (promoting free movement and cooperation) and the various Member States (promoting their interests of – alleged – protection of safety of various kinds). Through this perspective, we will be able to address the tension between regulation and deregulation, between integration and disintegration, and between unity and diversity present in EU law on a very general level. The first section of this contribution will look at the constitutional life of mutual trust within the CJEU case law: looking at its origins and main logic. The second section will attempt to clarify why the principle of mutual trust is mostly invisible in the free movement jurisprudence. This section also argues for understanding mutual recognition in terms of Regulatory Trust. The last section focuses on the thorny issue of the levels of protection and attempts to understand which are the key factors used by the CJEU in reviewing the (host) States measures that restrict free movement law and thus may constitute a break to the application of the principles of mutual trust and mutual recognition.
欧盟自由流动法中的监管信任——采用“他者”的保护水平?
相互信任和相互承认的原则是欧盟法律的固有特征。在技术层面上,很明显,这些原则可能要求在个别情况下以及在立法中采用外国水平的保护。然而,仔细一看,通过“理性法则”的原则也可能意味着完全相反的情况:对外国商品、服务等强加国内要求。在卡西斯判决之后,欧洲法院的判例法可被视为在不同领域的合作与成员国自决之间,或信任与不信任之间取得平衡。这一贡献旨在研究欧盟法律中信任法律原则的监管功能。从更广泛的监管角度来看,欧盟的互认制度必须从整体的角度来看待。我们将把相互信任作为一个虽然是多方面的概念来对待,而不是单独讨论协调和不协调的领域,在这个概念中,协调、相称性评估和会员国在各个法律领域中的行动构成了同一更广泛图景的一部分。从这个监管的角度来看,关于相互信任和相互承认的法律可以被视为欧盟监管利益(促进自由流动和合作)和各成员国(促进其利益-据称-保护各种安全)之间的平衡。通过这一视角,我们将能够在一个非常普遍的层面上解决欧盟法律中存在的监管与放松监管之间、整合与解体之间、统一与多样性之间的紧张关系。本文的第一部分将着眼于欧洲法院判例法中相互信任的宪法生命:考察其起源和主要逻辑。第二部分将试图澄清为什么在自由流动法理学中,相互信任原则大多是不可见的。本节还主张从监管信任的角度理解相互承认。最后一节集中讨论保护水平这一棘手问题,并试图了解哪些是欧洲法院在审查(东道国)国限制自由流动法的措施时所使用的关键因素,这些措施因此可能构成对相互信任和相互承认原则的适用的破坏。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信