Varieties of Capitalism and the Limits of European Economic Integration

This chapter considers European economic integration from the perspective of varieties of capitalism. It notes the main threats that integration potentially entails both for liberal and coordinated market economies, and assesses the likelihood of damage to the different models, in particular following the Lisbon Treaty. It is argued descriptively that both types of capitalism can continue to coexist in the European Union, and normatively that it is vital that the integration project is managed in a way that does not fundamentally endanger them.</p

The notion of market access: a concept or a slogan?

The internal market case law of the European Court of Justice often invokes the term market access, and recently the notion has been given a key role in defining the reach of the four freedoms of the TFE – free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital. Unfortunately the precise content of the term remains elusive. The use of the notion in (European Union) competition law and WTO law does not provide reliable guidance, due to the fundamentally different contexts. Further, it is not clear what the normative justification for distinguishing formally between access and exercise or direct and indirect effects is. The case law also lacks coherence. In some decisions the Court indicates that the impact on market access is the decisive criterion for the application of free movement provisions, but in others it is prepared to find a restriction or dismiss a case without even mentioning the term. In its most recent rulings the Court has focused on the magnitude of the effects of national measures (which erect barriers to entry), yet it has consistently rejected arguments based on the minor or slight impact of national rules. The article argues that, when pressed, the notion of market access collapses into economic freedom or anti-protectionism, and obscures the need to choose between the competing paradigms of free movement law.</p

Economic Mobility and Fiscal Federalism: Taxation and European Responses in a Changing Constitutional Context

In this article we explore the claim that the four freedoms of the EU lead to the inevitable erosion of the capacity of Member States to collect tax, undermining national systems of welfare and solidarity. We argue that European tax integration has undergone a significant change during the last ten years or so, with a judicial, regulatory and legislative response by Union institutions. First, the Court of Justice has recalibrated some of the basic concepts it applies when reviewing the European constitutionality of national tax norms. Second, the Commission has utilised state aid rules to attack targeted tax competition. Third, important legislative initiatives have been adopted or proposed to safeguard Member State taxing capacities. The new phase is influenced by the changed constitutional context of the recent enlargements and the Eurozone crises, which may increase the supply of and demand for tax integration

Fundamental Rights Review of National Measures: Nothing New under the Charter?

The case law under the Charter on the use of EU fundamental rights to scrutinize national measures represents a continuation of the earlier jurisprudence. The wording of Article 51(1) Charter of Fundamental Rights has not resulted in a general rollback of EU fundamental rights. However, the Charter has focused attention on the issue, has resulted in important new guidance and some streamlining of the case law, and will make it hard for the Court to push the jurisprudence further. The normative justification for the Wachauf type cases can be readily found and has been convincingly articulated by the Court. This does not mean that it will be easy to decide whether the connection between the EU rules and the national measure is sufficient to count as implementation, but the Court has helpfully distilled factors to be taken into account. By contrast, the normative justification for ERT type cases is more difficult to establish. This case law represents a far-going interference with national legal systems. The standard explanation, that since derogations are creatures of Union law, EU fundamental rights must apply, fails to convince. The Court is expressing its distrust of national systems of fundamental rights protection. Unfortunately the distrust may be warranted, and the political system of the EU may not be well equipped to correct matters. The case law can be defended as a judicial remedy for the failure of the political, but needs to be applied with care

European Union Law

3. ed

European Union and National Referendums: Need for Change after the Brexit Vote?

This article compares the referendums in France and the Netherlands on the Constitutional Treaty and the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty with the Brexit vote. It is argued that the results have hinged on two key factors: voters perceive the EU as an agent for economic internationalization and increased competition, and there is a low level of understanding of the EU. The article then turns to solutions. The basic bargain where the EU took responsibility for bolstering economic growth while the distribution of the gains was left for the Member States may need revisiting. Further, Europeans need to be educated to become Union citizens, like the Member States educate their nationals for national citizenship. However, such a heightened role for the EU for redistribution and education, traditionally bastions of the Member States, raises uncomfortable questions about the competences and the nature of the Union

Attitudes of blood donors to their sample and data donation for biobanking

Modern biomedical and genetic studies require large study cohorts; blood donors have been suggested to represent an appropriate group for recruiting healthy cohorts. The Blood Service Biobank (BSB) in Finland was recently established to recruit blood donors willing to give broad biobank consent. The aim of the present study is to understand how the blood bank context influences views on donating samples and health data. We organised 61 interviews and 10 group discussions with current and potential blood donors. Using qualitative content analysis, we identified three discussion frameworks that summarise the results. We found that frequent blood donors associated the voluntary act of donation with caring for patients. The blood donation experience was considered to accommodate biobank participation, but also allowed critical observations on the integration of research data collection into blood donation. Research participants identified an important difference between the blood bank and biobank contexts. In the biobank context, the focus shifts from donating blood to patients into donating personal and genetic data for research use. Blood donors' anxiety over data use was balanced with their experience of the trustworthiness of the Blood Service. These experiences indicated that the new biobanking activity could be trusted to a familiar organisation. To build donors' trust, biobanks should invest in their institutional reputation, donor experience and dialogue with donors. These findings can be applied to other institutions that are considering setting up biobanks with broad consent for personal data use.Peer reviewe