Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T20:17:55.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Services and the Internal Market – An Analysis of the Commission's Communication on Services of General Interest in Europe –

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Peter Behrens
Peter Behrens
Affiliation:
Professor of Law, Hamburg University, Dr.iur (Hamburg), M.C.J. (New York).
Get access

Extract

The idea that the State is, in a very general sense, responsible for the welfare of the people in terms of availability of goods and services, is probably as old as the State itself. How the State should organise the production and distribution of goods and services, however, is subject to time and ideological approach. Adam Smith has shown that the “welfare of the nations” does not presuppose a State that would itself produce and distribute all goods and services. Such a State would reduce rather than enhance the welfare of the people. The balance between economic activities of the State, on the one hand, and of private actors in the market, on the other, has been a matter of theoretical as well as political debate for centuries. The central question concerns the appropriate “economic constitution”. This question is the Leitmotiv of Ernst-JoachimMestmäcker in whose honour I am pleased to submit the following contribution.

Type
Research Article
Information
European Business Organization Law Review (EBOR) , Volume 2 , Issue 3-4 , September 2001 , pp. 469 - 492
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press and the Authors 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Case 120/78 Rewe v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (“Cassis de Dijon”) [1919] ECR 649, 662, para. 8.

2 See Declaration No. 13 on Art. 16 [ex Art. 7d] of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

3 OJ [1996] C 281/3.

4 Communication from the Commission of 20 September 2000, COM (2000) 580 final, OJ [2001] C 17/4.

5 See Annex II of the Communication, supra n. 4.

6 This distinction is drawn from the French concept of service public, which has a functional (substantial) as well as an operational dimension.

7 See Annex II of the Communication, supra n. 3.

8 The term is equivalent neither to the German notion of Daseinsvorsorge nor to the French concept of service public.

9 Communication, para. 14.

10 Communication, para. 28.

11 Communication, para. 15.

12 Communication, para. 17.

13 Communication, para. 18.

14 Communication, para. 17.

15 Communication, paras. 8 et seq.

16 Communication, paras. 11,13.

17 Communication, para. 22.

18 Case C-202/88 France v. Commission [1991] ECR I-1223, 1263, para. 12; Case C-157/94 Commission v. Netherlands [1997] ECR I-5699, 5779, para. 39.

19 Case C-18/88 RTT v. SA GB-Inno-BM [1991] ECR I-5941, 5980 et seq., para. 22.

20 Case 149/79 Commission v. Belgium [1980] ECR 3881, 3900 para. 10.

21 Case 120/78 Rewe v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (“Cassis de Dijon”) [1979] ECR 649, 662, para. 8.

22 Case C-41/90 Höjher and Elser v. Macrotron GmbH [1991] ECR I-1979, 2016, para. 22.

23 Joined Cases C-159/91 and C-160/91 Poucet and Pistre v. AGF and Cancava [1993] ECR I-637, 670, paras. 18 et seq.

24 This conclusion may be drawn form Case C-263/86 Belgian State v. Humbel [1988] ECR 5365,5388, para. 18. Even though this case dealt with the concept of “services” according to Art. 50 EC, it also has implications for the concept of “undertaking” in Art. 86 EC, which is generally defined in terms of economic activities.

25 Communication, para. 22.

26 Case C-157/94 Commission v. Netherlands [1997] ECR I-5699, 5786, paras. 66 et seq.; Case C-159/94 Commission v. France [1997] ECR I-5815, 5847 et seq., paras. 109 et seq.

27 Communication, para. 22.

28 Case C-159/94 Commission v France [1997] ECR I-5815, 5837, para. 68.

29 See for a more detailed discussion Mestmäcker, in: Immenga, /Mestmäcker, (Hrsg.), EG-Wettbewerbsrecht – Kommentar [EC Competition Law - Commentary], Vol. II (1997), Art. 90(2), paras. 31 etseq.Google Scholar

30 Case C-159/94 Commission v. France [1997] ECR I-5815, 5837, para. 68.

31 Commission Directive 88/301/EEC of 16 May 1988 on Competition in the Markets in Telecommunications Terminal Equipment (OJ [1988] L 131/73).

32 Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 amending Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the implementation of full competition in telecommunications markets (OJ [1996] L 74/13).

33 See supra n. 30.

34 Case C-157/94 Commission v. Netherlands [1997] ECR I-5699, 5780 and 5782 et seq., paras. 43 and 51-65; Case C-159/94 Commission v. France [1997] ECR I-5815,5832 and 5843 et seq., paras. 45 and 94-108; critical Mestmäcker, , “Grenzen staatlicher Monopole im EG-Vertrag” [Limits to State Monopolies in the EC Treaty]Google Scholar, in: FIW, , “Erfahrungen mit der Privatisierung von Monopolunternehmen” [Experiences with the Privatization of Monoplistic Undertakings], Referate des XXXII. FIW-Symposiums, FIW-Schriftenreihe, Heft 179 (1999) 71, 82.Google Scholar

35 Case C-320/91 Corbeau [1993] ECR I-2533, 2569, para. 16.

36 Communication, para. 15.

37 Case C-157/94 Commission v. Netherlands [1997] ECR I-5699, 5779, para. 38; Case C-159/94 Commission v. France [1997] ECR I-5815, 5834, para. 54.

38 Case C-157/94 Commission v. Netherlands [1997] ECR I-5769, 5780, para. 43; see also Case C-159/94 Commission v. France [1997] ECR I-5815, 5832, para. 45.

39 Case C-157/94 Commission v. Netherlands [1997] ECR I-5699, 5785, paras. 63 et seq.; Case C-159/94 Commission v. France [1997] ECR I-5815, 5846 et seq., paras. 106 et seq.

40 Case C-41/90 Höfner and Elser v. Macrotron GmbH [1991] ECR I-1979, 2018, para. 31; Case C-18/88 RTT v. SA GB-Inno-BM [1991] ECR I-5941, 5979 et seq., paras. 17 et seq.

41 Case C-41/90 Höfner and Elser v. Macrotron GmbH [1991] ECR I-1979, 2017, para. 27; Case C-18/88 RTT v. SA GB-Inno-BM [1991] ECR I-5941, 5980, para. 21.

42 Case C-30/87 Bodson v. Pompes funèbres des régions libérées [1988] ECR 2479, 2516, para. 33.

43 Supra n. 4.