Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-hgkh8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T13:49:30.132Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Proportionality in EU Law: A Balancing Act?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2017

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The proportionality principle plays a key role in constitutional review of public acts. Its use legitimises the constitutional claims of EU law in the context of a multi-level polity system. The application of proportionality in the EU differs based on whether legal acts of the EU or of its Member States are concerned. In the former case, a manifestly disproportionate test is usually applied, while in the latter case, a least restrictive means test (LRM) is normally used. Both are conditioned by the degree of integration achieved. In future, the use of the principle may involve increasing attention being paid to individual rights.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2013

References

1 Alexy, R, A Theory of Constitutional Rights (J Rivers trans, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002)Google Scholar; Barak, A, Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and their Limitations (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beatty, DM, The Ultimate Rule of Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sweet, A Stone and Matthews, J, ‘Proportionality Balancing and Global Constitutionalism’ (2009) 47 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 73 Google Scholar.

2 Klatt, M and Meister, M, The Constitutional Structure of Proportionality (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alexy (n 1).

3 de Búrca, G, ‘The Principle of Proportionality and its Application in EC Law’ (1993) 13 Yearbook of European Law 105, 126CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jans, J, ‘Proportionality Revisited’ (2000) 27 Legal Issues of Economic Integration 239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 246: ‘the nature of the interest to be protected is relevant to the manner in which the Court will apply the proportionality principle’. See also at 253: ‘the seriousness of the restriction will affect the intensity of the test’.

4 Harbo, TI, ‘The Function of the Proportionality Principle in EU Law’ (2010) 16 European Law Journal 158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Schwarze, J, European Administrative Law, revised edn (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2006) 664–65Google Scholar, citing J Gündisch and B Schlink. This echoes the claims made for proportionality in the world of constitutionalism at large: see, eg, Alexy (n 1), Barak (n 1) and Beatty (n 1).

6 Alexy (n 1) 210.

7 Dworkin, R, Takings Rights Seriously (London, Bloomsbury, 2011)Google Scholar. Cf Harbo (n 4) 166.

8 Alexy (n 1) 231.

9 Klatt and Meister (n 2).

10 Ibid 79: ‘According to the law of balancing, a three-step test is required: first the degree of non-satisfaction of the first principle is established; secondly, the importance of satisfying the competing principle is established; and thirdly, it is established whether the importance of satisfying the second principle can justify the degree of non-satisfaction of the first principle.’

11 Harbo (n 4) 160.

12 Ibid 171.

13 Lenaerts, K and Gutiérrez-Fons, J, ‘The Constitutional Allocation of Powers and General Principles of EU Law’ (2010) 47 Common Market Law Review 1629, 1650Google Scholar.

14 Emiliou, N, The Principle of Proportionality in European Law: A Comparative Study (The Hague, Kluwer, 1996)Google Scholar. For a broader comparison, cfPirker, B, Proportionality Analysis and Models of Judicial Review: A Theoretical and Comparative Study (Groningen, Europa Law Publishing, 2013)Google Scholar.

15 Lenaerts and Guttiérez-Fons (n 13) 1649.

16 Opinion 1/91 of the Court Pursuant to Article 228 of the EEC Treaty on the Draft Treaty on the Establishment of the European Economic Area [1991] ECR I-6079 [21]. Cf Case 294/83 Parti écologiste ‘Les Verts’ v European Parliament [1986] ECR 1339 [23].

17 Timmermans, C, ‘The Constitutionalisation of the European Union’ (2001) 20 Yearbook of European Law 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 cfStreit, ME and Mussler, W, ‘The Economic Constitution of the European Community: From “Rome” to “Maastricht”’ (1995) 1 European Law Journal 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sauter, W, ‘The Economic Constitution of the European Union’ (1998) 4 Columbia Journal of European Law 27 Google Scholar; Joerges, C, ‘What is Left of the European Economic Constitution? A Melancholic Eulogy’ (2005) 30 European Law Review 461 Google Scholar.

19 The attempt to create an explicit EU Constitutional Treaty failed and was replaced by the Lisbon Treaty in 2007, leading to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Nevertheless, the treaty framework has long been seen as a constitution; cfRosas, A and Armati, L, EU Constitutional Law: An Introduction, 2nd edn (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2012)Google Scholar; Joerges, C, ‘Law, Economics and Politics in the Constitutionalisation of Europe’ (2002–2003) 5 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Cf art 2 TEU: ‘The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.’

21 Article 6(3) TEU: ‘Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, shall constitute general principles of the Union’s law.’

22 Stone Sweet and Matthews (n 1) 140–41.

23 Case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, bH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel [1970] ECR 1125 [12]. An earlier instance in the Coal and Steel Community context was Case 8/55 Fédération Charbonnière de Belgique v High Authority [1954–56] ECR English special edn 292 (cited in Emiliou (n 14)). Cf also Case 29/69 Erich Stauder v City of Ulm [1969] ECR 419.

24 Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon) [1979] ECR 649. Cf similarly Case 178/84 Commission v Germany (Beer Purity) [1987] ECR 1227.

25 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft (n 23) 3.

26 Non-discrimination is not always adhered to. Cf Case C-157/99 BSM Geraets-Smits v Stichting Ziekenfonds VGZ and HTM Peerbooms v Stichting CZ Groep Zorgverzekeringen [2001] ECR I-5473; Case C-385/99 VG Müller-Fauré v Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij OZ Zorgverzekeringen UA and EEM van Riet v Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij ZAO Zorgverzekeringen [2003] ECR I-4509.

27 cfSauter, W and Schepel, H, State and Market in European Union Law: The Public and Private Spheres of the Internal Market Before the EU Courts (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 The impact on EU market integration aside, in terms of effectively influencing consumer behaviour, packaging information ranks low in the accounts of behavioural economics that have emerged more recently. cfThaler, RH and Sunstein, CR, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness (New Haven, Yale University Press, 2008)Google Scholar.

29 cfTridimas, T, The General Principles of EU Law, 2nd edn (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

30 Case C-331/88 The Queen v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Secretary of State for Health ex parte Fedesa et al [1990] ECR I-4023 [13]. Cf Joined Cases C-133/93, C-300/93 and C-362/93 Antonio Crispoltoni v Fattoria Autonoma Tabacchi and Giuseppe Natale and Antonio Pontillo v Donatab Srl [1994] ECR I-4863 [40]; Case C-180/96 UK v Commission [1998] ECR I-2265 [96]; Case C-189/01 H Jippes, Afdeling Groningen van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Dieren and Afdeling Assen en omstreken van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Dieren v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Foot and Mouth Disease) [2001] ECR I-5689 [80].

31 Cf Tridimas (n 29) 138.

32 De Búrca (n 3) 146.

33 Schwarze (n 5).

34 Craig, P, EU Administrative Law, 2nd edn (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012) 560615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Case C-210/03 Swedish Match AB and Swedish Match UK Ltd [2004] ECR I-11893 [56]–[58].

36 Fedesa (n 30).

37 Ibid [8]. Cf Foot and Mouth Disease (n 30) [80].

38 Cf Case C-491/01 The Queen v Secretary of State for Health ex parte British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and Imperial Tobacco Ltd [2002] ECR I-11453 [123] and the references cited therein. Even earlier in the context of the CAP, a necessity test was sometimes applied. Cf the skimmed-milk powder cases: Case 114/76 Bela-Mühle Josef Bergmann KG v Grows-Farm GmbH & Co KG [1977] ECR 1211; Case 116/76 Granaria BV v Hoofdproduktschap voor Akkerbouwprodukten [1977] ECR 1247; Joined Cases 119 and 120/76 Ölmühle Hamburg AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof and Kurt A Becher v Hauptzollamt Bremen-Nord [1977] ECR 1269.

39 Joined Cases C-453/03, C-11/04, C-12/04 and C-194/04 ABNA Ltd et al v Secretary of State for Health et al ECR I-10423 [80]–[84].

40 Case C-310/04 Spain v Council (Cotton Support Scheme) [2006] ECR I-7285 [99].

41 Joined Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04 The Queen, on the Application of Alliance for Natural Health and others v Secretary of State for Health and National Assembly for Wales (Food Supplements) [2005] ECR I-6451.

42 cfPrechal, S, ‘Free Movement and Procedural Requirements: Proportionality Reconsidered’ (2008) 35 Legal Issues of European Integration 201 Google Scholar, who advocates the general principles of effective judicial administration and sound administration as a more appropriate foundation for procedural rights than proportionality.

43 Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I-6351 [369] ff; Case T-85/09 Yassin Abdullah Kadi v Commission [2010] ECR II-5177 [194].

44 Kadi (n 43) [355]. Cf Case 44/79 Liselotte Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz [1979] ECR 3727 [23].

45 Tridimas (n 29) 193.

46 Craig (n 34) 616.

47 Jans (n 3) 253: ‘the seriousness of the restriction will affect the intensity of the test’.

48 De Búrca (n 3) 126: ‘The more severe the impact on the Community interest or aim, the lower the degree of deference to the national measure which the Court will display, even if the nature of the State’s justification for that measure is one which would generally lead the Court to respect the State’s assessment of necessity.’

49 Sauter and Schepel (n 27). Cf art 2 TFEU and Chalmers, D, Davies, G and Monti, G, European Union Law, 2nd edn (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010) 206–07CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 For an argument emphasising the majoritarian tendency of the Court, cfMaduro, M Poiares, We the Court: The European Court of Justice and the European Economic Constitution (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 1998)Google Scholar.

51 Joined Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097 [17]: ‘Provided that those conditions [non-discrimination] are fulfilled, the application of such rules to the sale of products from another Member State meeting the requirements laid down by that State is not by nature such as to prevent their access to the market or to impede access any more than it impedes the access of domestic products. Such rules therefore fall outside the scope of Article 30 of the Treaty.’

52 Snell, J, ‘The Notion of Market Access: A Concept or a Slogan?’ (2010) 47 CML Rev 437 Google Scholar.

53 Case C-55/94 Reinhard Gebhard v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano [1995] ECR I-4165.

54 Case C-60/00 M Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ECR I-6279. Cf also Case C-144/04 Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm [2005] ECR I-9981.

55 Spaventa, E, ‘From Gebhard to Carpenter: Towards a (Non-)Economic Constitution’ (2004) 41 CML Review 743 Google Scholar. Cf Schwarze (n 5) 864; Jans (n 3) 243.

56 Case C-158/96 Raymond Kohll v Union des caisses de maladie [1998] ECR I-1931; Case C-120/95 Nicolas Decker v Caisse de maladie des employés privés [1998] ECR I-1831; Case C-372/04 The Queen ex parte Yvonne Watts v Bedford Primary Care Trust and Secretary of State for Health [2006] ECR I-4325.

57 cfHancher, L and Sauter, W, ‘One Step Beyond? From Sodemare to Docmorris: The EU’s Freedom of Establishment Case Law Concerning Healthcare’ (2010) 47 CML Rev 117 Google Scholar.

58 Cf Case C-345/09 JA van Delft et al v College voor zorgverzekeringen [2010] ECR I-9879.

59 Jans (n 3) 243.

60 Tridimas (n 29) 193–94.

61 Snell (n 52) 472 suggests opting for one standard for situations ‘without physical movement where subsidiarity-related concerns predominate and another for free movement of natural persons where fundamental rights are in issue’.

62 Gebhard (n 53).

63 Similarly, with respect to the principle of equality, see Lenaerts and Gutiérrez-Fons (n 13) 1662, with reference to Case C-174/08 NCC Construction Danmark A/S v Skatteministeriet [2009] ECR I-10567.

64 Case C-500/06 Corporación Dermoestética SA v To Me Group Advertising Media [2008] ECR I-5785; Case C-169/07 Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Wiener Landesregierung and Oberösterreichische Landesregierung [2009] ECR I-1721.

65 Joined Cases C-570/07 and C-571/07 José Manuel Blanco Pérez and María del Pilar Chao Gómez v Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios and Principado de Asturias [2010] ECR I-4629; cf Case C-84/11 Marja-Liisa Susisalo, Olli Tuomaala and Merja Ritala (ECJ, 21 June 2012).

66 Case C-141/07 Commission v Germany (Hospital Pharmacies) [2008] ECR I-6935 [58].

67 Case 104/75 Adriaan de Peijper, Managing Director of Centrafarm BV [1976] ECR 613.

68 Cassis de Dijon (n 24).

69 Case 302/86 Commission v Denmark (Danish Bottles) [1988] ECR 4607 [6].

70 Case C-189/95 Criminal Proceedings against Harry Franzén [1997] ECR I-5909 [76].

71 Joined Cases C-171/07 and C-172/07 Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and others and Helga Neumann-Seiwert v Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales [2009] ECR I-4171.

72 Case C-142/05 Åklagaren v Percy Mickelsson and Joakim Roos [2009] ECR I-4273.

73 Case C-110/05 Commission v Italy (Motorcycle Trailers) [2009] ECR I-519 [67]–[68].

74 Case C-89/09 Commission v France (Medical Laboratories) [2010] ECR I-12941 [88]–[89].

75 Case C-384/93 Alpine Investments BV v Minister van Financiën [1995] ECR I-1141.

76 Commission v Italy (n 73) [65].

77 Case C-124/97 Markku Juhani Läärä, Cotswold Microsystems Ltd and Oy Transatlantic Software Ltd v Kihlakunnansyyttäjä (Jyväskylä) and Suomen valtio (Finnish State) [1999] ECR I-6067 [37].

78 Case C-108/96 Criminal Proceedings against Dennis Mac Quen et al [2001] ECR I-837 [33]–[34], with reference to Alpine Investments (n 74) [51] and Case C-3/95 Reisebüro Broede [1996] ECR I-6511 [42]; Case C-67/98 Questore di Verona v Diego Zenatti [1999] ECR I-7289 [34].

79 Case C-157/94 Commission v The Netherlands (Electricity Import Monopoly) [1997] ECR I-5699 [58].

80 Commission v Italy (n 73) [65].

81 Cf Sauter and Schepel (n 27) 182–86. The context there is that of proportionality and services of general economic interest (SGEI) under art 106(2) TFEU.

82 Case C-275/06 Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) v Telefónica de España SAU [2008] ECR I-271 [70].

83 Case C-70/10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) (ECJ, 24 November 2011) [53]. Cf P Larouche, Legal Emulation between Regulatory Competition and Comparative Law (2012) TILEC Discussion Paper 2012/17.

84 Case C-112/00 Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v Austria [2003] ECR I-5659.

85 Ibid [74].

86 Ibid [81].

87 Ibid [83].

88 Similarly, see Case C-36/02 Omega Spielhallen—unda Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundeststadt Bonn [2004] ECR I-9609 [35] ff, with regard to the respect for human dignity.

89 The Court recalled that the internal market freedoms also apply where a Member State abstains from adopting the measures required in order to deal with obstacles to the free movement of goods that are not caused by the state. See Schmidberger (n 84) [57], citing Case C-265/95 Commission v France [1997] ECR I-6959 [30].

90 Case C-438/05 International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union v Viking Line ABP and OÜ Viking Line Eesti [2007] ECR I-10779 [77] and [84] ff.

91 Case C-341/05 Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avdelning 1, Byggettan and Svenska Elektrikerförbundet [2007] ECR I-11767 [93] ff.

92 Earlier collective agreements had been held to be exempt from the competition rules. Cf Case C-67/96 Albany International BV v Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie [1999] ECR I-5751; Case C-350/07 Kattner Stahlbau GmbH v Maschinenbau- und MetallBerufsgenossenschaft [2009] ECR I-1513; Case C-437/09 AG2R Prévoyance v Beaudout Père et Fils SARL (ECJ, 3 March 2011).

93 Viking (n 90) [91].

94 Cf the contributions to (2007–08) 10 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies.

95 Case C-265/95 Commission v France (Spanish Strawberries) [1997] ECR I-6959.

96 Ibid [52] and [65]–[66].

97 De Búrca (n 3) 111.

98 Emiliou (n 14) 273.

99 Alexy (n 1) 231.

100 Such as de Búrca (n 3) and Jans (n 3).

101 Jans (n 3) 243. Cf Tridimas (n 29) 193–94.