The EU's Private Law in the Regulated Sectors: Competitive Market Handmaiden or Institutional Platform?
DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12200 |
Author | Yane Svetiev |
Date | 01 September 2016 |
Published date | 01 September 2016 |
The EU’s Private Law in the Regulated
Sectors: Competitive Market Handmaiden or
Institutional Platform?
Yane Svetiev*
Abstract: The article contests the claim thatEU private law is narrowly circumscribed by a
market rationality. Such a claim tracks broader criticism of EU functional legal integration,
although it tends to obscure the underlying transformative pressures onprivate law and
regulation and the role EU law plays in coping with such pressures. To offer a number of
counter-narratives, the article draws on examples from the regulated sectors, including
telecommunications and energy, to reveal their experimentalist features. These suggest that
EU private lawis constructed through a processof error-corrections,which allows for mutual
adjustmentof instruments and hybridisationof EU and local policy goals. The processresults
in more finely grained assemblages of autonomy and regulation to respond to concrete
problems or newly salient policy goals, so that markets are understood as socialinstitutions
that are always works-in-progress rather than convergence points. Thus, EUprivate law
provides a platform for transnational market-building through innovating institutions that
promote variousnormative and policy commitmentsdespite the interdependenciesthat could
undermine them.
I Introduction
The difficultiesfaced in coping with the Eurozonecrisis, as well as disunity in theresponse
to significant refugee arrivals at its borders, have reinforced doubts about the problem-
solving capacities of the European Union. The growing scepticism regarding the present
state and policies of the EU detected in public debate and the decline in the EU’s global
stature as an architecture for effective and legitimate transnational governance had been
foreshadowed by souring scholarly assessments of the EU’s longer-term effort at
constructing and regulating the internal market. EU law scholarship had once lauded
the contribution of EU legal integration in providing a framework for deliberative disci-
pline over national policy-making not only in the Member States,
1
but also beyond
* Bocconi University and Europea n University Institute. The author acknowledges the support of the ERC
project on European Regulatory Private Law and the helpful comments from Hans-W. Micklitz, Marta
Cantero-Gamito, Guendalina Catti-de Gasperi, Lucila de Almeida, Fernando Gómez, Liam McHugh,
Thomas Wilhelmsson and the ELJ, as we ll as the research assistance of Giacomo Tagiuri, with the usual
disclaimer.The article was written as partof the ERC funded project on EuropeanRegulatory Private Law.
1
E.g. C. Joerges and J. Neyer, ‘From IntergovernmentalBargaining to DeliberativePolitical Processes’,(1997)3
European Law Journal,273–299;cf. C. Joerges,and F. Rödl, ‘InformalPolitics,Formalised Law andthe “Social
Deficit”of EuropeanIntegration: Reflections afterthe Judgments of the ECJ in Viking and Laval’, (2009) 15
European Law Journal,1–19 (reinterpreting internalmarket constructionas a Polanyian disembeddingmove).
European LawJournal, Vol. 22, No. 5, September 2016,pp. 659–680.
© 2017 John Wiley& Sons Ltd. 9600 Garsington Road,Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK
and 350 Main Street,Malden, MA 02148, USA
through the EU’s enlargement, neighbourhood and external policies.
2
Notwithstanding
concerns about the enlargement of EU competencies over time, the creationand
regulation of the internal market had long been viewed as a success, enhancing the EU’s
output legitimacy within and establishing the EU as a credible market regulator without.
3
The sceptical turn in EU law scholarship involves re-evaluating the very premises and
legal foundationsof the internal market project. Suchscepticism appears so profound that
it leads to doubtsabout the possibility of reformthat would set the internal marketproject
on a more sustainable path,
4
without revolutionary changes in the basis, documents and
objectives of EU integration by either drastically scaling up the ambition of the
European project
5
or consciously going in reverse.
6
When it comes to the internal market project—the focus of this article—the re-evalua-
tion of EU efforts at market-construction and regulation involves a set of interrelated
claims. The principal claim is that the EU has been a driver of economisation through
the constructionof markets around competitiveprinciples, a process that ineluctablyleads
to the elimination of national market regulation and social protection, which are both
product and source of democratic solidarity and cohesion. As such, apart from being an
economising force,the EU’s market-building project is also seen as a homogenisingforce
because it favours negative integration, reducing available justifications for national
democratic policy-making and, in turn, evenundermining national identities and cultures
as reflecting particular ‘ways of life’.
7
Such effectsare said to be the result of at least threefeatures now encoded in EU market
construction, which are extremely difficult to reverse through gradualist tinkering and
without radical change in both the mechanisms of EU integration and the sources of its
legitimacy.
8
First, EU legal integration has focusedon the creation of markets built upon
competitive principles to favour cross-border trade and establishment, supported by free
movement and competition law that eliminate local regulatory barriers. Secondly, EU
law’s competitive strictures are no longer seen to accommodate national policy-making
rooted in social or uniquely local policy concerns. Negative integration is so deeply
entrenched in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice (CJEU) that it makes
EU law unable to accommodate national regulatory autonomy, or to provide a frame-
work for protection, let alone enhancement, of socio-economic rights at EU level. This
outcome does not necessarily reflect a market bias on the part of the CJEU, but rather
the constraints of judicial decision-making on the basis of precedent and the limits of
judicial remedies in protecting positive versus negative rights.
9
Finally, the CJEU’s
impetus towards negative integration is unlikely to be legislatively reversed. This is
2
S. Lavenex, ‘Concentriccircles of flexible “European”integration:A typology of EU externalgovernancerela-
tions’,(2011)9Comparative European Politics,372–393.
3
A. Bradford,‘The Brussels Effect’, (2012)107 Northwestern UniversityLaw Review,1–68.
4
G. Davies, ‘Democracy and Legitimacyin the Shadow of Purposive Competence’, (2015) 21 European Law
Journal,2–22.
5
A. Somek, ‘Europe:Political, Not Cosmopolitan’, (2014) 20 European Law Journal,142–163.
6
G. Majone, Rethinking theUnion of Europe Post Crisis: Has European IntegrationGone Too Far? (Cambridge
UniversityPress, 2014).
7
G. Davies, ‘Internal Market Adjudicationand the Quality of Life in Europe’,(2014)21Columbia Journal of
European Law,289–328.
8
Davies, above, n. 4.
9
F. Scharpf, ‘The Asymmetry of European Integration, or Why the EU Cannot be a “Social Market Econ-
omy”?’,(2010)8Socio-Economic Review,211–250.
EU Private Law in the Regulated SectorsSeptember 2016
© 2017 John Wiley&Sons Ltd.660
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
