Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details

Global Jurist

Ed. by Mattei, Ugo / Monti, Alberto

3 Issues per year


SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2014: 0.101

Online
ISSN
1934-2640
See all formats and pricing

The Public–Private Distinction, Autonomy and Free Movement: Unpacking the Assumptions

Mislav Mataija
  • Corresponding author
  • Lecturer, University of Zagreb Faculty of Law, Jean Monnet Department of European Public Law
  • Email:
Published Online: 2014-05-22 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/gj-2014-0006

Abstract

This paper discusses the assumptions behind an evergreen issue of EU law – the so-called horizontal effect of the EU Treaty free movement rules. It is usually claimed that the use of those rules to impose duties on individuals should be limited in order to protect private autonomy. Debate on this issue is largely confined to how far those limits should go. This paper takes a step back and questions the central assumptions made both by legal practice and by scholarship: first, the public–private distinction as a basis for applying the EU Treaties; second, the broad argument for “private autonomy”.

Keywords: horizontal effect; public–private distinction; EU law; free movement; private autonomy

Bibliography

  • Allison, J. W. F. 2000. A Continental Distinction in the Common Law: An Historical and Comparative Perspective on English Public Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Arendt, Hannah. 1998. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Azoulai, Loïc. 2008. The Court of Justice and the Social Market Economy: The Emergence of an Ideal and the Conditions for Its Realization. Common Market Law Review 45:1335.

  • Azoulai, Loïc. 2010. Sur un sens de la distinction public/privédans le droit de l’Union européenne. In The Public/Private Divide in European Union Law, edited by Sophie Robin-Olivier et al. Cejec-Wp 2010/7. www.cejec.eu

  • Baquero Cruz, Julio. 2002. Between Competition and Free Movement: The Economic Constitutional Law of the European Community. Oxford: Hart.

  • Baquero Cruz, Julio. 2007. The State Action Doctrine. In EC Competition Law – A Critical Assessment, edited by G. Amato and C.-D. Ehlermann. Oxford: Hart.

  • Barnard, Catherine. 2010. The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • BeVier, L., and J. Harrison. 2010. The State Action Principle and Its Critics. Virginia Law Review 96:1767.

  • Bobbio, Norberto. 1989. Democracy and Dictatorship: The Nature and Limits of State Power. Oxford: Polity.

  • Böhm, Franz. 1966. Privatrechtsgesellschaft und Marktwirtschaft. Ordo 17:75.

  • Bomhoff, Jacco. 2008. Luth’s 50th Anniversary: Some Comparative Observations on the German Foundations of Judicial Balancing. German Law Journal 9:121.

  • Buchanan, G. S. 1997a. A Conceptual History of the State Action Doctrine: The Search for Governmental Responsibility (Part I of II). Houston Law Review 34:34333.

  • Buchanan, G. S. 1997b. A Conceptual History of the State Action Doctrine: The Search for Governmental Responsibility (Part II of II). Houston Law Review 34:665.

  • de Búrca, Gráinne, and Joseph H. H. Weiler, eds. 2011. The Worlds of European Constitutionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Calliess, G. P., and P. Zumbansen. 2010. Rough Consensus and Running Code: A Theory of Transnational Law-Making. Oxford: Hart.

  • Chemerinsky, Erwin. 1985. Rethinking State Action. Northwestern University Law Review 80:503.

  • Cherednychenko, O. 2008. Subordinating Contract Law to Fundamental Rights: Towards a Major Breakthrough or Towards Walking in Circles? In Constitutional Values and European Contract Law, edited by Stefan Grundmann. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 35.

  • Choper, Jesse H. 1979. Thoughts on State Action: The Government Function and Power Theory Approaches. Washington University Law Quarterly 757.

  • Cohen, M. R. 1927. Property and Sovereignty. Cornell Law Quarterly 13:8.

  • Craig, Paul, and Gráinne de Búrca. 2011. EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Davies, C. L. 2008. One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? The Viking and Laval Cases in the ECJ. Industrial Law Journal 37:126.

  • Engle, Eric. 2009. Third Party Effect of Fundamental Rights (Drittwirkung). Hanse Law Review 5:165.

  • Fischer-Lescano, A., and G. Teubner. 2003. Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Law. Michigan Journal of International Law 25:999.

  • Glennon, Jr. R. J., and J. E. Nowak. 1976. A Functional Analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment State Action Requirement. The Supreme Court Review 221.

  • Gripsrud, Jostein, Hallvard Moe, Anders Molander, and Graham Murdock, eds. 2010. The Idea of the Public Sphere: A Reader. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Lexington Books.

  • Grundmann, Stefan. 2008. The Concept of the Private Law Society: After 50 Years of European and European Business Law. European Review of Private Law 4:553.

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1991. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 2001. The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

  • Hale, R. L. 1952. Freedom Through Law: Public Control of Private Governing Power. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

  • Harlow, Carol. 1980. Public’ and “Private” Law: Definition without Distinction. Modern Law Review 43:241.

  • Hatzopoulos, Vassilis. 2012. Regulating Services in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Heimler, Alberto. 2009. Regulatory Reform and Competition: How to Push the Agenda Forward. A European Perspective. Comparative Economic Studies 51:540. [Crossref]

  • Hershkoff, Helen. 2011. Privatizing Public Rights: Common Law and State Action in the United States. Presented at the European University Institute Department of Law Legal and Political Theory Working Group, text on file with the author

  • Hesselink, Martijn Willem. 2006. The Politics of a European Civil Code. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

  • Horowitz, H. W. 1956. The Misleading Search for State Action under the Fourteenth Amendment. Southern California Law Review 30:208.

  • Horwitz, M. J. 1982. The history of the public/private distinction. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 130:1423. [Crossref]

  • Huhn, W. R. 2006. The State Action Doctrine and the Principle of Democratic Choice. Hofstra Law Review 34:1379.

  • Kennedy, Duncan. 1976. Form and substance in private law adjudication. Harvard Law Review 89:1685. [Crossref]

  • Kennedy, Duncan. 1982. The stages of the decline of the public/private distinction. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 130:1349. [Crossref]

  • Komesar, Neil K. 1994. Imperfect Alternatives: Choosing Institutions in Law, Economics, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Krisch, Nico. 2010. Beyond Constitutionalism: The Pluralist Structure of Postnational Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Krzeminska-Vamvaka, Joanna. 2009. Horizontal Effect of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms – Much Ado about Nothing? German, Polish and EU Theories Compared After Viking Line. Jean Monnet Working Paper 11/2009.

  • Kumm, Mattias. 2006. Who is Afraid of the Total Constitution?: Constitutional Rights as Principles and the Constitutionalization of Private Law. German Law Journal 7:341.

  • Leible, S. 2008. Fundamental Freedoms and European Contract Law. In Constitutional Values and European Contract Law, edited by Stefan Grundmann. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

  • Manning, Brayless. 1960. Corporate Power and Individual Freedom: Some General Analysis and Particular Reservations. Northwestern University Law Review 55:38.

  • Michelman, Frank I. 1999. W(H)ither the Constitution. Cardozo Law Review 21:1063.

  • Michelon, Claudio. 2012. The Public Nature of Private Law? In The Public in Law: Representations of the Political in Legal Discourse, edited by Cláudio Michelon et al. Farnham: Ashgate, 195.

  • Monti, Giorgio. 2008. Managing the Intersection of Utilities Regulation and EC Competition Law. Competition Law Review 4:123.

  • Neergaard, Ulla B. 1998. Competition & Competences: The Tensions between European Competition Law and Anti-Competitive Measures by the Member States. Copenhagen: DJØF.

  • Nowak, William J. 2009. Public-Private Governance: A Historical Introduction. In Government by Contract: Outsourcing and American Democracy, edited by J. Freeman and M. Minow. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

  • Odudu, Okeoghene. 2006. The boundaries of EC competition law: the scope of Article 81. Oxford: University Press.

  • Odudu, Okeoghene. 2009. Economic Activity as a Limit to Community Law. In The outer limits of European Union Law, edited by Catherine Barnard and Okeoghene Odudu. Oxford: Hart.

  • Oliver, Dawn. 1999. Common Values and the Public-Private Divide. London: Butterworths.

  • Prechal, Sacha, and Sybe de Vries. 2009. Seamless Web of Judicial Protection in the Internal Market? European Law Review 5.

  • Ruffert, Matthias, ed. 2009. The Public-Private Law Divide: Potential for Transformation? London: BICL.

  • Sachs, Michael. 2003. Verfassungsrecht II: Grundrechte. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

  • Sauter, Wolf, and Harm Schepel. 2009. State and Market in European Union Law: The Public and Private Spheres of the Internal Market before the EU Courts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Schepel, Harm. 2012. Constitutionalising the Market, Marketising the Constitution, and to Tell the Difference: On the Horizontal Application of the Free Movement Provisions in EU Law. European Law Journal 18:177. [Crossref]

  • Schwarzschild, M. 1988. Value Pluralism and the Constitution: In Defense of the State Action Doctrine. The Supreme Court Review 129.

  • Seidman, L. M. 1993. The State Action Paradox. Constitutional Commentary 10:379.

  • Semmelmann, Constanze. 2010. The European Union’s Economic Constitution under the Lisbon Treaty: Soul-Searching Shifts the Focus to Procedure. European Law Review 35:516.

  • Snell, Jukka. 2002. Private Parties and the Free Movement of Goods and Services. In Services and Free Movement in EU Law, edited by M. Andenas and W. H. Roth. Oxford: University Press.

  • Spaventa, Eleanor. 2011. The Horizontal Application of Fundamental Rights as General Principles of Union Law. In A Constitutional Order of States?: Essays in EU Law in Honour of Alan Dashwood, edited by Anthony Arnull et al. Oxford: Hart.

  • Sunstein, Cass R. 2002. State Action is Always Present. Chicago Journal of International Law 3:465.

  • Taylor, G. 2002. The Horizontal Effect of Human Rights Provisions, the German Model and Its Applicability to Common-Law Jurisdictions. King’s College Law Journal 13:187.

  • Teubner, G. 2004. Global Private Regimes: Neo-Spontaneous Law and Dual Constitution of Autonomous Sectors in World Society? In Globalization and Public Governance, edited by Karl-Heinz Ladeur. Farnham: Ashgate, 71.

  • Tushnet, Mark. 2003. The Issue of State Action/Horizontal Effect in Comparative Constitutional Law. International Journal of Constitutional Law 1:79.

  • Walker, Neil. 2012. On the Necessarily Public Character of Law. In The Public in Law: Representations of the Political in Legal Discourse, edited by Cláudio Michelon et al. Farnham: Ashgate, 9.

  • Weintraub, Jeff. 1997. The Theory and Politics of the Public/Private Distinction. In Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy, edited by Jeff Weintraub and Krishna Kumar. Chicago: of Chicago Press.

  • Yeung, Karen. 2010. The Regulatory State. In The Oxford Handbook of Regulation, edited by Robert Baldwin et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 64.

About the article

Published Online: 2014-05-22

Published in Print: 2013-08-01


Citation Information: Global Jurist, ISSN (Online) 1934-2640, ISSN (Print) 2194-5675, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/gj-2014-0006. Export Citation

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in