Integration of the Internal Market
Integration of the Internal Market
Introduction
At the very center of the European integration process stands the internal market. The Court of Justice has in several instances ruled on the scope of the rights constituted by the internal market and the thereby following freedoms of movement of workers, capital, and goods, the freedom to provide services, and the right establish.
This synopsis will look into the way in which the Court of Justice balance between promoting the harmonization of the internal market and not pushing too hard on issues of peculiar interest to the Member States (MS). Given the short format of this synopsis, the scope of the inquiry must be limited extensively. This will be performed by means of providing the fundamentals for just one argument, which will be explored through comparative analysis of two cases within the rulings on the freedom of movement of workers, and then discussed in relation to two other cases.
The Argument
The argument is that the Court of Justice in general has taken an activist role in promoting harmonization of the internal market, but has taken a reluctant approach in matters concerning public moral. The case law established by the preliminary rulings in the cases of Angonese and van Duyn exemplify this act of balancing. In order to found the analysis more solidly, the important distinctive points in the cases will be discussed in relation to the case law of Centros and Schmidberger.
Angonese and van Duyn relate to the case law concerning the free movement of workers. The cases are essentially concerned with the extent to which the right to free movement of workers grants access to a position. In Angonese the controversy arises upon a provision of a company that states that only individuals holding a certificate of bilingualism from one specific test center will be considered in the competition on a position. In van Duyn the controversy arises upon the face the government of the host MS consider the
Introduction
At the very center of the European integration process stands the internal market. The Court of Justice has in several instances ruled on the scope of the rights constituted by the internal market and the thereby following freedoms of movement of workers, capital, and goods, the freedom to provide services, and the right establish.
This synopsis will look into the way in which the Court of Justice balance between promoting the harmonization of the internal market and not pushing too hard on issues of peculiar interest to the Member States (MS). Given the short format of this synopsis, the scope of the inquiry must be limited extensively. This will be performed by means of providing the fundamentals for just one argument, which will be explored through comparative analysis of two cases within the rulings on the freedom of movement of workers, and then discussed in relation to two other cases.
The Argument
The argument is that the Court of Justice in general has taken an activist role in promoting harmonization of the internal market, but has taken a reluctant approach in matters concerning public moral. The case law established by the preliminary rulings in the cases of Angonese and van Duyn exemplify this act of balancing. In order to found the analysis more solidly, the important distinctive points in the cases will be discussed in relation to the case law of Centros and Schmidberger.
Angonese and van Duyn relate to the case law concerning the free movement of workers. The cases are essentially concerned with the extent to which the right to free movement of workers grants access to a position. In Angonese the controversy arises upon a provision of a company that states that only individuals holding a certificate of bilingualism from one specific test center will be considered in the competition on a position. In van Duyn the controversy arises upon the face the government of the host MS consider the