Borderless Market legislation practice in EU and USA: Competence of central authorities in the federal model


  • Klaudia Galka



Both the EU and the USA have a federated structure with some competencies and responsibilities resting at the central level, some resting with the state governments. Both systems subscribe to a constitutional principle of enumerated powers under which, in order for powers to belong properly to the federal level, they need to have been enumerated as such. The United States Constitution centralized the government with all due respect to a relationship between central government and the state level (amendment X of the U.S. Constitution2). In this study, the current American federal model will be compared to the model of governance in Europe which might be considered to be developing towards a federal system. This system essentially implies the supremacy of the (respective) constitution and, indeed, all the hallmarks of American federalism are included in the European Constitution. The Single Market encompasses the respect for EU basic legal principles, subsidiarity and proportionality (Article 5 TEU). However, the European Constitution remains problematic in the European Union. The 2004 attempt to pass the Constitution turned out to be a failure and slowed down further political integration. Constitutional issues will also be discussed from the judiciary point of view which is to be confronted with political aspects. The important question to be addressed here is the role of judicial control in the process of creating a coherent doctrinal framework. The question whether the legislative acts are immune from legislative review provided that matter falls within the Treaty competences conferred on the EU by the Member States, or in the U.S. Constitution respectively, will be examined.


Primary Sources:

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Mutual Recognition in the Context of the follow-up to the Action Plan for the Single Market, 16 June 1999.

Policy Options for Progress Towards a European Contract Law Comments on the issues raised in the Green Paper from the Commission COM(2010) 348 final.

Case Law:

United States of America

Gibbons v. Ogden 22 U.S. 1 (1824).

Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936).

A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 554 (1935).

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 32 (1937).

Prudential Ins. Co. V. Benjamin, 328 U.S. 408,415 (1946).

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 256 (1964).

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority 469 US 528, 552 (1985).

Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991).

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

Gonzalez v. Raich 529 U.S. 598 (2000).

United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).

Fed. Maritime Com’n v. S.C. State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743, 751 (2002).

European Union

Case C-350/92 Spain v Council 1995 E.C.R. I-1985.

Case C-376/98 Germany v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR I-2247.

Case C-491/01 British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco [2002] ECR I-11453.

Case C-210/03 Swedish Match UK Ltd v. Secretary of State for Health [2004] ECR I-11893.

Case C-66/04 United Kingdom v Parliament and Council (Smoke Flavourings) [2005] ECR I-10553.

Cases C-154/04 & C-155/04, Alliance for Natural Health v. Secretary of State for Health, [2005] E.C.R. I-6451.

Case C-380/03 Germany v European Parliament [2006] ECR I-11573.

Case C-301/06 Ireland v Parliament and Council [2009] ECR I-593.

Case C-58/08 Vodafone, O2 et al v. Secretary of State [2010] ECR I-5026.

Case T-18/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami et al v. Parliament and Council [2010] ECR II-0000.

Case T-526/10, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami et al v. Parliament and Council, order of 25 April 2013

Secondary sources:

Ann Althouse, Enforcing federalism after United States v. Lopez, Arizona Law Review 1996 (38), p. 793- 820.

Catherine Barnard, What the Keck? Balancing the needs of the single market with state regulatory autonomy in the EU (and the US), European journal of consumer law 2012(2), p. 201-217.

Catherine Barnard, Restricting restrictions: lessons for the EU from the US?, The Cambridge Law Journal 2009 (68), p. 575-606.

George Bermann, “Taking Subsidiarity Seriously: Federalism in the European Community and the United States” Columbia Law Review 1994 (94), p. 332-435.

Eric R. Claeys, The Living Commerce Clause: Federalism in Progressive Political Theory and the Commerce Clause After Lopez and Morrison, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 11(1) 2002.

Paul Craig & Gráinne De Búrca; EU Law Texts, Cases and Materials. (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 5th edition, 2011).

Bruno de Witte, ‘Non-Market Values in Internal Market Legislation’ in Niamh Nic Shuibhne (ed.), Regulating the Internal Market, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2006, pp.61-86.

William N. Eskridge Jr. and John Ferejohn, The Elastic Commerce Clause: A Political Theory of American Federalism, Vanderbildt Law Review: Yale Law School, 1994 (47), p. 1355.

Louis Fisher & Katy J Harriger; American constitutional law: volume 1 constitutional structures: separated powers and federalism. (Carolina Academic Press: Durnham, 8th edition, 2009).

Geraint Howells, Federalism in USA and EC: The Scope for Harmonised Legislative Activity Compared, European Review of Private Law 2002 (5), p. 601-622.

Isidora Maletić, The boundaries of the Internal Market after the Lisbon Treaty: a closer look at article 95 EC, Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy 2009(5), 5.

Robert Nagel, The implosion of American federalism, (Oxford University Press: New York 2001.

Fernanda Nicola &Fabio Marchetti, Constitutionalizing Tobacco: The Ambivalence of European Federalism. Harvard International Law Journal, 2005 (46), p. 507-525.

Kalypso Nicolaïdis and Robert Howse (eds), The federal vision: legitimacy and levels of governance in the United states and the European union, Oxford [etc.]: Oxford University Press 2001.

Michael Smith , ‘Competitive co-operation and EU-US relations: can the EU be a strategic partner for the US in the world political economy?’, Journal of European Public Policy 5(4) 1998, p.561-577.

Robert Schütze, From dual to cooperative federalism: the changing structure of European law (Oxford [etc.]: Oxford University Press 2009).

Robert Schütze, On “federal” ground: the European Union as an (inter)national phenomenon, Common Market Law Review 2009 (46) p. 1069-1105.

Robert Schütze, From Rome to Lisbon: Executive federalism in the (new) European Union, Common Market Law Review 2010 (47) p. 1385-1427.

Wifried Swenden, ‘Is the European Union in need of a Competence Catalogue? Insights from Comparative Federalism’, Journal of Common Market Studies 371 (2004).

S R Weatherill, ‘The limits of legislative harmonisation ten years after Tobacco Advertising: how the Court’s case law has become a “drafting guide”’ German Law Journal 2011(12), p.827-863.

Derrick Wyatt, ‘Community Competence to Regulate the Internal Market’ University of Oxford Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series No 9/2007.

Paolo Cecchini, The European Challenge 1992: The Benefits of a Single Market, (Aldershot, England: Gower Publishing Company, Ltd., 1988).

Internet Sources:

Fabienne Ilzkovitz & Adriaan Dierx et al., Steps towards a deeper economic integration: the Internal Market in the 21st century: A contribution to the Single Market Review, Directorate- General for Economic and Financial Affairs, 2007 Retrieved from:, last visited on 11-07-2013.

Internal Market: Awareness, Perceptions and Impacts Report. Retrieved from:, last visited on 11-07-2013.

GDP for the world and the European Union. World Economic Outlook Database: International Monetary Fund. Retrieved from:, last visited on 11-07-2013.

Jo Leinen, For a European Social Pact 2013, Retreived from:,last visited on 13 - 07 - 2013.

Josephine van Zeben, Regulatory Competence Allocation: The Missing Link in Theories of Federalism, Law Institutions and Economics in Nantere Workshop, Paris. Retrieved from, last visited on 11-07-2013.