Unveiling the Hidden Impact of EU Internal Market Rules

A groundbreaking study from Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin has shed light on a critical tension at the heart of European integration: how the European Union's (EU) internal market rules are quietly stifling member states' ambitions for stricter environmental standards. Led by political economist Jasmin Zöllmer, the research reveals that national governments often self-censor proposed laws on environmental protection, animal welfare, and consumer safety due to fears of clashing with free movement of goods provisions. This "silent liberalization," as Zöllmer terms it, occurs largely outside the spotlight of court battles, through preemptive mechanisms like the Technical Regulations Information System (TRIS).

The EU internal market, encompassing around 450 million consumers, has doubled trade in goods and services among member states over the past three decades. While this economic powerhouse drives prosperity, it imposes rigid constraints on domestic policy innovation, particularly in areas demanding higher environmental benchmarks. As Zöllmer notes, "Competitiveness must not mean that ambitious social, environmental or animal welfare standards are automatically regarded as barriers to trade."

The Foundations of the EU Single Market and Free Movement of Goods

The EU's single market, established by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), guarantees the free movement of goods, services, capital, and people. Article 34 TFEU prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect, enforced via the principle of mutual recognition from the landmark Cassis de Dijon case (1979). This means products legally marketed in one member state must be accepted in others, unless justified under exceptions like public health or environmental protection (Article 36 TFEU).

However, where EU directives set minimum harmonized standards—such as the Calves Directive (2008/119/EC) on animal welfare—these often preclude stricter national rules from applying to imports. National regulations thus bind only domestic producers, creating a "race to the bottom" dynamic where governments hesitate to raise standards, fearing competitive disadvantages for local industries against cheaper imports meeting lower EU minima.

This framework, dubbed "negative integration" by scholar Fritz Scharpf, prioritizes barrier removal over positive policy harmonization, profoundly shaping environmental policymaking across Europe.

Decoding the TRIS Notification Procedure

At the core of Zöllmer's analysis is Directive 2015/1535/EU, which mandates the TRIS procedure. Before enacting technical regulations that could affect trade—like new emissions limits or product eco-design rules—member states must notify the European Commission via the TRIS database. The Commission has three months to review and comment, potentially delaying or altering national plans if they risk impeding free movement.

This ex ante scrutiny fosters "preemptive compliance." Governments anticipate objections, softening proposals to avoid infringement proceedings. Zöllmer's examination of TRIS data shows heightened awareness and internalization of internal market rules, shifting enforcement from courts to administrative foresight. The number of European Court of Justice (ECJ) cases on free movement has plummeted, not because barriers vanished, but because they are dismantled preemptively.

• Notification submission: Draft laws uploaded to TRIS.
• Standstill period: Up to 3 months for EC review.
• Potential outcomes: Approval, comments, or blockage if conflicting with single market.

Recent TRIS notifications, such as France's 2025 draft on reducing textile industry environmental impact (2025/0336/FR), illustrate ongoing tensions.

Key Findings: A Deeper Rigidity in Free Movement Enforcement

Zöllmer's study, published in the Journal of European Public Policy, challenges claims of softening negative integration. Through TRIS analysis, mutual recognition application, and expert interviews, it evidences sustained—or even intensified—market-making pressures. Member states increasingly view ambitious standards as trade barriers, leading to regulatory chill.

Statistics underscore integration: Intra-EU trade has surged, with fewer overt barriers but pervasive self-regulation. "The mere possibility of infringement proceedings deters national legislators," Zöllmer observes, highlighting how this dynamic hampers progress on EU Green Deal goals like climate neutrality by 2050.

In higher education contexts, such research illuminates policy-academia intersections, aiding scholars navigating EU-funded projects under Horizon Europe.

Case Studies: When Environmental Ambitions Meet Market Realities

The study draws on ECJ precedents where environmental-linked rules faltered. For instance, the Netherlands' ban on red grouse sales under the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) was overturned (Gourmetterie Van den Burg, C-169/89), as the directive's exhaustive nature barred import restrictions despite allowing stricter measures in principle.

• Austrian animal transport rules (Monsees, C-350/97): Stricter standards couldn't halt imports from lower-compliance states.
• UK veal crate export ban (Compassion in World Farming, C-1/96): Deemed discriminatory against intra-EU trade.
• Tail-docking pigs: National bans limited by minimum harmonization.

These cases, overlapping environmental and welfare concerns, exemplify broader chill on pollution controls or sustainable packaging mandates, where TRIS flags potential mutual recognition violations.

Photo by Alfred Quartey on Unsplash

EU vs. US: Lessons from Federalism

Surprisingly, the US internal market permits greater state-level experimentation. States like California enforce stringent emissions standards applicable to sales (not just production), without federal preemption in many cases. Zöllmer's comparative work shows US "race to the top" dynamics in animal welfare, contrasting EU rigidity.

"The US allows individual states more leeway for progressive regulations," Zöllmer argues, suggesting Europe could recalibrate for policy diversity while preserving trade.

Stakeholder Reactions and Broader Implications

Environmental NGOs decry the findings as evidence of market supremacy over planetary health, urging TRIS reforms. Industry groups defend mutual recognition for competitiveness, while governments face political bind: green voter demands versus business lobbying.

For Europe's higher education sector, this underscores research-policy urgency. Humboldt's Integrative Research Institute on Transformations of Human-Environment Systems (IRI THESys) exemplifies interdisciplinary approaches blending economics, law, and ecology.

Implications ripple to climate adaptation: stricter national recycling targets or pesticide bans risk TRIS scrutiny, slowing Green Deal implementation.

Humboldt University’s Role in Shaping EU Policy Discourse

Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, a leader in sustainability research, continues influencing EU debates through scholars like Zöllmer. Her prior works, including on US farm animal policies, enrich comparative insights.Explore research positions in such fields via platforms like AcademicJobs.com.

This publication highlights academia's pivotal role, fostering evidence-based reforms amid Europe's energy transition.

Towards Reforms: Balancing Trade and Sustainability

Zöllmer advocates recalibrating internal market law, perhaps emulating US federalism or expanding positive integration via EU-wide high standards. Proposals include TRIS exemptions for Green Deal-aligned measures or mutual recognition carve-outs for verified eco-standards.

Future Horizon Europe calls prioritize such policy research, offering postdoc opportunities for early-career scholars.

Career Insights for Environmental Policy Researchers

Aspiring academics can leverage this topic for impactful careers. Skills in quantitative TRIS analysis, ECJ case studies, and stakeholder interviews are prized. Craft a standout CV emphasizing interdisciplinary expertise.

• Pursue PhDs at institutions like Humboldt.
• Target professor roles in EU law/environmental economics.
• Engage in EU-funded consortia for visibility.

With Europe eyeing 55% emissions cuts by 2030, demand surges for such expertise.

Photo by Krists Luhaers on Unsplash

Outlook: Reimagining Europe's Green Future

Zöllmer's study signals urgency for dialogue: can the single market evolve to champion, rather than constrain, environmental leadership? As Humboldt exemplifies, university research drives this conversation.

Explore professor ratings, higher ed jobs, and career advice to join the fray. Share insights in comments below.