The previous chapter demonstrated the ease of creating a cross-border dimension to a case, in order to bring EU law into play, and thereby putting the rule-maker on the defensive, required to justify its practices. This chapter addresses the issue of abuse. It asks: Is there is a risk that it is so easy to invent a cross-border element that in fact the wholly internal situation, whereby a Member State may assert autonomy, is in practice emptied of content? Is there an overarching ‘abuse control’ which precludes the obligation cast on a regulator to show justification? The answer is that there...

The previous chapter demonstrated the ease of creating a cross-border dimension to a case, in order to bring EU law into play, and thereby putting the rule-maker on the defensive, required to justify its practices. This chapter addresses the issue of abuse. It asks: Is there is a risk that it is so easy to invent a cross-border element that in fact the wholly internal situation, whereby a Member State may assert autonomy, is in practice emptied of content? Is there an overarching ‘abuse control’ which precludes the obligation cast on a regulator to show justification? The answer is that there is, but it is an ambiguous concept on top of another ambiguous concept, the internal market itself.