Il Three sets of examples Verba docent, exempla trahunt. But it is by no means the case that the sets of examples from the case law of the eCJ discussed below could" confute' the paradigms sketched out in the first section, or represent some higher law. This is because these paradigms merely refer to sets of ideas in which legal concepts and arguments can find a theoretical basis. To that extent, they compete with each other. But it is not to be expected, say, that one of them will totally dominate practice, or that one tradition of thought will disappear without trace Nevertheless, the analyses below pursues systematic and theoretical claims: they are intended to illustrate problems graphically with all three of the paradigms set forth in the previous section, thus preparing the transition to the synthesising perspectives in the concluding section II. 1 Centros and Uberseering The transformation of the freedoms of market citizens into political rights, and the obsolescence of trad itional private international law CentrosI may be regarded as the ECJ's most interesting judgment on European market building since the legendary Cassis de Dijon decision of 1979: 32 it is, at any rate, the most intensively debated one. 33 Expectations about the subsequent Uberseering litigation were correspondingly tense. 34 So much has been written that it would seem appropriate to start with the three theses that are to be established below: (1)This case law transforms economic freedoms into political rights. (2) It strives towards a jurid ification(proceduralisation) of regulatory competition. (3)It has the potential of constitutionalising' the Europeanisation process through a law of just(ce ) -fication that reaches beyond both orthodox supranationalism and trad itional private international law IL. .I Centros The judgment in Centros concems the core of the European legal acquis, namely the freedoms of market citizens which apply directly and ought therefore to take primacy over national law. Moreover, the decision is widely perceived as a step towards a long expected new type of negative integration, because it seems to expose the national company laws to regulatory competition. But Centros is more sophisticated than such interpretations suggest. 35 As so often occurs, the facts of this seminal case were triv ial a Danish married couple Case 212/97, Judgment of9 March 1999, ECR(1999-1)1459, Centros Ltd v. Ervervsog Selskabsstrylsen Rs. 120/78, SIg. 1979, 649-Cassis de dijon A Celex search on 25 March 2002 indicated 1 12 commentaries. That figure was too modest, for it did not take into account, for instance, H. Halbhuber's monograph Limited Company statt GmbH? Europarechtlicher Rahmen und deutscher Widerstand- Ein Beitrag =ur Auslegung von Art. 48 EG und =um Europaischen Gesellschaftsrecht, Baden-Baden: Nomos 2001 Rs 208/00, U.v. 5 November 2002, Uberseering Bl v Nordic Construction Company The following owes much to B. Trefil, Die Niederlassungsfreiheit fur Gesellschaften in der Rechtsprechung des EuGH und ihre Auswirkungen auf nationales Recht, EUl Working Paper Law 200319. nttp:/www.iue.it/pub/law03-9pdf.IamalsoindebtedtoKaraPreedyformanydiscussionsonthenormative contents of the freedoms, see K Preedy, Fundamental Rights and Private Acts: Horizontal Direct or Indirect Effect, European Review of private Law 8(2000), 125 ff.II Three sets of examples Verba docent, exempla trahunt. But it is by no means the case that the sets of examples from the case law of the ECJ discussed below could ‘confute’ the paradigms sketched out in the first section, or represent some ‘higher law’. This is because these paradigms merely refer to sets of ideas in which legal concepts and arguments can find a theoretical basis. To that extent, they compete with each other. But it is not to be expected, say, that one of them will totally dominate ‘practice’, or that one tradition of thought will disappear without trace. Nevertheless, the analyses below pursues systematic and theoretical claims: they are intended to illustrate problems graphically with all three of the paradigms set forth in the previous section, thus preparing the transition to the synthesising perspectives in the concluding section. II.1 Centros and Überseering: The transformation of the freedoms of market citizens into political rights, and the obsolescence of traditional private international law Centros31 may be regarded as the ECJ’s most interesting judgment on European market building since the legendary Cassis de Dijon decision of 1979;32 it is, at any rate, the most intensively debated one.33 Expectations about the subsequent Überseering litigation were correspondingly tense.34 So much has been written that it would seem appropriate to start with the three theses that are to be established below: (1) This case law transforms economic freedoms into political rights. (2) It strives towards a juridification (proceduralisation) of regulatory competition. (3) It has the potential of ‘constitutionalising’ the Europeanisation process through a law of just(ce)-fication that reaches beyond both orthodox supranationalism and traditional private international law. II.1.1 Centros The judgment in Centros concerns the core of the European legal acquis, namely the freedoms of market citizens which apply directly and ought therefore to take primacy over national law. Moreover, the decision is widely perceived as a step towards a long expected new type of ‘negative integration’, because it seems to expose the national company laws to regulatory competition. But Centros is more sophisticated than such interpretations suggest.35 As so often occurs, the facts of this seminal case were trivial: a Danish married couple, 31 Case 212/97, judgment of 9 March 1999, ECR (1999-I) 1459, Centros Ltd. v. Ervervsog Selskabsstrylsen. 32 Rs. 120/78, Slg. 1979, 649 - Cassis de Dijon. 33 A Celex search on 25 March 2002 indicated 112 commentaries. That figure was too modest, for it did not take into account, for instance, H. Halbhuber’s monograph Limited Company statt GmbH? Europarechtlicher Rahmen und deutscher Widerstand - Ein Beitrag zur Auslegung von Art. 48 EG und zum Europäischen Gesellschaftsrecht, Baden-Baden: Nomos 2001. 34 Rs. 208/00, U. v. 5 November 2002, Überseering BV v. Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH (NCC). 35 The following owes much to B. Trefil, Die Niederlassungsfreiheit für Gesellschaften in der Rechtsprechung des EuGH und ihre Auswirkungen auf nationales Recht, EUI Working Paper Law 2003 /9, <http://www.iue.it/PUB/law03-9.pdf>. I am also indebted to Kara Preedy for many discussions on the normative contents of the freedoms; see K. Preedy, Fundamental Rights and Private Acts: Horizontal Direct or Indirect Effect, European Review of Private Law 8 (2000), 125 ff