Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T23:23:58.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II. Free Movement of Goods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Karl Newman  and
Stephen Weatherill
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. From “Sunday trading” to Keck and Mithouard

These Current Developments surveys have consistently been driven to consideration of the Court's attempts to fix the outer limits of Article 30 of the EC Treaty, beyond which national authorities remain exclusively competent to regulate their markets without fear of legal challenge based on Community rules governing the free movement of goods. The high-water mark of judicial interventionism came in the so-called “Sunday trading” cases where the United Kingdom was required to justify against standards recognised by Community law rules governing shop opening hours despite the fact that such rules, although inhibitive of commercial freedom, posed no demonstrable obstacle to the construction of an integrated marketing strategy for the whole territory of the Community.1 In Criminal Proceedings against Keck and Mithouard2 the Court sought to curtail the reach of Article 30. A French rule prohibiting resale at a loss was held unaffected by Article 30. The Court overruled previous decisions, probably including the pair dealing with Sunday trading, although the Court was not explicit. Its intention to refocus the law of the free movement of goods on measures hostile to market integration, rather than those merely oppressive of commercial freedom, was reflected in the formula:

Type
Current Developments: European Community Law
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , July 1997 , pp. 704 - 712
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Case 145/88 Torfaen BC v. B & Qplc [1989] E.C.R. 765Google Scholar, Case C-169/91 Stoke-on-Trent and Norwich City Councils v. B & Q plc [1992] E.C.R. I–6635.Google Scholar

2. Joined Cases C-267 and C-268/91 [1993] E.C.R. I–6097.Google Scholar

3. Case 8/74 [1974] E.C.R. 837.Google Scholar

4. Case C-387/93, judgment of 14 Dec. 1995.

5. Joined Cases C-418/93, C-419/93 et al., judgment of 20 June 1996.

6. Joined Cases C-69/93 and C-258/93 [1994] E.C.R. I–2355.Google Scholar

7. Case C-169/91, supra n.1.

8. Case C-55/94, judgment of 30 Nov. 1995.

9. Case 120/78 Rewe Zentrale v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein [1979] E.C.R. 649.Google Scholar

10. Case C-384/93 [1995] E.C.R. I–1141.Google Scholar

11. Case C-415/93, judgment of 15 Dec. 1995.

12. Case 15/81 Gaston Schul v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen [1982] E.C.R. 1409.Google Scholar For discussion see Bernard, N., “Discrimination and Free Movement in EC Law” (1996) 45 I.C.L.Q. 82Google Scholar; Weatherill, S., “After Keck: Some Thoughts on how to Clarify the Clarification” (1996) 33 C.M.L.Rev. 885Google Scholar; Friedbacher, T., “Motive Unmasked: the European Court of Justice, the Free Movement of Goods, and the Search for Legitimacy” (1996) 2 E.L.J. 226.Google Scholar

13. Case C-5/94 [1996] E.C.R. I–2553.Google Scholar

14. E.g. Cases 90/63 and 91/63 Commission v. Luxembourg and Belgium [1964] E.C.R. 625.Google Scholar

15. It is a separate question whether effective control through such routes can realistically be expected in such circumstances.

16. Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 [1996] E.C.R. I–1029.Google Scholar

17. (1983) O.J. L 109.Google Scholar

18. (1988) O.J. L 81.Google Scholar

19. (1994) O.J. L 100/30.Google Scholar

20. Art.10 includes some exceptions. Moreover, Art.9(7) lifts the stand-still obligation, but not the notification obligation, in urgent cases; States must also provide reasons for use of the urgency procedure.

21. Exceptionally, stand-still is for only four months in the case of a draft technical regulation in the form of a voluntary agreement within the meaning of Art.1(9) of the Directive.

22. Case C-289/94, judgment of 17 Sept. 1996.

23. Case C-194/94 [1996] E.C.R. I–2201.Google ScholarSee Annotation by Slot, P.-J. (1996) 33 C.M.L. Rev. 1035.Google Scholar

24. (1986) O.J. C245/4.Google Scholar

25. Case 380/87 [1989] E.C.R. 2491.Google Scholar

26. Supra n.23, at p.2231.

27. Case C-354/90 Fédération Nationale du Commerce Extérieur des Produits Alimen-taires v. France [1991] E.C.R. I–5523.Google Scholar

28. The Internal Market after 1992: Meeting the Challenge, Report to the EEC Commission by the High Level Group on the Operation of Internal Market.

29. (1994) O.J. C179/1.Google Scholar

30. (1996) O.J. C224/3.Google Scholar

31. Communication to the Council and the Parliament containing operational conclusions reached in the light of the Art.100b inventory (1993) O.J. C353/4.Google Scholar

32. (1995) O.J. L321/1.Google Scholar

33. There are exceptions in Art.3.