Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:20:02.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Analysis of Article 28 EC after the Keck Judgment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Luigi Russi

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

European Union (EU) regulation of the free circulation of goods may be considered an eminent jurisprudential achievement; in fact, it has emerged from and been strengthened by the judgments of the European Court of Justice (hereinafter “the Court”).

In particular, the Court's engagement with the prohibition on quantitative import restrictions and other measures having an equivalent effect established by Article 28 European Convention (EC), has paved the road towards integration. This was especially true of the Court's “milestone” decisions in Dassonville and Cassis de Dijon.

The judicial parameter established by those judgments was built upon the interpretation of “quantitative restrictions” as encompassing any “measures hindering trade.” Although this has proven to be, for a limited period of time, an efficient instrument in pursuing Treaty goals, like the creation of a single European market, it has also produced a few side effects, including: (a) an excessive broadening of the field of Article 28 EC's application; and, consequently, (b) an increase in the number of claims the Court has had to examine. This has placed the Court in the position of having to weigh, more and more frequently, the content of national policies in order to determine whether the restrictions they impose can be justified.

Type
Articles
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 7 , Issue 5 , 01 May 2006 , pp. 479 - 504
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Formerly Article 30.Google Scholar

2 Case C-8/74, Procureur du Roi v. Dassonville, 1974 E.C.R. 837.Google Scholar

3 Case C-120/78, Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, 1979 E.C.R. 649.Google Scholar

4 Joined Cases C-267/91 & C-268/91, Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard, 1993 E.C.R. I-6097.Google Scholar

5 Case C-8/74, Procureur du Roi v. Dassonville, 1974 E.C.R. 837.Google Scholar

6 Case C-120/78, Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, 1979 E.C.R. 649.Google Scholar

7 Id. at paragraph 8 (The Court explicitly admitts that the justifiability through mandatory requirements only applies to national provisions regulating the trade of single categories of products, which are, by definition, indistinctly applicable; therefore distinctly applicable measures are implicitly excluded from such remedy.).Google Scholar

8 Weiler, J.H.H., The Constitution of the Common Market Place: Text and Context in the Evolution of the Free Movement of Goods, in EU Law 349 (Paul Craig and Grainne de Burca eds., 1998) (brackets added by the author).Google Scholar

9 Mattera, A., De l'arrět Dassonville à l’ arrět Keck: l'obscure clarté d'une jurisprudence riche en principes novateurs et en contradictions, 1 Revue du Marche Unique Europeen 117 (1994).Google Scholar

10 Infra § 3.3 (Discussion the distinction between requirements related to the production of goods and selling arrangements).Google Scholar

11 Marini, L., La libera circolazione delle merci, in Il diritto privato dell'Unione europea 169 (A. Tizzano ed., 2000).Google Scholar

12 Weiler, , supra note 8.Google Scholar

13 Infra § 2 point 3 (The judicial parameter until the Keck judgement).Google Scholar

14 For an accessible introduction, which does not require in-depth mathematical knowledge, see N.G. Mankiw, Principles of Economics chaps. 3 and 9 (2003). For further information, useful textbooks are: M. Todaro and S. Smith, Development Economics chap. 12 (2003); H. Varian, Intermediate Microeconomics chaps. 30 and 31 (6th ed. 2003).Google Scholar

15 Chalmers, D., Repackaging the Internal Market – The Ramifications of the Keck Judgement; 19 European Law Review 385 (1994).Google Scholar

16 Case C-358/01, Commission v. Spain, 2003 Official Journal of the European Union C 7, 10.01.2004, p.13; not yet reported.Google Scholar

17 Case C-170/78, Commission v. United Kingdom, 1983 E.C.R. 2265; Case C-356/85, Commission v. Belgium,1987 E.C.R. 3299; Case C-323/87, Commission v. Italy, 1989 E.C.R. 2275.Google Scholar

18 Joined Cases C-267/91 & C-268/91, Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard, 1993 E.C.R. I-6097.Google Scholar

19 On which they presumably benefit from the largest comparative advantage.Google Scholar

20 Chalmers, , supra note 15.Google Scholar

21 Case C-145/88, Torfaen Borough Council v. B & Q Plc, 1989 E.C.R. 3851.Google Scholar

22 Case C-254/98, Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb v. TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH, 2000 E.C.R. I-151.Google Scholar

23 Gormley, L.W., Two Years after Keck, 19 Fordham Int'l L. J. 866 (1996).Google Scholar

24 Weiler, , supra note 8.Google Scholar

25 Case C-441/04, A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH v. Claudia Schmidt, 2006 http://curia.eu.int; not yet reported.Google Scholar

26 Case 405/98, Konsumentombudsmannen v. Gourmet International Products AB, 2001 E.C.R. I-1795.Google Scholar

27 Case 366/04, Georg Schwarz v. Bürgermeister des Landeshauptstadt Salzburg, 2005 Official Journal of the European Union C 36, 11.02.2006, p.14; not yet reported.Google Scholar

28 Paragraph 57(1) Gewerbeordnung.Google Scholar

29 Supra § 3.3 (Discussing the distinction between requirements related to the production of goods and selling arrangements).Google Scholar

30 Joined Cases C-267/91 & C-268/91, Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard, 1993 E.C.R. I-6097.Google Scholar