Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:06:58.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Importing and exporting poor reasoning: worrying trends in relation to the case law on the free movement of goods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Anthony Dawes

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.

This article focuses on the European Court of Justice's [ECJ] recent case law on the free movement of goods in order to show how the boundaries of the prohibition laid out under Articles 28 to 30 EC are once again coming under strain. Such a development, it will be argued, can be observed both in terms of the modification of the scope of the prohibitions set out by Articles 28 and 29 EC and of their application to purely internal situations.

Type
Articles
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 8 , Issue 8 , 01 August 2007 , pp. 761 - 775
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Joined Cases C-267 and 268/91, Criminal proceedings against Keck and Mithouard, [1993] ECR I-6097.Google Scholar

2 Case C-293/02, Jersey Produce Marketing Organisation Ltd v. States of Jersey and Jersey Potato Export Marketing Board, [2005] ECR I-9543.Google Scholar

3 Joined Cases C-34 to 36/95, Konsumentombudsmannen v De Agostini and TV-Shop, [1997] ECR I-3843.Google Scholar

4 Case 405/98, Gourmet International Products, [2001] ECR I-1795.Google Scholar

5 Cases C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921 (workers); C-55/94 Gebhard [1995] ECR I-416 (establishment) and C-384/93 Alpine Investments [1995] ECR I-1141 (services).Google Scholar

6 Paragraphs 102 and 103 of Bosman, paras 33 to 38 of Alpine Investments.Google Scholar

7 C-412/93 [1995] ECR I-179.Google Scholar

8 Paragraph 41 of his Opinion.Google Scholar

9 Weatherill, Stephen, After Keck: Some Thoughts on how to Clarify the Clarification, 33 Common Market Law Review 885 (1996).Google Scholar

10 Barnard, Catherine, Fitting the Remaining Pieces into the Goods and Persons Jigsaw? 26 European Law Review, 35 (2001).Google Scholar

11 Catherine Barnard, The Substantive Law of the EU (2004), at 239.Google Scholar

12 Barnard (note 10), 52.Google Scholar

13 Weatherill (note 9), 896-897.Google Scholar

14 Case C-322/01 Deutscher Apothekerverband, [2003] ECR I-14887.Google Scholar

15 Case C-446/03, [2005] ECR I-10837.Google Scholar

16 Joined Cases C-94/04 and 202/04 Cipolla and Marconi, judgment of 5 December 2006, nyr.Google Scholar

17 Paragraph 74 of her Opinion.Google Scholar

18 Paragraphs 37 and 40 of his Opinion in Marks and Spencer and para 56 of his Opinion in Cipola.Google Scholar

19 Paragraph 57 of his Opinion in Cipola.Google Scholar

20 At paragraph 68 of the judgment, the ECJ bases its reasoning clearly on the two Keck principles, as later refined in Di Agostini and Gourmet.Google Scholar

21 Keck, para 14.Google Scholar

22 See Case 2/73, Geddo v Ente Nazionale Risi, [1973] ECR 865.Google Scholar

23 Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v. Dassonville, [1974] ECR 837.Google Scholar

24 Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentrale AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon) [1979] E.C.R. 649.Google Scholar

25 This terminology is used with caution as there seems to be as much disagreement over the semantics of Article 28 as with its substance. For examples of diverging appellations, see Laurence Gormley, “Two years after Keck”, 19 Fordham Int*l L. J., 866 (1996), and Shuibhne, Niamh Nic, The free movement of goods and Article 28 EC: an evolving framework, 27 Eur. L. Rev, 408 (2002).Google Scholar

26 Eric White: In search of limits to Article 30 of the EEC. 26 Common Market Law Review, 234 (1989); Kamiel Mortelmans, Article 30 of the EEC Treaty and legislation relating to market circumstances: time to consider a new definition? 28 Common Market Law Review, 115 (1991).Google Scholar

27 See among others, cases 75/81, Blesgen, [1982] ECR 1211; 286/81, Oosthoek, [1982] ECR 4575; 382/87, Buet, [1989] ECR 1235; Case 145/88, Torfaen v B&Q plc, [1989] ECR 765; Case C-169/91, Stoke on Trent and Norwich City v B&Q, [1992] ECR I- 6635.Google Scholar

28 Paragraph 16 of the judgment.Google Scholar

29 Enchelmaier, Stefan, Case C-469/00, Ravil S.a.r.l. v. Bellon Import S.a.r.l. and Biraghi SpA; Case C-108/01, Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma and Salumificio S. Rita SpA v. Asda Stores Ltd. and Hygrade Foods Ltd (2004) 41 CMLRev 825.Google Scholar

30 Case 53/76, Procureur de la République v Bouhelier, [1977] ECR 197.Google Scholar

31 Case 15/79, P.B. Groenveld BV/Produktschap voor Vee en Vlees, [1979] ECR 3409, para 7.Google Scholar

32 Cases 155/80, Oebel, [1981] ECR 1993, C-209/98, Entrepren⊘rforeningens Affalds/Milj⊘sektion (FFAD) v. K⊘benhavns Kommune, [2000] ECR I-3743, para 34.Google Scholar

33 Whilst it is true that the Advocates General in Delhaize, Alpine Investments and Bosman argued for a reformulation of the Groenveld test, AG Capotorti in Oebel is the only figure to have pleaded for the adoption of a unified approach to Articles 28 and 29 EC.Google Scholar

34 For a lone voice, see Roth, Wulf-Henning, Wettbewerb der Mitgliedstaaten oder Wettbewerb der Hersteller? – Plädoyer für eine Neubestimmung des Art. 34 EGV, Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht [ZHR], 78 (1995).Google Scholar

35 Daniele, Luigi, “Non-discriminatory restrictions to the free movement of persons“, 22 Eur. L. Rev. 191, 199 (1997).Google Scholar

36 C-412/97, ED SRL/Italo Fenocchio, [1999] ECR I-3845.Google Scholar

37 Case C-69/88, Krantz GmbH v& Co. v Ontranger der Directe Belastingen and Netherlands State, [1990] ECR I-583.Google Scholar

38 Case 379/92, [1994] ECR I 3453.Google Scholar

39 Para 11 of the judgment in Italo Fenocchio.Google Scholar

40 Case C-112/00 Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v Austria, [2003] ECR I-5659, para 56.Google Scholar

41 Case 320/03, Commission v Austria, [2005] ECR I-9871.Google Scholar

42 Commission v Austria at para 67 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

43 The Schmidberger case takes up the Court's earlier statement in case C-265/95 Commission v France [1997] ECR I-6959, paras 28 and 29. However, whilst the decision Commission v France only referred to Article 28 and not to Article 29 EC, by contrast to Schmidberger which added in the reference to Article 29 EC.Google Scholar

44 Davies, Gareth, Can selling arrangements be harmonised?, 30 Eur. L. Rev. 370, 382 (2005)Google Scholar

45 Roth, Wulf-Henning and Oliver, Peter, The internal market and the four freedoms, 41 Common Market Law Review, 407, 419 (2004)Google Scholar

46 That is to say the extension of the reasoning in the Alpine Investment case to Article 29 EC.Google Scholar

47 Snell, Jukka and Andenas, Mads, How Far? The Internal Market and Restrictions on the Free Movement of Goods and Services: Part 2, 3 Int'l & Comp. Corp. L. J. 361 (2000), at 376.Google Scholar

48 Joined Cases C-363/93, C-407/93 to C-411/93 Lancry and others [1994] ECR I-3957; C-485/93 and C-486/93 Simitzi [1995] ECR I-2655, and C-72/03, Carbonati Apuani, [2004] ECR I-8027.Google Scholar

49 Case C-321/94 Criminal Proceedings against Pistre and Others [1997] ECR I-2343 and C-448/98 Guimont [2000] ECR I-10663.Google Scholar

50 On purely internal situations and reverse discrimination, see among others Cannizzaro, Enzo, Producing ‘Reverse Discrimination’ through the exercise of EC competences, 17 Yb Eur. L. 29(1997),; Maduro, Miguel Poiares, “The scope of European remedies: The case of purely internal situations and reverse discrimination” in, The Future of European Remedies (Claire Kilpatrick, Tania Novitz and Paul Skidmore eds., 2000), at 117; Shuibhne, Niamh Nic, Free movement of persons and the wholly internal rule: Time to move on? 39 Common Market Law Review, 731 (2002).Google Scholar

51 See Article 299 EC and Article 1 of Protocol n° 3 on the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man annexed to the Act of Accession of the United Kingdom.Google Scholar

52 Paragraph 129 of his Opinion.Google Scholar

53 Paragraph 134 of his Opinion.Google Scholar

54 Cases 314–316/81, Waterkeyn, [1982] ECR 4337, 286/81 Oosthoek's Uitgeversmaatschappij, [1982] ECR 4585, and 355/85, Cognet, [1986] ECR 3231.Google Scholar

55 Paragraph 76 of the judgment.Google Scholar

56 Paragraphs 80 and 81 of the judgment.Google Scholar

57 Opinion of AG Geelhoed in Case C-491/01, The Queen v. Secretary of State for Health, ex parte British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and others, [2002] ECR I-11453, para 148.Google Scholar

58 See Biondi “In and out of the Internal Market: Recent developments on the principle of free movement“, 19 YEL, (1999) 469, 485.Google Scholar

59 See cases 274/87 Commission v Germany [1989] ECR 229, C-2/90 Commission v Belgium (Walloon Waste) ECR I-4431 and C-389/96 Aher-Waggon v Germany [1998] ECR I-4473.Google Scholar

60 C-120/95 Decker v Caisse de maladie des employés privés, [1998] ECR I-1831.Google Scholar

61 C-379/98 PreussenElektra v Schleswag, [2001] ECR I-2099.Google Scholar

62 Peter Oliver & Malcom Jarvis, Free Movement of Goods in the European Community: under Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty, 144 (2003)Google Scholar

63 Oliver, Peter, Some Further Reflections on the Scope of Articles 28-30 (ex 30-36) EC, 36 Common Market Law Review, 783 (1999), and the Opinions of AG Jacobs in Cases C-203/96 Chemische Afvalstoffen Dusseldorp v Minister van Milieubeeher [1998] ECR I-4075 and C-379/98 PreussenElektra v Schleswag, [2001] ECR I-2099.Google Scholar

64 Tryfonidou, Alina, “Comment on Case C-293/02, Jersey Potatoes, (2006) 43 CMLRev, pp. 1727, 1741.Google Scholar

65 For supporters of this approach, see Alfonso Mattera, Le marché unique européen - Ses règles, son fonctionnement (1990), 274, Hatzopoulos, Vassilis, Exigences essentielles, impératives ou impérieuses: une théoire, des theories, ou pas de théorie du tout? Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Européen 191, (1998)Google Scholar

66 Opinion of AG Jacobs in PreussenElektra, para 225.Google Scholar

67 Opinion of AG Jacobs in PreussenElektra, para 229.Google Scholar

68 Oliver & Jarvis (note 62), 220.Google Scholar

69 AG Tesauro in Case C-293/92 Ruth Hünermund a.o. v Landesapothekerkammer Baden-Württemberg, [1993] ECR I-6787, at para 25.Google Scholar