Internal policies
Stages of economic growth
• Free trade zones• Customs union• Common market• Economic union
1. Free movement of goods
• Art 23, 25:
No customs duties
+ No charges having equivalent effect (CEE)
• Comm v Italy re art tax (7/68)
Comm v Germany re live animal inspection costs (18/87)
1. Free movement of goods
• Art 90: No direct taxation
• Comm v Italy re regenerated oil (21/79)• Comm v Ireland (55/79)
+ no indirect (discriminatory, once inside a MS) taxation
• Humblot v Dir des Service Fiscaux (112/84)
but objective justification: Chemial Farmaceutici v DAF (140/79)
• advise a state with regions of v heavy rainfall re a tax favoring such goods to support people of such areas
1. Free movement of goods
Difference between afee designated as a tax, under art25 (charges having equivalenteffect) and Art 90 (direct or indirectinternal taxation) ?
– A CEE is any charge imposed on an imported product but not on the same or similar domestic product
– An internal tax is borne by imports and domestic products
– If there are no similar domestic products, the charge need not be a CEE if part of a general system of internal dues
• Art 25 and Art 90 are exclusive
1. Free movement of goods
• Art 28, 29
• No quantitative restrictions on imports and exports
• + No meqrs “…all trading rules enacted by MSs capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra Community trade”.
• What are meqrs? • Dir 70/50 • Procureur du Roi v Dassonville
(8/74)-overtly targets imports
or exports-directly discriminatory-hinders Comm trade
1. Free movement of goods
Defences to Art 28: Art 30
Public morality
Public policy
Public security
Protection of health and life of…
Construed strictly + principle of proportionality
1. free movement of goods
and ECJ:
Rewe v BMV f. Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon, 120/78)-measures apply to all products
-not directly discriminatory
-still hinders trade
Can only be defended if necessary to satisfy mandatory requirements (fiscal supervision, prot public health, fairness of comm transaction, defence of consumer – list is not exhaustive)
1. Free movement of goods
• Cassis de Dijon also stands for– Mutual reciprocity principle
• Court generally checks both defences
– Comm v Germany (German beer, 178/84)
– Comm v Denmark (containters, env prot, 302/86)
– Comm v Belgium (food additives, 2000)
• Is any measure exempt from art 28?
– Torfaen BC v B&Q (145/88)– Keck (268/91)
1. Free movement of goods
• To reduce non-tariff barriers, must harmonise product standards re health, safety, env, consumer protection
• CE mark
2. Free movement of workers
– Art 39-43 (employed)– No direct or indirect discrimination– What is a worker?– Not those in public service– What is public service?
3. Freedom of establishment
– Art 43-48 (self employed)• Art 43 directly effective (Reyners)• Non-discrimination
– provision of services 49-55
General grounds for derogation
from free movement of workers,
freedom of establishment:
39(3) public policy, security, health
46(1) public policy, security, health
Based on personal conduct (van Duyn)
4. Free movement of capital
Aspects of competition law/policy
• Art 81-86 antitrust:– Agreements, decisions, concerted
practices which have as their object distortion of competition = prohibited unless do not have effects
ICI v Commission (48/69)Wood pulp (85/202)
– Statutory exceptions 81(3)
– Exemptions must be granted• Individually• En block• Negative clearance
Aspects of competition law/policy
– abuse of dominant position (United brands v Commission 27/76, Hofmann La Roche 85/76) = prohibited
– Mergers regulated as having impact on competition, to be notified
Continental Can (6/72)
Aspects of competition law
• Art 87-89 government subsidies (state aid)– Social or economic justification– Gratuitous– Intention irrelevant– Must affect Comm. Trade– Exemptions subject to Comm.
Control
• Statutory exceptions– 87(2)– 87(3)
• Cooperate with MS to determine (Art 88)
Spain v Comm. (409/00)
• Product liability– Directive 85/374
• Consumer protection
– Based on consumer protection and information policy
– Comm v Germany (178/84) re German beer
– Oosthoek case (286/81)– Comm v Spain (107/04) re labelling
of organic products
Recommended
