Motive Unmasked: The European Court of Justice, the Free Movement of Goods, and the Search for Legitimacy

1996 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 226-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd J. Friedbacher
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods

11. Free movement of goods II: non-tariff barriers

2020 ◽  
pp. 287-318
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods

This chapter examines European Union (EU) law concerning non-tariff barriers to free movement of goods. It describes member states’ attempts to influence imports and the way the European Commission and the European Court of Justice (CoJ) handled these issues. This chapter explains the provisions of the relevant legislation for non-tariff barriers, which include Articles 34, 36, and 35 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It also analyses example cases including ‘Dassonville’, ‘Cassis de Dijon’, and post ‘Keck’ case law. It concludes with a consideration of the latest trend of cases concerning product use and residual rules.

11. Free movement of goods II: non-tariff barriers

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods

This chapter examines European Union (EU) law concerning non-tariff barriers to free movement of goods. It describes member states’ attempts to influence imports and the way the European Commission and the European Court of Justice (CoJ) handled these issues. This chapter explains the provisions of the relevant legislation for non-tariff barriers, which include Articles 34, 36, and 35 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It also analyses example cases including ‘Dassonville’, ‘Cassis de Dijon’, and ‘Keck’.

The Margin of Appreciation

2020 ◽  
pp. 67-96
Author(s):  
Jan Zglinski
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Domestic Institutions ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation

This chapter examines the application of the margin of appreciation in free movement cases. It identifies the doctrine’s legal scope and investigates the scenarios in which the European Court of Justice defers to national authorities. A statistical analysis suggests that there is a significant gap between theory and practice, with only a small number of factors influencing the way in which the margin of appreciation is used. The results show how much regulatory autonomy Member States retain in free movement law. They also expose which concerns the Court prioritizes in its jurisprudence and which decisions it feels safe, or forced, to delegate to domestic institutions.

Harmony and Dissonance in Free Movement

2001 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 315-341
Author(s):  
Miguel Poiares Maduro
Keyword(s):  
Free Movement ◽  
Middle Ground ◽  
National Treatment ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
Movement Rules ◽  
Reversal Of Fortune

There is a generalised perception that the European Court of Justice has adopted different approaches to the different free movement rules included in the Treaties. In particular, the free movement of goods has ‘benefited’, until 1993, from a wider scope of application. Contrary to what has for long constituted the standard approach to the free movement of persons, the free movement of goods was constructed as requiring more than national treatment and non-discrimination in regard to goods from other Member States. Even non-discriminatory restrictions on trade in goods could constitute a violation of Community rules if not justified as necessary and proportional to the pursuit of a legitimate public interest. The freedom to provide services has somewhat occupied a middle ground between the interpretation given to the goods and persons provisions. Following the Court’s decision in Keck & Mithouard in 1993, a reversal of fortune appears to have taken place regarding the Court’s approach to the different free movement provisions, with the free movement of persons and the freedom to provide services now benefiting from a more ‘aggressive’ interpretation in comparison with the free movement of goods.

The British and French Systems of Control of the Export of works of Art

1996 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 557-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Polonsky ◽  
Jean-François Canat
Keyword(s):  
European Community ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Customs Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Works Of Art ◽  
European Court ◽  
Equivalent Effect ◽  
Treaty Of Rome ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods

Article 9 of the Treaty of Rome, as amended by the 1992 Treaty on European Union (the Maastricht Treaty), declares that the European Community “shall be based upon a customs union which shall cover all trade in goods and which shall involve the prohibition between Member States of customs duties on imports and exports and of all charges having equivalent effect”.1 The principle was thereby established of the free movement of goods within the European Community. The Treaty does not define “goods” for the purposes of the Articles (9 to 37) which make up the Title dealing with “Free Movement of Goods”, but the European Court of Justice has held that “goods” means “products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions”. From this it is clear that works of art are included in the “goods” that are intended to circulate freely within the Community.

scholarly journals The Ambiguous Relationship Between the EU and its Internal Borders

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 64-70
Author(s):  
Aude Bouveresse
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Citizenship ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
The Individual ◽  
European Citizen ◽  
The Eu

      The free movement of EU citizens within the Union reveals the ambiguous relationship between the EU and borders. While the functioning of the internal market is essentially based on freedom of movement and implies the elimination of borders as barriers to trade, the freedom of movement of the European citizen remains defined largely within the conceptual framework of borders, since nationality is a prime requirement for European citizenship. Inside the EU, as this article highlights, borders are necessary and problematic at same time. The Court has played with the concept of borders to address these ambiguities with a view to deepening integration. The conclusion is that if the Court has been able to effectively remove obstacles related to internal borders concerning the free movement of goods and the movement of active economic persons, such has not been the case for the free movement of European citizens, economically inactive. It follows from the division of competences and the case law of the European judges that solidarity remains intrinsically linked to nationality and therefore inevitably leads to the re-establishment of borders and the separation of peoples. This demonstrates the resistance of the “paradigm of a European market citizenship”. By revaluing nationality in the context of the enjoyment of the rights linked to citizenship, the European Court of Justice could hamper the integration process by renationalising the individual and establishing new borders.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document