英语论文网

Westlaw UK Delivery Summary
代写留学论文Request made by : IP POOL SHIBBOLETH
Request made on: Friday, 19 March, 2010 at 12:41 GMT
Client ID: ukfederation
Content Type: Westlaw UK
Title : The interpretation of Article 30 of the EC
Treaty: Keck and Mithouard one year on
Delivery selection: Current Document
Number of documents delivered: 1
Sweet & Maxwell is part of Thomson Reuters. © 2010 Thomson Reuters (Legal)
Limited
International Company and Commercial Law Review
1994
The interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty: Keck and Mithouard one yearonVanessa Turner
Subject: Sale of goods. Other related subjects: Insolvency
Keywords: EEC law; Free movement of goods
Legislation: Treaty of Rome 1957 (European Communities (EC)) Art.30
Case: Criminal Proceedings against Keck (C267/91) [1993] E.C.R. I-6097 (ECJ)
*I.C.C.L.R. 422 From Cassis de Dijon to the Sunday trading cases Article 30 cases had begunto have an increased impact on national economic and social policy choices. The Keck andMithouard case reversed this trend: the application of national rules to goods produced legally
in other Member States is prohibited; non-discriminatory national measures on sellingarrangements are allowed.
At the end of last year, the Court of Justice of the European Communities wrote another chapter in itsinterpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty. This development was announced in its judgment in theKeck and Mithouard case (Joined Cases C-267 and C-268/91) delivered on 24 November 1993.Since this date, large quantities of ink have flowed as to the significance and consequences of thiscase for the free movement of goods in the Community. Nearly a year later it is perhaps now easier to
consider the actual impact of this case.
Article 30
Article 30 of the EC Treaty, the basis for the free movement of goods in the Community, states thatquantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect are prohibited between
Member States, without prejudice, notably to Article 36, which allows Member States to takemeasures on the grounds of public policy, security, health, and so on.The Court had, over the years, interpreted the ‘measures having equivalent effect’ prohibited byArticle 30 in a wider and wider fashion which ultimately begged the question as to the limits of theapplication of this Article of the EC Treaty. This trend has, however, been reversed, at least in certaincircumstances, by the Keck and Mithouard case.Previous Case LawThe first major pronouncement of the Court on the interpretation of Article 30 came in the Dassonville
case where the Court held thatall trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly,actually or potentially, intra-Community trade are to be considered as measures having an equivalenteffect to quantitative restrictions.
This judgment made it clear that Article 30 prohibited not only nationalmeasures which discriminatedagainst imported goods, thus affecting intra-Community trade, but also measures applying equally tonational and imported goods if there was an actual or potential effect on crossborder trade. The onlyexceptions to this were measures which could be justified on the basis of Article 36. This judgmentwas confirmed by several subsequent cases.The next significant judgment on Article 30 was the so-called ‘Cassis de Dijon ’ case (Case 120/78
[1979] ECR 649) *I.C.C.L.R. 423 which