英语论文网

had a catalytic effect on the creation of the single market. Inthis case the Court held that
obstacles to movement within the Community resulting from disparities between the national lawsrelating to the marketing of the products must be accepted in so far as those provisions may berecognised as being necessary in order to satisfy mandatory requirements relating inparticular to the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, the protection of public health, the fairness of commercialtransactions and the defence of the consumer.
Any product legally manufactured and marketed in a Member State must be able to move freelywithin the EC unless a Member State can show that there are mandatory requirements which overridethe requirements of the free movement of goods. The Court thus introduced the concept of mutual
recognition by Member States of each other's law on the legalmanufacturing and marketing ofproducts together with an additional exception to Article 30 in the form of ‘mandatory requirements’
beyond the exceptions provided for in Article 36. Following Cassis de Dijon, the Court clarified thescope of mandatory requirements. The concept was interpreted strictly. Mandatory requirements had
to be reasonable, proportionate and necessary with no less restrictive alternative being available.In the cases which followed Cassis de Dijon, the Court continued to take a wide view of whatconstituted measures having equivalent effect, particularly interpreting the concept of discrimination insuch a way that even measures applying equally to national and imported products could be
considered ‘materially’ discriminatory if they had an effect on imports.The Cinéthèque case (Joined Cases 60 and 61/84 [1985] ECR 2605) clearly sets out the Court'sintention to extend the prohibition in Article 30 to any measurerestricting trade but having an identical
effect on cross-border and national trade. In this case there was no suggestion that the national lawconcerned (which restricted the simultaneous marketing of videos and cinematographic work)favoured national goods in any way but the Court held that crossborder trade could be restricted as aresult of the different regimes applicable in different Member States. The Court held that a restrictivenational measure would not be compatible with the principle of the free movement of goods if theobstacle to Community trade that it created exceeded what was necessary to ensure the attainmentof an objective which was justified with regard to Community law.1 Thisview was confirmed by the
Court ihttps://www.51lunwen.org/lunwenjiage.htmln several later cases.2In the Torfaen v B&Q case (C-145/88 [1989] ECR 3851) on Sunday trading, the Court went even
further. In contrast to earlier decisions with similar facts, it held that general legislation such as aprohibition on Sunday trading fell within the scope of Article 30 if its restrictive effects exceeded the
effects intrinsic to trade rules. This applied even if such matters represented political and economicchoices determined by socio-cultural characteristics (which fell withinMember States' competencies)
which did not have the object of affecting trade between Member States.
Thus the Court steadily broadened the scope of the prohibition in Article 30 to cover not onlydiscriminatory national measures but also those applying equally to particular national and imported
goods (Dassonville ), its decisions at first being limited to measures relating to production andmarketing o