Westlaw UK Delivery Summary
Request made by : IP POOL SHIBBOLETH
Request made on: Friday, 19 March, 2010 at 12:27 GMT
Client ID: ukfederation
Content
代写英国硕士论文Type: Westlaw UK
Title : Leaving Keck behind? The free movement of goods after the rulings in Commission v
Italy and Mickelsson and Roos
Delivery selection: Current Document
Number of documents delivered: 1
Sweet & Maxwell is part of Thomson Reuters. © 2010 Thomson Reuters (Legal)
Limited
European Law Review
2009
Leaving Keck behind? The free movement of goods after the rulings in
Commission v Italy and Mickelsson and Roos
Eleanor Spaventa
Subject: European Union
Keywords: EC law; Free movement of goods; Italy; Justification; Measures having equivalent effect;National legislation; Proportionality; Sweden
Legislation: EC Treaty art.28
Cases: Criminal Proceedings against Keck (C-267/91) [1993] E.C.R. I-6097 (ECJ)
Commission of the European Communities v Italy (C-110/05) [2009] All E.R. (EC) 796 (ECJ (GrandChamber))
Aklagaren v Mickelsson (C-142/05) [2009] All E.R. (EC) 842 (ECJ (2nd Chamber))
Procureur du Roi v Dassonville (8/74) [1974] E.C.R. 837 (ECJ)
*E.L. Rev. 914 This article considers two recent judgments of the European Court of Justice in whichrules severely restricting the use of products were found to be measures having equivalent effect toquantitative restrictions on market access grounds. It is not clear from the rulings whether the Keckselling-arrangements doctrine has been consigned to the
history books; yet, it is argued, in recent
years, the Keck exception has been applied so seldomly that whether Keck is abandoned or notwould make little practical difference. The Court's open embracement of an unqualified market accesstest raises questions both as to the boundaries of Art.28 EC and to the theoretical basis which
justifies a market access approach. As for the former, it is argued that it is not only restrictions tomarket access that are now caught by the EC Treaty but also restrictions to the market. As to thelatter, the aims and priorities of the internal market have evolved to reflect also the need to ensure thecompetitiveness and efficiency of the 27 national markets as a whole.
Introduction
In two recent rulings, the Court of Justice was asked to consider the extent to which rules, and bans,on the use of goods fall within the scope of Art.28 EC.1 In particular, the point of contention was
whether such rules should be assimilated to “certain selling arrangements” so as to be caught by theEC Treaty only when discriminatory or preventing market access2 ; or whether they should fall withinthe general Dassonville formula so that a case-by-case assessment would be necessary to determinewhether or not they constitute an obstacle to intra-Community trade.3 The three Advocates General
*E.L. Rev. 915 who considered the cases decided not to depart from the Keck ruling, butnonetheless found, for different reasons, that the rules at issue should be qualified as a barrier tointra-Community trade falling within the scope of Art.28 EC and that, inboth cases, they could not bejustified. The Court, on the other hand, refined its Keck approach in favour of a market access test.Contrary to the findings of its Advocates General, however, it found the rules to be justified.
The Court's rulings, even though not altogether surprising, call into question the extent to which theKeck differentiat
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。