The market freedoms of the EC Treaty first of all commit the Member States not to erect hindrances to the internal market. Obstacles to the free movement of goods and the other market freedoms may also originate from other authors than the Member States…
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Concept of the “Market Freedoms”
1.2 Free Movement of Goods
1.3 The Prohibition of Custom Duties
1.3.1 The Prohibition of Quantitative Restrictions
1.3.2 Restriction of Imports
1.3.3 Discrimination Test
1.3.4 Restriction Test
1.3.4.1 Keck and “Certain Selling Arrangements”
1.3.4.2 “Particular Cases of Selling Arrangements”
1.3.5 Summary
1.3.6 Restriction of Exports
1.3.7 State Monopolies
1.3.8 Agriculture
1.3.9 Prohibition of Discriminatory National Taxation
1.4 Free Movement of Persons
1.4.1 Free Movement of Workers
1.4.2 Right of Establishment
1.4.3 Secondary Community Law
1.5 Freedom to Provide Services
1.6 Free Movement of Capital and Payments
1.6.1 Field of Application
1.6.2 Prohibited Measures
1.6.3 Justification, Embargo Competence
1.7 Test Programme
2 INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS
2.1 Linguistic Interpretation
2.1.1 Pacta tertiis Considerations
2.1.2 Customs Duties – For States Only
2.1.3 Conclusion
2.2 Historical Interpretation
2.3 Systemic Interpretation
i 2.3.1 Art. 3 v. Chapter 3
2.3.2 Embargo Competence
2.4 Teleological Interpretation
2.5 Conclusion
3 “NO ALIEN” ARGUMENTATION
3.1 National Treatment
3.2 Beyond National Treatment
3.2.1 Hidden Discrimination
3.2.2 Prohibition on Restriction
3.3 Conclusion
4 BEYOND POWERS APPROACH
4.1 Survey About the Kinds of Competence Norms
4.2 Competence Norms Concerning the Internal Market
4.2.1 Specific Competence Norms for Approximation
4.2.2 General Competence Norms
4.2.2.1 Art. 94 EC
4.2.2.2 Art. 95 EC
4.2.2.3 Art. 96-7 EC
4.2.3 Conclusion
4.3 Competence Norms for Intervention
4.3.1 Common Agricultural Policy
4.3.2 Competition Policy
4.3.3 Environment Protection and Other Policies
4.3.3.1 Outline of the Conflict
4.3.3.2 Art. 175 (1) EC vs. Art. 95, 6, 174 EC
4.3.3.3 Titanium Dioxide Judgment
4.3.3.4 Waste Shipment Judgment
4.3.3.5 Consequences for Other Competences
4.3.3.6 Conclusion
4.3.3.7 Considering the Cassis de Dijon Jurisdiction
4.3.3.8 Non-Discrimination, Art. 12 EC
4.4 Conclusion
5 JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
5.1 French Tax on Italian Wine – “Ramel”
5.1.1 Issue
5.1.2 Rule
5.1.3 Analysis
5.1.4 Conclusion
5.2 Denkavit
5.3 Rewe v Landwirtschaftskammer
ii 5.4 Meyhui v Schott
5.4.1 Issue
5.4.2 Rule
5.4.3 Analysis
5.4.4 Conclusion
5.5 Tobacco Advertisement
5.5.1 Issue
5.5.2 Rule
5.5.3 Analysis
5.5.4 Conclusion
5.5.5 Comment
5.6 Schwarzkopf v ZBUW
5.6.1 Issue and Rule
5.6.2 Analysis
5.6.3 Conclusion
5.7 Parma Ham
5.7.1 Issue
5.7.2 Rule
5.7.3 Analysis
5.7.4 Comment
5.7.5 Upshot
5.8 Summary
6 SUBJECTIVE APPROACH
6.1 Casting a Vote Attributable to a State
6.1.1 Responsibility for Agents
6.1.2 Responsibility for Employees of International Organisations Who Have Remained In Their National Service
6.1.3 Necessity of Democratic Checks
6.1.4 Subsidiary Responsibility for International Organisations
6.1.5 Council and Obligations of the Member States
6.1.6 Conclusion
6.2 Casting a Vote as Prohibited Measure
6.2.1 Dassonville Doctrine
6.2.2 Community Solidarity and Good Faith
6.3 Invalidity Resulting From the Infringement
6.4 The Commission Acts…
……………..
Author: Gregor, Stephan
Source: University of Lund
Download URL 2: Visit Now