Summary
This paper addresses the previous criticism relating to Article 30 EEC (now, after amendment, 28 EC) and analyzes case law from Cassis de Dijon, Keck and Mithouard to Gourmet. The issue of "measures " on national restrictions created tensions between the Court of Justice and the national courts. A new taxonomy is introduced to classify these cases relating to Article 28 EC in this paper. The taxonomy is based on marketing methods of 4P (i.e. product, place, price, and promotion). We attempt to employ the 4P of marketing management as a matrix to classify cases relating to Article 30 EEC and to observe whether the judgments given by the Court have consistency. It is suggested that Article 28 EC should not be classified as selling arrangements.
See the full content of this document
Extract
European Commission Articles Governing the Movement of Goods Within the European Union: A Case Law Analysis
Introduction
This article aims to examine why Cassis de Dijon and the resulting new forms of economic regulation and governance have succeeded in completing and maintaining the Internal Market when earlier techniques of economic integration seem to have failed. This article addresses the previous criticism relating to Article 30 EEC (now, after amendment, 28 EC). The article analyzes case law from Cassis de Dijon, Keck and Mithouard to Gourmet, and calls for a clearer taxonomy for Article 30 EEC. The following section will briefly introduce the facts and judgments of the cases relating to Article 30 EEC. A short discussion will then follow considering whether these cases belong to the Free Movement of Goods and Services. In the forth section, the issues relating to the interpretation of Article 30 EEC, such as obstacles to trade, non-discrimination, harmonization, justification, product characters, advertisement, and selling arrangements are critically discussed. In the fifth section, a new case taxonomy classified by marketing methods and markets is introduced and categorizes the cases discussed in the first section. This study concludes with suggestions in the final section.The Facts and Judgments of the Cases relating Article 30 EECCase 120/78 Cassis de DijonThe case of Cassis de Dijon concerned a French businessman, who intended to import a kind of alcoholic beverage called "Cassis de Dijon", which was produced in France and was intended for sale in Germany. The applicant argued that a German regulation placed the imported products in a disadvantageous position in German markets, because it required that the minimum alcohol contents for marketing "Cassis de Dijon" be twenty-five percent. The s...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
