Non-tariff Barriers to Trade in Goods

  • Josephine Shaw
Part of the Macmillan Professional Masters book series (PAPRMA)


While the Community succeeded in removing the tariff barriers to trade in goods between the Member States, as well as most of the more visible non-tariff barriers (quotas or quantitative restrictions and import licences) by the end of the 1960s, it did not succeed in eliminating the many other non-tariff measures which have just as much influence on the national segmentation of the Community market. Almost any regulatory divergence between two national markets represents a potential hindrance to trade. The most obvious obstacles are state aids to industry (subject to separate regulation under Articles 92 and 93 EC), public procurement restrictions favouring national suppliers and divergent product and technical standards, but included also are divergent retail market rules (e.g. advertising rules, shop opening hours, product licensing, price regulation), and even divergent labour market regulation measures which restrict the production or marketing of goods. Differences in the rules which govern the operation of the market in goods within the various Member States interfere with the creation of a level competitive playing field within which market forces may operate and market integration can occur ‘naturally’.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Further Reading

  1. Arnull (1991) ‘What shall we do on Sunday?’, 16 European Law Review, 112.Google Scholar
  2. Diamond (1991) ‘Dishonourable Defences: The Use of Injunctions and the EEC Treaty; Case Study of the Shops Act 1950’. 54 Modern Law Review. 72.Google Scholar
  3. Gormley (1989) ‘Some Reflections on the Internal Market and the Free Movement of Goods’. Legal Issues of European Integration, 1/89, 9 esp. Part IV.Google Scholar
  4. Gormley (1990) ‘Commentary on Torfaen BC v. B & Q p/c’, 27 Common Market Law Review, 141.Google Scholar
  5. Green, Hartley and Usher (1991), Chs 5-7.Google Scholar
  6. Marenco and Banks (1990) ‘Intellectual Property and the Community rules on Free Movement: Discrimination unearthed’, 15 European Law Review, 224.Google Scholar
  7. Mortelmans (1991) ‘Article 30 of the EEC Treaty and Legislation Relating to Market Circumstances: Time to consider a new definition?’, 28 Common Market Law Review, 115.Google Scholar
  8. Steiner (1992) ‘Drawing the Line: Uses and Abuses of Article 30 EEC’, 29 Common Market Law Review, 749.Google Scholar
  9. Weatherill (1992c) ‘The free movement of goods: a survey of the decisions of the Court of Justice in 1991’, 17 European Law Review, 421.Google Scholar
  10. White (1989) ‘In search of the limits to Article 30 of the EEC Treaty’,26 Common Market Law Review, 235,esp. part 2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Josephine Shaw 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josephine Shaw
    • 1
  1. 1.Keele UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations