Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

EU Regulations on the Free Flow of Goods in the Light of Judicial Review by the Court of Justice

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Country Experiences in Economic Development, Management and Entrepreneurship

Part of the book series: Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics ((EBES,volume 5))

  • 1584 Accesses

Abstract

The marketing of products in EU Member States is subject to EU protection of the free flow of goods. The free flow of goods regulated in Art. 34-36 TFEU, one of the fundamental principles of the European Union and an instrument in materializing a functioning of the single market (Art. 26 TFEU and Art. 3(3) TEU), in its objective scope encompasses protection of the import and export of goods, commercialization of goods, and their use. This results directly from the contents of Art. 34 and Art. 35 TFEU and from decades of unusually rich case law from the Court of Justice, which has recently began to openly declare that this protection is also afforded to activities and processes consisting in the use (application) of products by consumers. Analysis of Court of Justice case law in precisely this scope will be the subject matter addressed in the deliberations undertaken. At the same time, the deliberations will also discuss legal means of effectively justifying domestic regulations prohibiting or limiting trade which potentially violate the principle of the free flow of goods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Åklagaren v. Percy’emu Mickelssonowi i Joakimowi Roosowi. (2009). 24-38 ECR C‑142/05, p. I-4273.

    Google Scholar 

  • ATRAL SA v. Belgumi. (2003). 62-64 ECR C‑14/02, p. I‑4431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baquero Cruz, J. (1999). Free movement and private autonomy. European Law Review, 24(6), 603–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, C. (2001). Fitting the remaining pieces into the goods and persons jigsaw? European Law Review, 26(1), 35–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, C. (2007). The substantive law of the EU: The four freedoms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behrens, P. (1992). Die Konvergenz der wirtschaftlichen Freiheiten im europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht [The convergence of the economic freedoms in European Community law]. Europarecht, 2, 145–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canal Satélite Digital SL v. Administracíon General del Estado. (2002). 33 ECR C-390/99, p. I-607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cinéthèque SA and others v. Fédération nationale des cinémas français. (1985). 23-24 ECR 60-61/84, p. 2605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission v. Belgium. (1983). ECR 155/82, p. 531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission v. Belgium. (2008). 40 ECR C‑227/06, p. I-46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission v. France. (1997). 24 ECR C‑265/95, p. I‑6959.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission v. Germany. (2008). 29 ECR C‑141/07, p. I-6935.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission v. Great Britain. (1985). 19-22 ECR 207/83, p. 1201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission v. Greece. (2006). 23 ECR C-65/05, p. I-10341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission v. Ireland. (1982). 10-15 ECR C-249/81, s. 4005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission v. Italy. (1968). ECR 7/68, p. 423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission v. Italy. (2004). 18 ECR C‑270/02, p. I‑1559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission v. Italy. (2009). 36-59 ECR C‑110/05, p. I-519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission v. Portugal. (2005). 41 ECR C‑432/03, p. I‑9665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union art. [3 sec. 3]. (2010). O.J. C 83/01, at [5].

    Google Scholar 

  • Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art. [26, 34, 35, 36, 54]. (2008). O.J. C 115/47, at [13-69].

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, P., & de Búrca, G. (2003). EU Law. Text, cases and materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Criminal proceedings against Bernard Keck i Daniel Mithouard. (1993). 15-17 ECR C-267 and 268/91, p. I-6097.

    Google Scholar 

  • Criminal proceedings against Ludomira Neeltje Barbara Houtwipper. (1994). 19 ECR C-293/93, p. I-4249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dassonville. (1974). 5 ECR 8/74, p. 837.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dauses, M. A. (Ed.). (1999). Swobodny przepływ towarów. Podstawowe zasady [w:] Prawo gospodarcze Unii Europejskiej [Free movement of goods. Basic principles [in:] Economic Law of the European Union]. Warszawa: C. H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Búrca, G. (1993). The principle of proportionality and its application in EC Law. Yearbook of European Law, 13(1), 105–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutscher Apothekerverband eV v. 0800 DocMorris NV and Jacques Waterval. (2003). 67 ECR C‑322/01, p. I-14887.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehlers, D. (2005). Die Grundfreiheiten der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. Allgemeine Lehren [The fundamental freedoms of the European Communities. General teachings]. In D. Ehlers (Ed.), Europäische Grundrechte und Grundfreiheiten [European fundamental rights and freedoms] (Ch. 3). Berlin: deGruyter Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v. Austria. (2003). 51 ECR C‑112/00, p. I-5659.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fra.bo SpA v. Deutsche Vereinigung des Gas‑ und Wasserfaches eV (DVGW) – Technisch‑Wissenschaftlicher Verein. (2012). 32 ECLI:EU:C:2012:453 C‑171/11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenz, W. (2004). Handbuch Europarecht. Band 1. Europäische Grundfreiheiten [Manual European law. Volume 1. European fundamental freedoms]. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georg Schwarz v. Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg. (2005). 24, 34-36 ECR C‑366/04, p. I-10139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, T. C. (2003). The foundations of European Community Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennen Olie BV v. Stichting Interim Centraal Orgaan Voorraadvorming Aardolieprodukten and Netherlands. (1990). 15-16 ECR C-302/88, p. I-4625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilson, C. (1999). Discrimination in Community free movement law. European Law Review, 24, 445–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ker-Optika bt v. ÀNTSZ Dél-dunántúli Regionális Intézete. (2010). 51 ECR C‑108/09, p. I-12213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingreen, T. (2003). Grundfreiheiten [Fundamental Freedoms]. In A. Von Bogdandy (Ed.), Europäisches Verfassungsrecht. Theoretische und dogmatische Grundzüge [European Constitutional Law. Theoretical and Dogmatic Basics] (pp. 705–748). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kort, M. (1996). Schranken der Dienstleistungsfreiheit im europäischen Recht [Limits of freedom to provide services in European law]. Juristenzeitung, 3, 132–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miąsik, D. (2008). Artykuł 28 [Article 28]. In A. Wróbel (Ed.), Traktat ustanawiający Wspólnotę Europejską. Komentarz. Tom I [The Treaty establishing the European Community. Comment. Vol. I] (pp. 543–616). Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, P. (1999). Some further reflections on the scope of articles 28-30 (Ex 30-36) EC. Common Market Law Review, 36(4), 783–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peter Jägerskiöld v. Torolf Gustafsson. (1999). 30 ECR C-97/98, p. I-7319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radiosistemi Srl v. Prefetto di Genova. (2002). 40-42 ECR C-388/00 i C-429/00, p. I-5845.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein. (1979). ECR 120/78, p. 649.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schindler, D. (2001). Die Kollision von Grundfreiheiten und Gemeinschaftsgrundrechten. Entwurf eines Kollisionsmodells unter Zusammenführung der Schutzpflichten- und der Drittwirkungslehre [The collision of fundamental freedoms and Community fundamental rights. Draft collision model that merges the duties of protection and the horizontal effect doctrine]. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb przeciwko TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH. (2000). 23 ECR C-254/98, p. I-151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shuibhne, N. N., & Maci, M. (2013). Proving public interest: The growing impact of evidence in free movement case law. Common Market Law Review, 50(4), 965–1005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steindorff, E. (1986). Gemeinsamer Markt als Binnenmarkt [Common market as a single market]. Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handelsrecht und Wirtschaftsrecht [The Journal for the Entire Trading and Business Law], 150, 687–704.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szpunar, M. (2002). Promocja towarów w prawie wspólnotowym [Progress of the goods in Community law]. Kraków: Zakamycze.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szydło, M. (2006). Swobody rynku wewnętrznego a reguły konkurencji. Między konwergencją a dywergencją [Freedom of the internal market and competition rules. Between convergence and divergence]. Toruń: TNOiK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szydło, M. (2007). Krajowe prawo spółek a swoboda przedsiębiorczości [National company law and freedom of establishment]. Warszawa: Lexis Nexis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tridimas, T. (1999). The general principles of EC law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags- und vertriebs GmbH v. Heinrich Bauer Verlag. (1997). 8 ECR C‑368/95, p. I-3689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill, S. (1996). After Keck: Some thoughts on how to clarify the clarification. Common Market Law Review, 33(5), 885–906.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zawidzka, A. (2002). Rynek wewnętrzny Wspólnoty Europejskiej a interes publiczny [The internal market of the European Community and the public interest]. Warszawa: Prawo i Praktyka Gospodarcza.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Publication was prepared within the framework of a research project funded by the National Science Centre—decision DEC-2013/08/A/HS5/00642.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Civil Law, Faculty of Law, Administration and Economics, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland

    Wojciech Szydło

Authors
  1. Wojciech Szydło
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wojciech Szydło .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Political Sciences, Istanbul Medeniyet University Faculty of Political Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey

    Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin

  2. MUFG Union Bank , San Francisco, California, USA

    Hakan Danis

  3. Faculty of Tourism, Istanbul Medeniyet University Faculty of Tourism, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ender Demir

  4. Eurasia Business and Economic Society , Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ugur Can

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Szydło, W. (2017). EU Regulations on the Free Flow of Goods in the Light of Judicial Review by the Court of Justice. In: Bilgin, M., Danis, H., Demir, E., Can, U. (eds) Country Experiences in Economic Development, Management and Entrepreneurship. Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46319-3_20

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation