Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:31:53.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Process and Production Method’-based Trade Restrictions in the EU

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2017

Gareth Davies
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

States regulate products. They may make access to their market, or favourable rates of taxation, conditional on compliance by products with rules that aim to protect safety, health, morality, the environment and so on. When these rules concern the physical composition of the product, regulating, for example, the ingredients in foodstuffs or the chemicals used in toys, or the recyclability of batteries, Cassis de Dijon, and its legislative and jurisprudential spawn, tell the European lawyer how to approach the resulting barriers to trade.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 10 , 2008 , pp. 69 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Case 120/78, ‘Cassis de Dijon’ [1979] ECR 649. For discussion of the case, see any EU law textbook.

2 Although see Wiers, J, Trade and Environment in the EC and the WTO (Groningen, Europa Law Publishing, 2002) 356-66Google Scholar; Hilson, C, ‘Going local? EU law, localism and climate change’ (2008) 33 European Law Review 194 Google Scholar; and J Scott, ‘On kith and kine (and crustaceans): trade and environment in the EU and WTO’, Jean Monnet Working Paper 3/99, available at <http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org> accessed 18 August 2008.

3 See especially Charnovitz, S, ‘The law of environmental “ppms” in the WTO: Debunking the myth of illegality’ (2002) 27 Yale Law Journal 59 Google Scholar; Howse, R and Regan, D, ‘The product/process distinction—an illusory basis for disciplining “unilateralism” in trade policy’ (2000) 11 European Journal of International Law 249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kysar, DA, ‘Preferences for processes; the process/product distinction and the regulation of consumer choice’ (2004) 118 Harvard Law Review 525 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Marceau, G and Trachtman, JP, ‘The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. A Map of the World Trade Organization Law of Domestic Regulation of Goods’ (2002) 36 Journal of World Trade 811 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of the Appellate Body, 12 October 1998, WT/DS58/AB/R. See also United States—Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, 30 ILM (1991) 1594; and United States—Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, 33 ILM (1994) 936.

5 See, eg: Goco, JB, ‘Non-discrimination, “likeness” and market definition in World Trade Organisation jurisprudence’ (2006) 40 Journal of World Trade 315 Google Scholar; Emch, A, ‘Same same but different? Fiscal discrimination in WTO law and EU law: what are “like” products?’ (2005) 32 Legal Issues of Economic Integration 369 Google Scholar; Goh, G, ‘The World Trade Organisation, Kyoto, and energy tax adjustments at the border’ (2004) 38 Journal of World Trade 395 Google Scholar; Swinbank, A, ‘Like products, animal welfare, and the World Trade Organisation’ (2006) 40 Journal of World Trade 687 Google Scholar; and Quick, R and Lau, C, ‘Environmentally motivated tax distinctions and WTO law’ (2003) 6 Journal of International Economic Law 419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See especially Bartels, L, ‘Article XX of GATT and the problem of extraterritorial jurisdiction. The case of trade measures for the protection of human rights’ (2002) 36 Journal of World Trade 353 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Green, A, ‘Climate change, regulatory policy and the WTO. How constraining are trade rules?’ (2005) 8 Journal of International Economic Law 143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 See Bartels, ibid.

8 Howse and Regan, above n 3.

9 Ibid.

10 For possibilities, see Swinbank, above n 5. These issues have already been raised by UK measures: Case C-5/94, Hedley Lomas [1996] ECR I-2553; and Case C-1/96, Compassion in World Farming [1998] ECR I-1251.

11 Weiler, JHH, The EU, the WTO and the NAFTA: Towards a Common Law of International Trade (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000)Google Scholar.

12 Howse and Regan, above n 3.

13 Case 8/74, Procureur du Roi v Dassonville [1974] ECR 837; and Cassis de Dijon, above n 1.

14 Weiler, JHH, ‘From Dassonville to Keck and beyond: An evolutionary reflection on the text and context of the free movement of goods’ in Craig, P and de Burca, G (eds), The Evolution of EU Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999) ch 10Google Scholar.

15 Weatherill, S, ‘Recent case law concerning the free movement of goods: Mapping the frontiers of market deregulation’ (1999) 36 CML Rev 51 Google Scholar.

16 Case C-379/98, PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I-2099.

17 Case C-132/03, Ministero della Salute v Codacons and Federconsumatori [2005] ECR I-4167.

18 Ibid, para 59.

19 See Davies, G, ‘Morality clauses and decision making in situations of scientific uncertainty: the case of GMOs’ (2007) 6 World Trade Review 249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Case C-159/00, Sapod Audic [2002] ECR I-5031.

21 See Case C-213/96, Outokumpu Oy [1998] ECR I-1777; Case C-379/98, PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I-2099; and Case C-448/01, EVN and Wienstrom [2003] ECR I-14527. See also Case 251/78, Denkavit [1979] ECR 3369; Case 124/81, Commission v UK [1983] ECR 203; and Case 272/80, Biologische Producten [1981] ECR 3277, on acceptance of foreign certification of goods. See also Case 21/79, Commission v Italy [1980] ECR 1.

22 On the risks of protective measures which may unduly burden those who import components, see Case 153/78, Commission v Germany [1979] ECR 2555.

23 Eg Case 172/82, Inter-Huiles [1983] ECR 555; and Case C-203/96, Dusseldorp [1998] ECR I-4075.

24 Even an obligation: Case C-277/02 EU Wood Trading [2004] ECR I-11957. Also Case C-113/02, Commission v Netherlands [2004] ECR I-9707. However, see also Case C-169/89 Gourmetterie van den Burg [1990] ECR I-2143.

25 Ibid.

26 Case C-5/94, Hedley Lomas [1996] ECR I-2553.

27 See Davies, above n 19.

28 Case C-1/96, Compassion in World Farming [1998] ECR I-1251.

29 Gourmetterie van den Burg, above n 24.

30 See Scott, above n 2, for discussion.

31 Case 36/74, Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405; Case C-415/93, Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921; Case 222/82, Apple and Pear Development Council [1983] ECR 4083; Case C-281/98, Angonese [2000] ECR I-4139; Case 249/81, Commission v Ireland [1982] ECR 4005; Case 311/85, Vlaamse Reisbureaus [1987] ECR 3801; and Davies, G, Nationality Discrimination in the European Internal Market (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2003) ch 8Google Scholar.

32 Case C-438/05, ITWF v Viking, judgment of 11 December 2007, paras 57–62.

33 See Case C-325/00, Commission v Germany [2002] ECR I-9977. See also C-345/02, Pearle [2004] ECR I-7139; Case C-309/99, Wouters [2002] ECR I-1577; and Case 249/81, Commission v Ireland [1982] ECR 4005.

34 Case C-470/03, AGM COS.MET [2007] ECR I-2749. See Lopez-Hurtado, C, ‘Social labeling and WTO law’ (2002) 5 Journal of International Economic Law 719 CrossRefGoogle Scholar for discussion of the complex relationship between public and private in the context of labelling schemes.

35 See above n 33; Case C-265/95, Commission v France [1997] ECR I-6959; Case C-112/00, Schmidberger [2003] ECR I-565; Lohse, EJ, ‘Fundamental freedoms and private actors. Towards an “indirect horizontal effect”‘ (2007) 13 European Public Law 159 Google Scholar; and Davies, above n 31.

36 See especially Commission v Ireland and Apple and Pear Development Council, above n 31.

37 See generally McCrudden, C, Purchasing Social Justice (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar.

38 See Directive 2004/18 EC, [2004] OJ L134/114, on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts; and Directive 2004/17 EC, [2004] OJ L134/1, coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors.

39 Directive 2004/18, Art 53(1)(a).

40 European Commission, Buying Green! A Handbook on Environmental Public Procurement (2004) 23, available at <http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp> accessed 18 August 2008. See also the Commission Communication, ‘Integrated Product Policy: Building on Environmental Life-Cycle Thinking’ COM(2003)302 Final.

41 See Kysar, above n 2, analysing such an approach as a conflation of market and citizen values.

42 Case C-513/99, Concordia Bus [2002] ECR I-7213.

43 Case C-448/01, EVN and Wienstrom [2003] ECR I-14527.

44 See also cases above at n 21.

45 Case C-237/94, O’Flynn v Adjudication Officer [1996] ECR I-2167.

46 Reliance on a Community goal can cut both ways. It means that the state is prima facie expected to adopt the Community’s chosen policy approach to the problem, and has the burden of justifying any locally specific derogation from this; see Joined Cases T-366/03 & 235/04, Land Oberösterreich v Republic of Austria [2005] ECR II-4005.

47 See text subsequent to n 51 below.

48 See also Case 153/78, Commission v Germany [1979] ECR 2555; and Case 31/87, Gebroeders Beentjes [1988] ECR 4635.

49 See Emch, above n 5; and Slotboom, M, ‘Do different treaty purposes matter for treaty interpretation? The elimination of discriminatory taxation in EC and WTO law’ (2001) 4 Journal of International Economic Law 557 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Eg Case 45/75, Rewe v HZA Landau [1976] ECR 181; Case 168/78, Commission v France [1980] ECR 347; Case C-106/84, Commission v Denmark [1986] ECR 833; and Case C-302/00, Commission v France [2002] ECR I-2055. The cases show that Community customs classifications can sometimes play a minor evidential role in deciding whether products are similar.

51 Case 168/78, Commission v France, ibid; and Case 169/78, Commission v Italy [1980] ECR 385.

52 See Case 140/79, Chemial Farmaceutici [1981] ECR 1; Case 46/80, Vinal v Orbat [1980] ECR 77; and Case 243/84, John Walker [1986] ECR 875.

53 Case 106/84, Commission v Denmark [1986] ECR 833; Case C-387/01, Weigel [2004] ECR I-4981; Case C-221/06, Stadtgemeinde Frohnleiten, judgment of 8 November 2007; and Case 319/81, Commission v Italy [1983] ECR 601.

54 Case 112/84, Humblot [1985] ECR 1367; Case 433/85, Feldain [1987] ECR 3521; and Case C-132/88, Commission v Greece [1990] ECR I-1567.

55 Cases cited ibid; and Case 184/85, Commission v Italy [1987] ECR 2013. See also Case C-47/88, Commission v Denmark [1990] ECR I-4509.

56 See above n 52.

57 Case 140/79, [1981] ECR 1. Case 46/80 Vinal v Orbat [1980] ECR 77, decided on the same day, is identical in facts and judgment.

58 Ibid, para 14.

59 Case C-213/96, Outokumpu Oy [1998] ECR I-1777; and Case 127/75, Bobie [1976] ECR 1079. Cases similar to Bobie include Case 26/80, Schneider-Import [1980] ECR 3469; Case 196/85, Commission v France [1987] ECR 1597; and Case 153/80, Rumhaus Hansen [1982] ECR 1165.

60 Ibid, para 30. See also Case C-387/01, Weigel [2004] ECR I-4981; Case C-221/06, Stadtgemeinde Frohnleiten, judgment of 8 November 2007; Case C-333/05, Nadasdi and Nemeth [2006] ECR I-10115; and Case 90/94, Haahr Petroleum [1997] ECR I-4087.

61 Eg Case C-265/99, Commission v France [2001] ECR I-2305; Humblot and Feldain, above n 54; Case 170/78, Commission v UK [1983] ECR 2265; and Case 170/78, Commission v UK [1980] ECR 417. See also Case C-221/06, Stadtgemeinde Frohnleiten, judgment of 8 November 2007, para 51.

62 The word is from Easson, A, ‘Fiscal discrimination; new perspectives on Article 95 of the EEC Treaty’ (1981) 18 CML Rev 521 Google Scholar.

63 Case C-221/06, Stadtgemeinde Frohnleiten, judgment of 8 November 2007, para 56.

64 Case 127/75, Bobie [1976] ECR 1079. Case 26/80, Schneider-Import [1980] ECR 3469; Case 196/85, Commission v France [1987] ECR 1597; and Case 153/80, Rumhaus Hansen [1982] ECR 1165.

65 See Case 21/79, Commission v Italy [1980] ECR 1, where the court talks of tax distinctions in terms of legitimate aid to ‘producers’. See also Case 148/77, Hansen [1978] ECR 1787.

66 This point is returned to below: it can be of WTO relevance. See section V below.

67 An example of this dynamic, for which I am grateful to Catherine Barnard, is the Food Supplements Directive (2002/46/EC), which came into being following a number of cases against Member States concerning national rules on vitamins in food. See Case C-154/04, Alliance for Natural Health [2005] ECR I-6451; and Jarvis, M, (case note) (2004) 41 CML Rev 1395 Google Scholar. See generally, on the mutual recognition principle as a precursor to harmonisation, Davies, G, ‘Is mutual recognition an alternative to harmonization?’ in Bartels, L and Ortino, F (eds), Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

68 Art 23(2) EC; Art 24 EC; and Case 193/85, Cooperative Co-Frutta [1987] ECR 2085, paras 24–30. Compare the position where products are directly imported from outside the EU: Case 148/77, Hansen [1978] ECR 1787.

69 See the references in nn 3 and 5 above.