No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Untying the Market Access Knot: Advertising Restrictions and the Free Movement of Goods and Services
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2017
Extract
More than a dozen years since the Keck judgment, its effect of breaking the dogmatic convergence between the free movement of goods and that of services, already established in the case law of the ECJ by the early 1990s, cannot be underestimated. As is well known, this convergence primarily relied on such a broad interpretation of the scope of Articles 28 and 49 EC as to include any obstacles to intra-Community trade arising from measures applying beyond discrimination unless justified. The basic divergence introduced by Keck into the Court’s approach to the free movement provisions on goods and services can best be illustrated by the case law reviewing measures relating to advertising and other marketing methods. This paper will draw on a broad definition of advertising, which will include any commercial communication, ie any form of communication designed to promote, directly or indirectly, the goods, services or image of a company, organisation or person exercising a commercial, industrial or other professional activity.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2007
References
1 Joined Cases C–267 to 268/91, Criminal Proceedings against Keck and Mithouard (‘Keck’) [1993] ECR I–6097.
2 CfJarass, HD ‘A Unified Approach to the Fundamental Freedoms’ in Andenas, M and Roth, W-H Services and Free Movement in EU Law (Oxford, OUP, 2002) 141 Google Scholar.
3 See Case 8/74, Dassonville [1974] ECR 837, para 5, Case 120/78, ‘Cassis de Dijon’ [1979] ECR 649, para 8, and Case C–76/90, Säger [1991] ECR I–4121, paras 12 and 15.
4 Cf Commercial Communications in the Internal Market—Green Paper from the Commission, COM(96)192 final, at 1b and 7–8, Art 2(f) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the internal market, OJ 2000 L 178/1, and Case C–68/92, Commission v France [1993] ECR I–5881, paras 16–19.
5 Cf Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C–412/93, Société d’Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v TF1 Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA (‘Leclerc-Siplec’) [1995] ECR I–179, paras 19–22, Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C–405/98, Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v Gourmet International Products AB (GIP) (‘Gourmet’) [2001] ECR I–1795, paras 35–36, and Opinion of AG Geelhoed in Case C–239/02, Douwe Egberts NV v Westrom Pharma NV and Christophe Souranis (Etablissements FICS) and Douwe Egberts NV v FICS-World BVBA (‘Douwe Egberts’) [2004] ECR I–7007, para 70.
6 Joined Cases C–267 to 268/91, Keck, above n 1, paras 15–17.
7 CfGreaves, R ‘Advertising Restrictions and the Free Movement of Goods and Services’ (1998) 23 EL Rev 305 Google Scholar, and Drijber, BJ ‘Les communications commerciales au carrefour de la dérégulation et de la réglementation’ (2002) 38 Cahiers de Droit Européen 529 Google Scholar, 537–558.
8 Case C–441/04, A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH v Claudia Schmidt (‘A-Punkt’) [2006] ECR I–2093.
9 Case C–20/03, Criminal Proceedings against Burmanjer and Others (‘Burmanjer’) [2005] ECR I–4133.
10 Case C–134/03, Viacom Outdoor Srl v Giotto Immobilier SARL (‘Viacom Outdoor’) [2005] ECR I–1167.
11 Joined Cases C–544 to 545/03, Mobistar SA v Commune de Fleron and Belgacom Mobile SA v Commune de Schaerbeek (‘Mobistar and Belgacom’) [2005] ECR I–7723.
12 Overtly discriminatory advertising restrictions were already prohibited by Art 2(3)(m) of Commission Directive 70/50/EEC of 22 Dec 1969 on the abolition of measures which have an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports, OJ Spec Ed 1970 L 13/17.
13 Case 152/78, Commission v France [1980] ECR 2299, paras 11 and 13–14.
14 Case 286/81, Criminal Proceedings against Oosthoek's Uitgeversmaatschappij BV (‘Oosthoek’) [1982] ECR 4575, para 15.
15 Case 382/87, R. Buet and Educational Business Services (EBS) v Ministère public (‘Buet’) [1989] ECR 1235, paras 7–8.
16 Case C–241/89, SARPP—Société d’application et de recherches en pharmacologie et en phytotherapie SARL v Chambre syndicale des raffineurs et conditionneurs de sucre de France and others (‘SARPP’) [1990] ECR I–4695, paras 29–30. Cf Case C–238/89, Pall Corp. v P. J. Dahlhausen & Co. (‘Pall’) [1990] ECR I–4827, para 13.
17 Case C–362/88, GB-INNO-BM v Confédération du commerce luxembourgeois (‘GB-INNO-BM’) [1990] ECR I–667, paras 7–9.
18 Joined Cases C–1 and 196/90, Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior SA and Publivía SAE v Departamento de Sanidad y Seguridad Social de la Generalitat de Cataluña (‘Aragonesa’) [1991] ECR I–4151, paras 9–11.
19 Case C–126/91, Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft e.V. v Yves Rocher GmbH (‘Yves Rocher’) [1993] ECR I–2361, paras 10–11.
20 Joined Cases C–267 to 268/91, Keck, above n 1, paras 13–14.
21 Ibid, para 12.
22 Ibid, para 15.
23 Ibid, para 16.
24 Case C–320/93, Lucien-Ortscheit GmbH v Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH (‘Lucien-Ortscheit’) [1994] ECR I–5243, paras 9–10. It would have been dogmatically more appropriate for the Court to emphasise that the ban was designed to regulate—not just liable to restrict—the volume of imports of goods not authorised in the importing Member State (Keck, above n 1, para 12).
25 CfOliver, P and Roth, W-H ‘The Internal Market and the Four Freedoms’ (2004) 41 CML Rev 407, 415Google Scholar.
26 Case C–315/92, Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. v Clinique Laboratoires SNC and Estée Lauder Cosmetics GmbH (‘Clinique’) [1994] ECR I–317, paras 18–19. Cf Case C–220/98, Estée Lauder Cosmetics GmbH & Co. OGH v Lancaster Group GmbH (‘Lancaster’) [2000] ECR I–117 para 25 (ban on the importation and marketing in Germany of a cosmetic product the name of which included the term ‘lifting’).
27 Case C–470/93, Verein gegen Umwesen in Handel und Gewerbe Köln e.V. v Mars GmbH (‘Mars’) [1995] ECR I–1923, paras 12–13.
28 Case C–368/95, Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlag- und -vertriebs GmbH v Heinrich Bauer Verlag (‘Familiapress’) [1997] ECR I–3689, paras 11–12.
29 Case C–12/00, Commission v Spain (‘chocolate’) [2003] ECR I–459, paras 76–77 and 79–80, and Case C–14/00, Commission v Italy (‘chocolate’) [2003] ECR I–513, paras 75–76.
30 Case C–292/92, Ruth Hünermund and others v Landesapothekerkammer Baden-Württemberg (‘Hünermund’) [1993] ECR I–6787, paras 22 and 24.
31 Ibid, paras 19 and 23.
32 Case C–412/93, Leclerc-Siplec [1995] ECR I–179, para 24.
33 Ibid, paras 22 and 19.
34 Ibid, para 23.
35 Case C–6/98, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Rundfunkanstalten (ARD) v Pro Sieben Media AG (‘ARD v Pro Sieben’) [1999] ECR I–7599, paras 47–48.
36 Ibid, paras 45–46.
37 Case C–71/02, Herbert Karner Industrie-Auktionen GmbH v Troostwijk GmbH (‘Karner’) [2004] ECR I–3025, paras 39–40 and 43.
38 Ibid, para 41.
39 See below II.A.3.(b).
40 See below II.A.3.(b).
41 Ibid, para 42.
42 CfKoutrakos, P ‘On Groceries, Alcohol and Olive Oil: More on Free Movement of Goods after Keck ’ (2001) 26 EL Rev 391 Google Scholar, 396–9, and Weatherill, S ‘Free Movement of Goods’ (2006) 55 ICLQ 457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 458.
43 Joined Cases C–34 to 36/95, Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Förlag AB and TV-Shop i Sverige AB (‘De Agostini’) [1997] ECR I–3843, paras 39–40 and 43.
44 Ibid, paras 42 and 44.
45 Ibid, paras 43–44.
46 Case C–405/98, Gourmet [2001] ECR I–1795, paras 19–20.
47 Ibid, para 21.
48 Ibid, paras 18 and 25.
49 Ibid, para 22.
50 Ibid, para 23.
51 Ibid, para 24.
52 Case C–322/01, Deutscher Apothekerverband eV v 0800 DocMorris NV and Jacques Waterval (‘DocMorris’) [2003] ECR I–14887, para 76.
53 Ibid, paras 73–75.
54 Case C–239/02, Douwe Egberts [2004] ECR I–7007, para 54.
55 Art. 18 of the Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 Mar 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, OJ 2000 L 109/29.
56 Case C–239/02, Douwe Egberts, above n 54, paras 34–35 and 39.
57 Ibid, para 16.
58 Cf Case C–368/95, Familiapress, above n 28, paras 11–12.
59 See above II.A.2.
60 Case C–239/02, Douwe Egberts, above n 54, para 51 with reference to Keck, above n 1, para 17.
61 Opinion of AG Geelhoed in ibid, paras 62–64 and 74–75.
62 Ibid, para 52 with reference to Case C–241/89, SARPP, above n 16, para 29. Cf above II.A.
63 Ibid, para 53 with reference to Case C–405/98, Gourmet, above n 46, para 21.
64 Case 52/79, Debauve [1980] ECR 833, paras 11–14.
65 Case 352/85, Bond van Adverteerders [1988] ECR 2085, paras 22–27 and 29–30.
66 Case C–288/89, Gouda [1991] ECR I–4007, paras 17–18, and Case C–353/89, Commission v Netherlands (‘Mediawet I’) [1991] ECR I–4069, para 38. Cf Case C–11/95, Commission v Belgium [1996] ECR I–4115, para 65 (Belgian system of prior authorisation for cable retransmission of TV broadcasts from other Member States containing commercials or teleshopping programmes especially intended for viewers in the French community).
67 Case C–76/90 Säger, above n 3, para 12. See also Case C–264/03, Commission v France [2005] ECR I–8831, para 66.
68 See, eg, Case C–262/02, Commission v France (‘Loi Evin’) [2004] ECR I–6569, para 22, and Case C–429/02, Bacardi France SAS, formerly Bacardi-Martini SAS v Télévision française 1 SA (TF1), Groupe Jean-Claude Darmon SA and Girosport SARL (‘Bacardi’) [2004] ECR I–6613, para 31.
69 CfBarnard, C The Substantive Law of the EU— The Four Freedoms 2nd edn (Oxford, OUP, 2007) at 374-6Google Scholar and 389–90.
70 Joined Cases C–34 to 36/95, De Agostini, above n 43, paras 50–51.
71 Case C–6/98, ARD v Pro Sieben, above n 35. Cf above II.A.3.(a).
72 This excluded the duration of commercials from the air time taken into consideration for determining the number of advertising intermissions allowed during TV programmes. See above II.A.3.(a).
73 Ibid.
74 Case C–6/98, ARD v Pro Sieben, above n 35, para 49.
75 Opinion of AG Jacobs in ibid, paras 41 and 75–76.
76 See above II.A.3.(b).
77 Case C–405/98, Gourmet, above n 46, paras 37–39.
78 Cf Case C–76/90, Säger, above n 3, para 12. See above II.B.
79 Case C–262/02, ‘Loi Evin’, above n 68, para 26, and Case C–429/02, Bacardi, above n 68, para 35.
80 Case C–262/02, ‘Loi Evin’, above n 68, paras 27–29, and Case C–429/02, Bacardi, above n 68, para 36.
81 Case C–275/92, Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise v Gerhart Schindler and Jörg Schindler (‘Schindler’) [1994] ECR I–1039, paras 37 and 45.
82 Ibid, paras 31–32 and 43–44.
83 Case C–384/93, Alpine Investments BV v Minister van Financiën (‘Alpine Investments’) [1995] ECR I–1141, paras 28 and 39.
84 Ibid, paras 33–37.
85 Ibid, para 38.
86 Case C–294/00, Deutsch Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH v Kurt Gräbner (‘Gräbner’) [2002] ECR I–6515, para 68.
87 Ibid, paras 68–70.
88 Cf Case C–275/92, Schindler, above n 81, para 22, Case C–71/02, Karner, above n 37, para 46, Case C–390/99, Canal Satélit Digital [2002] ECR I–1067, para 31, and Case C–452/04, Fidium-Finanz [2006] ECR I–9521, paras 34 and 49.
89 Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C–412/93, Leclerc-Siplec, above n 5, paras 38–40, and Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C–384/93, Alpine Investments, above n 83, paras 47–49.
90 Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C–412/93 Leclerc-Siplec, above n 5, para 39.
91 Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C–384/93, Alpine Investments, above n 83, para 49.
92 Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C–412/93, Leclerc-Siplec, above n 5, para 41.
93 Ibid, paras 39, 41, 44–45, and 48–49.
94 Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C–384/93, Alpine Investments, above n 83, paras 47–48.
95 Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C–412/93, Leclerc-Siplec, above n 5, para 44.
96 Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C–384/93, Alpine Investments, above n 83, paras 51 and 58. Cf above II.B.2.
97 Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C–412/93, Leclerc-Siplec, above n 5, para 50.
98 Opinion of AG Jacobs in De Agostini, above n 43, paras 99–100.
99 Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C–412/93 Leclerc-Siplec, above n 5, para 51.
100 Ibid, paras 52 and 54. See above II.A.3.(a).
101 Ibid, paras 53 and 55.
102 Weatherill, S ‘After Keck: Some Thoughts on How to Clarify the Clarification’ (1996) 33 CML Rev 885 Google Scholar, 896.
103 Ibid, 893–4 and 896–7.
104 Ibid, at 897–8.
105 Barnard, C ‘Fitting the Remaining Pieces into the Goods and Persons Jigsaw’ (2001) 26 EL Rev 35 Google Scholar, 52–3.
106 See above II.A.
107 Barnard, C, n 105 above, 47–50.
108 Ibid, 45–6.
109 Ibid, 53–5, Barnard, C, above n 69, 164 and 407–8, and Barnard, C and Deakin, S ‘Market Access and Regulatory Competition’ in Barnard, C and Scott, J (eds) The Law of the Single European Market – Unpacking the Premises (Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing 2002), 197, 197.
110 Opinion of AG Geelhoed in Case C–239/02, Douwe Egberts, above n 5, paras 70–72.
111 Ibid, paras 72–73.
112 Cf Barnard, C, above n 105, at 42–3, Barnard, above n 69, at 149–51, and Craig, P and de Búrca, G, EU Law— Text, Cases and Materials 3rd edn (Oxford, OUP, 2003), 656 Google Scholar.
113 See above II.A.
114 See above III.A.
115 Oliver, P ‘Goods and Services: Two Freedoms Compared’ in Dony, M and De Walsche, D (eds) Mélanges en hommage à Michel Waelbroeck Vol. II (Brussels, Bruyant, 1999) 1377 Google Scholar, 1395; Da Cruz Vilaça, JL ‘On the Application of Keck in the Field of Free Provision of Services’ in Andenas, M and Roth, W-H, above n 2, 25, 28; and Timmermans, C ‘Werbung und Grundfreiheiten’, in Schwarze, J (ed) Werbung und Werbeverbote im Lichte des europäischen Gemeinschaftsrechts (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1999) 26, 27–8Google Scholar.
116 See Snell, J Goods and Services in EC Law: A Study of the Relationship between the Freedoms (Oxford, OUP, 2002) 89, 94 and 98 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
117 As opposed to measures restricting access to a professional activity. See Opinion of AG Gulmann in Case C–275/92, Schindler, above n 81, para 56, Opinion of AG Lenz in Case C–415/93, Bosman [1995] ECR I–4921, paras 205–207, and Jarass, HD, above n 2, 149. Contra Barnard, C, above n 105, 58.
118 Cf Oliver, P, above n 115, 1395, and Drijber, BJ, above n 7, 547–8.
119 See Da Cruz Vilaça, JL, above n 115, 39–40, and Timmermans, C, above n 115, at 35–6. cf Enchelmaier S ‘The Awkward Selling of a Good Idea, or a Traditionalist Interpretation of Keck’ (2003) 22 YEL 249, 312 ff and 320.
120 Case C–384/93, Alpine Investments, above n 83, paras 33–8. See above II.B.2.
121 Case C–289/02, AMOK Verlags GmbH v A & R Gastronomie GmbH (AMOK) [2003] ECR I–15059, para 27, where the ECJ declined to classify as non-discriminatory ‘selling arrangements’ and exclude from the ambit of Art 49 EC national rules limiting the reimbursement of fees of lawyers established in other Member States to the scale applicable to domestic lawyers; instead such rules were held to be liable to render less attractive the provision by lawyers of their services across borders.
122 Contra Arnull, A The European Union and its Court of Justice 2nd edn (Oxford, OUP, 2006) at 658 Google Scholar. CfWhite, RCA Workers, Establishment, and Services in the European Union (Oxford, OUP 2004) 221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Snell, J ‘And Then There Were Two: Products and Citizens in Community Law’ in Tridimas, T and Nebbia, P (eds) European Union Law for the TwentyFirst Century Vol. II (Oxford, Hart, 2004) 49, 54Google Scholar, and O’Leary, S ‘The Free Movement of Persons and Services’ in Craig, P and de Búrca, G (eds) The Evolution of EU Law (Oxford, OUP 1999) 377, 404-5Google Scholar.
123 Case C–405/98, Gourmet, above n 46, paras 37–39. Cf above II.B.1.
124 Case C–275/92, Schindler, above n 81, paras 31–32, 37 and 43–45. Cf above II.B.2.
125 Cf above II.B.1. and 2.
126 CfO’Keefe, D and Bavasso, AF ‘Four Freedoms, One Market and National Competence: In Search of a Dividing Line’ in O’Keefe, D and Bavasso, AF (eds) Judicial Review in European Union Law— Liber Amicorum in Honour of Lord Slynn of Hadley Vol. I (The Hague, Kluwer, 2000) 541, 551Google Scholar.
127 Snell, J, above n 116, 46–8, 79, 94, 97, 125–6 and 221.
128 Snell, J and Andenas, M ‘Exploring the Outer Limits: Restrictions on the Free Movement of Goods and Services’ in Andenas, M and Roth, W-H, above n 2, 69 at 84, 92–5, 105 and 132–3.
129 Snell, J, above n 122, 51–2 and 69–70.
130 Snell, J and Andenas, M, above n 128, 112.
131 Snell, J, above n 116, 89, 94, 96–8 and 227.
132 Snell, J, above n 122, 51.
133 Case C–384/93, Alpine Investments, above n 83, para 38. See above II.B.2.
134 Snell, J, above n 116, at 92–4, Snell J and Andenas M, above n 128, 115, and Bernard, N Multilevel Governance in the European Union (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2002) 22–5Google Scholar.
135 Case C–415/93, Bosman, above n 117, para 103.
136 Snell, J, above n 116, 102–3, Snell J and Andenas, M, above n 128, 119–20.
137 See above III.A.
138 Roth, W-H ‘The European Court of Justice’s Case Law on Freedom to Provide Services: Is Keck Relevant?’ in Andenas, M and Roth, W-H, above n 2, 1, 14–15, and Weiler, JHH ‘The Constitution of the Common Market Place: Text and Context in the Evolution of Free Movement of Goods’ in Craig, P and de Búrca, G (eds), above n 122, 349, 372–3.
139 Enchelmaier, S, above n 119, at 298–300, 307 and 317–18.
140 Roth, W-H, above n 138, at 16–17, 19–21 and 23–4.
141 Roth, W-H ‘Export of Goods and Services within the Single Market: Reflections on the Scope of Articles 29 and 49 EC’ in Tridimas, T and Nebbia, P (eds), European Union Law for the Twenty-First Century Vol. II (Oxford, Hart, 2004) 33, 48Google Scholar.
142 Roth, W-H, above n 138, 18–19 and 23.
143 Poiares Maduro, M We the Court: The European Court of Justice and the European Economic Constitution (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 1998) 78, 80–2 and 84Google Scholar.
144 Ibid, 35–6, 43, 103 and 162–3.
145 Poiares Maduro, M ‘Harmony and Dissonance in Free Movement’ in Andenas, M and Roth, W-H, above n 2, 41, 41 and 59–61.
146 Cf AG Poiares Maduro in Joined Cases C–158 to 159/04, Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos [2006] ECR I–8135, paras 42–52.
147 Poiares Maduro, M, above n 143, at 85–6, and Poiares Maduro, M, above n 145, 57 and 63–4.
148 Ibid, at 62–5.
149 Cf O’Keefe, D and Bavasso, AF, above n 126, at 548 and 550–1, Craig, P and de Búrca, G, above n 112, at 654, 656 and 658, and Weatherill, S, above n 42, 458–9.
150 Joined Cases C–267 to 268/91, Keck, above n 1, para 16.
151 Snell, J and Andenas, M, above n 128, 115–17.
152 Contra Snell, J, above n 122, 51.
153 See Oliver, P and Roth, W-H, above n 25, at 415. Cf Koutrakos, P, above n 42, 394.
154 See Barnard, C and Deakin, S, above n 109, at 208–9, Barnard, C, above n 105, 48–50, and Drijber, BJ, above n 7, 541. Cf AG Tizzano in Case C–442/02, CaixaBank [2004] ECR I–8961, paras 66–68 and 72–76, and AG Kokott in Case C–142/05, Mickelsson, Opinion of 14 Dec 2006, paras 53–71.
155 CfTridimas, T The General Principles of EU Law 2nd edn (Oxford, OUP, 2006) 199 Google Scholar, and Barnard, C, above n 69, at 160–2. Contra Snell, J, above n 122, at 51–2, and Koutrakos, above n 42, 393 and 395.
156 See Barnard, C, above n 105, 52–3. Cf O’Keefe, D and Bavasso, A F, above n 126, at 553–4.
157 See above II.A.3.(a).
158 Cf Tridimas, T, above n 155, 205, Barnard, C, above n 69, 407–8, Arnull, A et al, Wyatt and Dashwood’s European Union Law 5th edn (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2006) 600 Google Scholar, and Toner, H ‘Non-discriminatory Obstacles to the Exercise of Treaty Rights—Articles 39, 43, 49, and 18 EC’ (2004) 23 YEL 275 at 279–80Google Scholar.
159 See above II.A.3.(b).
160 See above II.A.3.(b).
161 Case C–254/98, Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb v TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH (TK-Heimdienst) [2000] ECR I–151.
162 See Barnard, C, above n 105, at 44–6 and 53. Cf Case C–322/01, DocMorris, above n 52, paras 73–75. See also above II.A.3.(b).
163 Case C–254/98, TK-Heimdienst, above n 161, paras 25–26 and 29, with reference to Case C–384/93, Alpine Investments, above n 83, para 37.
164 Case C–384/93 Alpine Investments, above n 83, paras 36–38.
165 CfDoukas, D Werbefreiheit und Werbebeschränkungen (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2005) 145–7Google Scholar.
166 Case C–416/00, Tommaso Morellato v Comune di Padova (‘Morellato’) [2003] ECR I–9343, para 31, with reference to Keck, above n 1, para 17, and Case C–384/93, Alpine Investments, above n 83, para 37.
167 Case C–416/00, Morellato, above n 166, paras 36–37.
168 Case C–441/04, A-Punkt, above n 8.
169 CfRigaux, A ‘Vers une application apaisée de la jurisprudence Keck et Mithouard?’ (2006) 109 Europe (Apr Comm.) 12 Google Scholar.
170 Ibid, para 20.
171 Ibid, para 24.
172 Ibid, paras 22 and 23, first limb.
173 Cf above II.A.3.(b) and IV.A.
174 Cf above II.A.3.(a).
175 Ibid, paras 23, second limb, 25–26 and 30.
176 Cf Snell, J, above n 116, at 100–1, and Snell, J and Andenas, M, above n 128, 118. See also the discussion in Barnard, C, above n 105, at 55–6, Barnard, C, above n 69, 164–5, and Craig, P and de Búrca, G, above n 112, 656–8.
177 Cf Case C–167/97, Seymour-Smyth [1999] ECR I–623, paras 58–65, and Case C– 237/94, O’Flynn [1996] ECR I–2617, paras 20–23.
178 As opposed to a standards-based test, which leaves more of the question of what measures violate the Treaty to be decided in each case. CfWils, WPJ ‘The Search for the Rule in Article 30 EEC: Much Ado About Nothing’ (1993) 18 EL Rev 475, 487Google Scholar.
179 See above II.A.3.(b) and IV.A. CfOliver, P and Jarvis, M Free Movement of Goods in the European Community 4th edn (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2003) 129–30Google Scholar.
180 See Barnard, C, above n 69, 165.
181 White, RCA, above n 122, 206 and 221–2.
182 Cf Snell, J, above n 116, 16, and Jarass, HD ‘Elemente einer Dogmatik der Grundfreiheiten’ (1995) 30 Europarecht 202, 203 and 205Google Scholar.
183 CfDaniele, L ‘Non-discriminatory Restrictions to the Free Movement of Persons’ (1997) 22 EL Rev 191, 195–8Google Scholar, Snell, J, above n 122, 67–70, and Poiares Maduro, M, above n 145, 60–1 and 66–8.
184 See Barnard, C, above n 105, 52–5.
185 Cf Poiares Maduro, M, above n 145, 67–8.
186 AG Jacobs in Case C–412/93, Leclerc-Siplec, above n 5, paras 42 and 45–46.
187 Joined Cases 177 to 178/82, van de Haar [1984] ECR 1797, para 13, and Case 269/83, Commission v France [1985] ECR 837, para 10.
188 Case C–49/89, Corsica Ferries France [1989] ECR I–4441, para 8.
189 Tridimas, T, above n 155, 199.
190 Oliver, P, above n 115, 1398.
191 Oliver, P and Jarvis, M, above n 179, 130–1.
192 The two tests are equated by Arnull, A, above n 122, 440–1, 458 and 490–1.
193 Cf Oliver, P and Jarvis, M, above n 179, 103–4 and 133, and Toner, H, above n 158, 288.
194 Cf Weatherill, S, above n 102, 898–900.
195 Case C-69/88, Krantz [1990] ECR I-583, para 11; Case C–93/92, CMC Motorradcenter [1993] ECR I–5009, para 12; Case C–379/92, Peralta [1994] ECR I–3453, para 24; Case C–96/94, Centro Servizi Spediporto [1995] ECR I–2883, para 41; Case C–266/96, Corsica Ferries France [1998] ECR I–3949, para 31, and Case C–44/98, BASF [1999] ECR I–6269, paras 20–21.
196 CfBiondi, A ‘In and Out of the Internal Market: Recent Developments on the Principle of Free Movement’ (1999–2000) 19 YEL 469, 487-8Google Scholar.
197 See AG La Pergola in Case C–44/98, BASF, above n 195, para 18. Cf Arnull, A et al, above n 158, 601–3, who however argue against the capacity of the remoteness test to accommodate non-discriminatory selling arrangements, inherent in the regulatory competence of Member States.
198 Case C–67/97, Criminal Proceedings against Ditlev Bluhme (‘Bluhme’) [1998] ECR I–8033, para 22. Cf Oliver, P and Jarvis, H, above n 179, at 103–4, and Enchelmaier, above n 119, at 291.
199 Case C–190/98, Volker Graf v Filzmoser Maschinenbau GmbH (‘Graf’) [2000] ECR I–493, para 26.
200 Ibid, paras 23–24.
201 Ibid, para 25. CfCostello, C ‘Market Access All Areas—The Treatment of Non-dis criminatory Barriers to the Free Movement of Workers’ (2000) 27 LIEI 267, 277Google Scholar.
202 Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C–384/93, Alpine Investments, above n 83, para 58. Cf the negative remoteness test applied in Case C–254/98, TK-Heimdienst, above n 161, para 30.
203 Joined Cases C–51 and 191/97, Deliège [2000] ECR I–2549, paras 64–65 and 69.
204 Cf Barnard, C and Deakin, S, above n 109, 211.
205 Case C–20/03, Burmanjer, above n 9.
206 Ibid, paras 21–22, 24–26 and 33.
207 Ibid,, paras 27–28.
208 Ibid, paras 31, first limb, and 32, first limb.
209 Ibid, para 15.
210 Opinion of AG Léger in Case C–20/03, Burmanjer, above n 9, paras 84–88.
211 Case C–20/03, Burmanjer, above n 9, para 29.
212 Ibid, para 30.
213 Ibid, para 31.
214 See above, II.A.3.(b) and IV.A.
215 Cf AG Léger in Case C–110/05, Commission v Italy, Opinion of 5 Oct 2006, paras 38–41, whereby the mere possibility that national legislation may limit opportunities for crossborder trade is regarded as sufficient for the purpose of applying Art 28 EC.
216 Ibid, paras 33–36.
217 Opinion of AG Léger in Case C–20/03, Burmanjer, above n 9, paras 47 and 51–59.
218 Ibid, paras 62–64.
219 Ibid, n 27.
220 Ibid, paras 60, 83 and 88.
221 Ibid, paras 64–82 and 90.
222 Ibid, paras 52–58.
223 Case C–20/03, Burmanjer, above n 9, para 31. See also above IV.C.
224 Case C–134/03, Viacom Outdoor, above n 10.
225 Ibid, paras 5–12.
226 Case C–190/02, Viacom Outdoor Srl v Giotto Immobilier SARL (‘Viacom Outdoor I’) [2002] ECR I–8287.
227 Case C–134/03, Viacom Outdoor, above n 10, para 34.
228 Ibid, para 37.
229 Ibid, para 35.
230 Ibid, para 38.
231 Cf Case C–109/04, Kranemann [2005] ECR I–2421, paras 28–30 where national legislation creating a financial obstacle, which might deter workers in that Member State from exercising their freedom of movement, was found to fall within the scope of Art 39 EC.
232 Opinion of AG Kokott in Case C–134/03, Viacom Outdoor, above n 10, paras 62–63.
233 Ibid, paras 64–66.
234 Case C–387/01, Weigel [2004] ECR I–4981.
235 Ibid, paras 53–55.
236 Joined Cases C–544 to 545/03, Mobistar and Belgacom, above n 11.
237 Ibid, paras 29–30.
238 Ibid, para 31.
239 Ibid, para 32.
240 Ibid, para 33.
241 Ibid, paras 34–35.
242 Tobler, C ‘Endlich: Keck im freien Dienstleistungsverkehr. Einige Anmerkungen zum Urteil des EuGH in den Rechtssachen Mobistar & Belgacom vom 8. September 2005’ (2005) 6 Jusletter 159 Google Scholar, and Biondi, A ‘Internal Market Law’, Paper presented at the 2006 Annual European Law Conference, King’s College London, 10 Mar 2006, 8–10.
243 Joined Cases C–267 to 268/91, Keck, above n 1, paras 16–17.
244 See above, II.B.2. and IV.A.
245 CfHatzopoulos, V and Do, TU ‘The Case Law of the ECJ concerning the Free Provision of Services: 2000–2005’ (2006) 43 CML Rev 923, 959–60Google Scholar, who argue that the test in Mobistar and Belgacom is not a mechanical application of a de minimis rule, based on strictly quantitative criteria—since a relatively high economic burden would still evade the Court’s control, with the exception of very high entry costs that would constitute barriers to market access.
246 Case C–20/03, above n 9, para 31.
247 Case C–190/98, above n 199, para 25.
248 See above IV.C. and V.A.