Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T18:55:55.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding Market Access: Exploring the Economic Rationality of Different Conceptions of Free Movement Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Gareth Davies

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

There has been much discussion of the proper scope of the European Treaty articles on free movement. Central to this discussion has been a debate about the best concept around which to build free movement law, and in this debate “discrimination” has been opposed to “market access.” It is, however, the central thesis of this paper that the opposition is largely false. In general, measures which affect all market actors equally do not, as a matter of economic fact, impede market access. The non-discriminatory measures which impede market access, which some have felt it so important to bring within the Treaty, are therefore more mythical than real. This argument is made with reference to competition law and theory concerning barriers to market entry.

Type
Articles
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 11 , Issue 7-8 , 01 August 2010 , pp. 671 - 703
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art. 34, Dec. 13, 2007 [hereinafter TFEU].Google Scholar

2 TFEU arts. 49, 56 and 63 regulate services, establishment and capital. TFEU arts. 25 and 21 address the free movement of workers and citizens.Google Scholar

3 E.g. most recently Jukka Snell, The notion of market access: a concept or a slogan?, 47 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 437 (2010); Eleanor Spaventa, From Gebhard to Carpenter: Towards a (non) economic European constitution, 41 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 743 (2004); Peter Oliver and Wulf-Henning Roth, The internal market and the four freedoms, 41 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 407 (2004); Catherine Barnard, Fitting the remaining pieces in the goods and persons jigsaw, 26 Eur. L. Rev. 35 (2001); Steven Weatherill, After Keck: Some thoughts on how to clarify the clarification, 33 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 885 (1996); Nicholas Bernard, Discrimination and free movement in EC law, 45 Int'l’ & Comp. L.Q. 82 (1996).Google Scholar

4 TFEU art. 26(2) “The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties.” The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art. 26, Dec. 13, 2007.Google Scholar

5 Giulianio Marenco, Pour une interpretation traditionelle de la notion de mesure d'effet equivalent a une restriction quantitative, Cahiers De Droit Europeen 291 (1984); Bernard, supra note 3; Jukka Snell, Free Movement of Goods and Services in EC Law (2002); Gareth Davies, Nationality Discrimination in the European Internal Market (2003). See also Case C-158/04, Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos AE v. Elliniko Dimosio, Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Ioanninon, 2006 E.C.R. I-8135; Case C-159/04, Carrefour Marinopoulos AE v. Elliniko Dimosio, Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Ioanninon 2006 E.C.R. I-8135.Google Scholar

6 Advocate General in Case C-412/93, Société d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v. TF1 Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA, 1995 E.C.R. I-179; Weatherill, supra note 3; Barnard, supra note 3.Google Scholar

7 Leclerc-Siplec, para. 39.Google Scholar

8 See generally Leclerc-Siplec, supra note 3.Google Scholar

9 Joined Cases C-267 and 268/91, Keck and Mithouard, 1993 E.C.R. I-6097. See Peter Oliver and Stefan Enchelmaier, Free movement of goods: recent developments in the case law, 44 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 649 (2007).Google Scholar

10 See Case C-110/05, Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519; Case C-142/05, Mickelsson and Roos, 2009 E.C.R. I-0000. See Pal. Wenneras & K. Boe Moen, Selling arrangements, keeping Keck, 35 Eur. L. Rev. 387 (2010); Eleanor Spaventa, Leaving Keck behind? The free movement of goods after the rulings in Commission v. Italy and Mickelsson and Roos, 34 Eur. L. Rev. 924 (2009).Google Scholar

11 See e.g., Case C-55/94, Gebhard v. Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano, 1995 E.C.R. I-4165; Case C-369 and 376/96, Arblade, 1999 E.C.R. I-8453; Case C-415/93, Union Royal Belge des Sociétés de Football Association v. Bosman, 1995 E.C.R. 1-4921.Google Scholar

12 Similarly, Ag Maduro in Alfa Vita, supra note 5; Snell, supra note 3 at 468. This is similar to the WTO position on market access and import restrictions. See Colombia - Ports of Entry (2009; DS366/R) at 7.229 et seq, especially note 463.Google Scholar

13 Joined cases C-428/06 to C-434/06, Unión General de Trabajadores de La Rioja (UGT-Rioja) and Others v. Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya and Others, 2008 E.C.R. I-6747; “In order to determine whether the measure at issue is selective, it is appropriate to examine whether, within the context of a particular legal system, that measure constitutes an advantage for certain undertakings in comparison with others which are in a comparable legal and factual situation.” Id. at para. 46.Google Scholar

14 Case C-730/79, Philip Morris Holland BV, 1980 E.C.R. I-2671; “When state financial aid strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-community trade the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid.” Id. at para. 11.Google Scholar

15 See e.g. Case C- 120/78, Cassis de Dijon, 1979 E.C.R. 649; Case C-340/89, Vlassopoulou v Ministerium für Justiz Bundes-und Europaangelegenheiten Baden-Wurttemberg, 1991 E.C.R. I-2357.Google Scholar

16 Cases C-34 to C-36/95, De Agostini and TV Shop, 1997 E.C.R. I-3843; Joined cases C-69 and C-258/93, Punto Casa, 1994 E.C.R. I-2355.Google Scholar

17 Joined Cases C-267 and 268/92, Keck and Mithouard, 1993 E.C.R. I-6097.Google Scholar

18 See infra note 69 and accompanying text et seq.Google Scholar

19 Case C-379/92, Peralta, 1994 E.C.R. I-3453; C-190/98; Graf v. Filzmoser Maschinenbau, 2000 E.C.R. I-493; Case C-20/03, Criminal Proceedings against Burmanjer, 2005 E.C.R. I-4133; Case C-69/88, Krantz, 1990 E.C.R. I-583.Google Scholar

20 See Christa Tobler, Indirect Discrimination: A Case Study Into the Developement of the Legal Concept of Indirect Discrimination Under EC Law (2005).Google Scholar

21 Jacques Pelkmans, Mutual recognition in goods and services: An economic perspective, working paper no. 16, Euro. Network of Econ. Pol'y Res. Institutes (2003); A.O. Sykes, The (limited) role of regulatory harmonization in international goods and services markets, J. Int'l Econ. L. 49 (1999); Alison Jones & Brenda Sufrin, EC Competition Law (2008) at 88–92.Google Scholar

22 Id. See also infra text accompanying note 39.Google Scholar

23 See infra text accompanying note 77.Google Scholar

24 See infra Part D.IV.Google Scholar

25 See Case C-6/72, Europemballage and Continental Can, 1973 E.C.R. 215; Case C-25/76, United Brands v Commission, 1978 E.C.R. 207; Case C-85/76, Hoffman-La Roche, 1979 E.C.R. 461; Case C-322/81, Michelin v Commission, 1983 E.C.R. 3461; Commission Notice on the Definition of the Relevant Market for the Purposes of Community Competition Law, OJ C 372-5 (1997); Jones & Sufrin, supra note 21 at 60–84 and 353–82.Google Scholar

26 Daniel Wilsher, Does Keck discrimination make any sense? An assessment of the non-discrimination within the European single market, 33 Eur. L. Rev. 3 (2008).Google Scholar

27 Id. It is no more coherent to consider discrimination without a defined market.Google Scholar

28 See TFEU art. 107(1) (state aid); see also supra notes 13 and 14; Case C-221/06, Stadtgemeinde Frohnleiten, 2007 E.C.R. I-9643; Christopher Bovis, The Regulation of Public Procurement as a Key Element of European Economic Law, 4 Eur. L.J. 220–242 (1998); TFEU art. 110 (product taxation); Case C-376/98, Germany v. Council, 2000 E.C.R. I-8419 (on Article 114); Rob Van Der Laan & Andries Nentjes, Competitive Distortions in EU Environmental Legislation: Inefficiency versus Inequity, 11 Eur. J. L. & Econ. 131 (2001).Google Scholar

29 See Case C-376/98, Germany v. Council, 2000 E.C.R. I-8419; Alan Dashwood, The limits of European Community Powers, 21 Eur. L. Rev. 113 (1996); Steven Weatherill, Harmonisation: how much, how little?, 16 Eur. Bus. L. Rev. 533 (2005).Google Scholar

30 See supra note 29.Google Scholar

31 Id. Google Scholar

32 See Snell, supra note 3.Google Scholar

33 Jones & Sufrin, supra note 21 at 85.Google Scholar

34 Pelkmans, supra note 21.Google Scholar

35 See Giorgio Monti, EC Competition Law (2007) at 144–48; Jones & Sufrin, supra note 21 at 84–92; Snell, supra note 3.Google Scholar

36 J.S. Bain, Economies of Scale, Concentration and the Condition of Entry in Twenty Manufacturing Industries, 44 Amer. Econ. Rev. 15 (1954); J.S. Bain, Barriers to New Competition (1956).Google Scholar

37 G.J. Stigler, The Organization of Industry (1968).Google Scholar

38 Jones & Sufrin, supra note 21 at 88.Google Scholar

39 Id.; D. Harbord & T. Hoehn, Barriers to entry and exit in European competition policy, 14 Int'l Rev. L. & Econ. 411 (1994).Google Scholar

40 Case C-120/78, Cassis de Dijon, 1979 E.C.R. 649.Google Scholar

41 See supra note 39.Google Scholar

42 See supra note 35.Google Scholar

43 See e.g., Snell, supra note 3, at 438, citing OECD Barriers to entry, 42 DAF/COMP 17 (2005).Google Scholar

44 D. Harbord & T. Hoehn, supra note 39.Google Scholar

45 See R. P. McAfee, H. M. Mialon & M. A. Williams, What is a barrier to entry?, 94 Amer. Econ. Rev. 463 (2004).Google Scholar

46 See infra Part D.IV.Google Scholar

47 Joined Cases C-267 and 268/92, Keck & Mithouard, 1993 E.C.R. I-6097.Google Scholar

48 “A regulatory barrier arises when, as a result of regulatory policy or previous practice, entry into a particular market is made to be financially unprofitable and this situation is expected to persist.” M. Cave & P. Crowther, Pre-emptive competition policy meets regulatory antitrust, 26 Eur. Competition L. Rev. 144 (2005).Google Scholar

49 See TFEU art. 63.Google Scholar

50 See Cave & Crowther, supra note 48.Google Scholar

51 See TFEU arts. 21, 45, 49, 56 and 63.Google Scholar

52 Gareth Davies, Can selling arrangements be harmonised?, 30 Eur. L. Rev. 370 (2005).Google Scholar

53 Advocate General in Leclerc-Siplec, supra note 7 at par. 39.Google Scholar

54 Cf. Case C-448/98, Guimont, 2000 E.C.R. I-10663.Google Scholar

55 See Joost Pauwelyn, Distinguishing domestic regulation from market access in GATT and GATS, 4 World Trade Rev. 142 (2005); Laurence Gormley, Silver threads among the gold…fifty years of the free movement of goods, 31 Fordham Int'l L. J. 1637 (2008).Google Scholar

56 Spaventa, supra note 3; Davies, supra note 5.Google Scholar

57 For arguments in favour, see J. Steiner, Drawing the line: uses and abuses of Article 30 EEC, 29 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 767 (1992); Weatherill, supra note 3. For criticism, see Spaventa, supra note 3.Google Scholar

58 Snell, supra note 3 at 453–5; Spaventa, supra note 3. Contra Weatherill, supra note 3.Google Scholar

59 Jagdish Bhagwati, Protectionism (1989).Google Scholar

60 Paul Krugman, Is free trade passé?, 1 J. Econ. Persp. 131 (1987); Paul Krugman, The narrow and broad arguments for free trade, 83 Amer. Econ. Rev. 362 (1993); Jagdish Bhagwati, The Generalized Theory of Distortions and Welfare, in Trade, Balance of Payments, and Growth 69, 90 (Jagdish Bhagwati et al. eds., 1971).Google Scholar

61 See e.g., Gormley, supra note 55.Google Scholar

62 Case C-120/78, Cassis de Dijon, 1979 E.C.R. 649; TFEU arts. 36, 45, 52.Google Scholar

63 Case C-108/98, RI-SAN, 1999 E.C.R. I-5219; Case C-98/86, Mathot, 1987 E.C.R. 809; Case C-448/98, Guimont, 2000 E.C.R. I-10663.Google Scholar

64 Koen Lenaerts, D. Arts & I. Maselis, Procedural Law of the European Union 132 (2006); Case C-157/03, Commission v. Spain, 2005 E.C.R. I-2911.Google Scholar

65 See Snell, supra note 3, at 452; Piet Eeckhout, Recent case law on the free movement of goods: refining Keck and Mithouard, 9 Eur. Bus. L. Rev. 270 (1998); Andrea Biondi, Free Trade, A Mountain Road, and the Right to Protest: European Economic Freedoms and Fundamental Individual Rights, Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 51 (2004); Miguel Poiares Maduro, Reforming the market or the state? Article 30 and the European Constitution: Economic freedom and political rights, 3 Eur. L.J. 55 (1997); Alina Tryfonidou, Further steps on the road to convergence among the market freedoms, 35 Eur. L. Rev. 36 (2010).Google Scholar

66 Case C-8/75, Procureur du Roi v Dassonville, 1974 E.C.R. 837.Google Scholar

67 Gareth Davies, Is mutual recognition an alternative to harmonization? Lessons on trade and tolerance of diversity from the EU, in Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Trading System, (Lorand Bartels & Federico Ortino eds., 2006).Google Scholar

68 Case C-120/78, Cassis de Dijon, 1979 E.C.R. 649; TFEU arts. 36, 45, 52.Google Scholar

69 See Joined Cases C-267 and 268/92, Keck and Mithouard, 1993 E.C.R. I-6097; Joined Cases C-69 and 258/93, Punto Casa, 1994 E.C.R. I-2355; Case C-391/92, Commission v Greece, 1995 E.C.R. I-1621; Case C-418/93, Semeraro Casa Uno, 1996 E.C.R. I-2975.Google Scholar

70 Case C-155/80, Oebel, 1981 E.C.R. 1993; Case C-169/91, Stoke-on-Trent & Norwich City Council v B & Q, 1992 E.C.R. I-6635.Google Scholar

71 Joined Cases C-34, 35 and 36/95, Konsumentombudsmannen v. De Agostini, 1997 E.C.R. I-3843; Case C-322/01, Deutscher Apothekerverband v. DocMorris, 2003 E.C.R. I-14887; Case C-20/03, Burmanjer, 2005 E.C.R. I-4133.Google Scholar

72 E.g. Case C-412/93, Société d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v. TF1 Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA, 1995 E.C.R. I-179; Case C-292/92, Ruth Hünermund and others v. Landesapothekerkammer Baden-Württemberg, 1993 E.C.R. I-6787.Google Scholar

73 Case C-405/98, Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v. Gourmet International Products AB, 2001 E.C.R. I-1795; Joined Cases C-34, 35 and 36/95, Konsumentombudsmannen v. De Agostini, 1997 E.C.R. I-3843.Google Scholar

74 Case C-82/77, van Tiggele, 1978 E.C.R. 25; Case 231/83, Cullet, 1985 E.C.R. 305.Google Scholar

75 Case C-416/00, Morellato, 2003 E.C.R. I-9343; see supra note 65.Google Scholar

76 See supra text accompanying note 21.Google Scholar

77 Case C-237/94, O'Flynn, 1996 E.C.R. I-2617; Case C-31/87, Gebroeders Beentjes, 1988 E.C.R. 4635; Joined Cases C-1/90 and C-176/90, Aragonesa, 1991 E.C.R. I-4151; Case C-67/97, Bluhme, 1998 E.C.R. I-8033.Google Scholar

78 Case C-8/75, Procureur du Roi v Dassonville, 1974 E.C.R. 837.Google Scholar

79 Case C-416/00, Morellato, 2003 E.C.R. I-9343.Google Scholar

80 Case C-188/04, Alfa Vita v. Elliniko Dimosio and Nomarchiaki Aftodioikisi Ioanninon, 2006 E.C.R. I-8135.Google Scholar

81 Case C-110/05, Commission v. Italy, judgment of 10 Feb 2009; Case C-142/05, Åklagaren v. Mickelsson and Roos, judgment of 4 Jun 2009.Google Scholar

82 C-544/03, Mobistar v. Commune de Fléron, 2005 E.C.R. I-7723; Case C-134/03, Viacom Outdoor v. Giotto Immobilier, 2005 E.C.R. I-1167.Google Scholar

83 Recently renamed CBS Outdoor, as part of a splitting of CBS from VIACOM. See CBS Outdoor, http://www.viacomoutdoor.com/ (last visited Aug. 15, 2010); CBS Outdoor, http://www.cbsoutdoor.com (last visited Aug. 16, 2010).Google Scholar

84 Case C-140/03, Commission v. Greece, 2005 E.C.R. I-3177; Case C-531/06, Commission v. Italy, judgment of 9 May 2009; Case C-243/01, Gambelli, 2003 E.C.R. I-13031Google Scholar

85 Case C-384/93, Alpine Investments v. Minister van Financiën, 1995 E.C.R. I-1141; Case C-415/93, Union Royal Belge des Sociétés de Football Association v. Bosman, 1995 E.C.R. 1-4921; Case C-6/98, PRO Sieben Media, 1999 ECR I-7599; Case C-442/02, Caixabank France, 2004 E.C.R. I-8961; Case C-518/06, Commission v. Italy, judgment of 28 Apr 2009; Case C-110/05, Commission v. Italy, judgment of 10 Feb 2009; Case C-142/05, Åklagaren v. Mickelsson and Roos, judgment of 4 Jun 2009; Case C-188/04, Alfa Vita v. Elliniko Dimosio and Nomarchiaki Aftodioikisi Ioanninon, 2006 E.C.R. I-8135; Case C-55/94, Gebhard v. Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano, [1995] E.C.R. I-4165.Google Scholar

86 Case C-110/05, Commission v. Italy, judgment of 10 Feb 2009; Case C-142/05, Åklagaren v. Mickelsson and Roos, judgment of 4 Jun 2009; Case C-188/04, Alfa Vita v. Elliniko Dimosio and Nomarchiaki Aftodioikisi Ioanninon, 2006 E.C.R. I-8135.Google Scholar

87 Case C-142/05, Åklagaren v. Mickelsson and Roos (June 4, 2009), at para. 25.Google Scholar

88 P. Pecho, Goodbye Keck? A comment on the remarkable judgment in Commission v Italy, 36 Legal Issues Econ. Integration 257 (2009); Luca Prete, Of motorcycle trailers and personal watercrafts: the battle over Keck, 35 Legal Issues Econ. Integration 133 (2008).Google Scholar

89 See supra note 85.Google Scholar

90 Case C-384/93, Alpine Investments v. Minister van Financiën, 1995 E.C.R. I-1141.Google Scholar

91 See Gormley, supra note 55.Google Scholar

92 Case C-6/98, PRO Sieben Media, 1999 E.C.R. I-7599.Google Scholar

93 Case C-415/93, Union Royal Belge des Sociétés de Football Association v. Bosman, 1995 E.C.R. 1-4921.Google Scholar

94 See D. McCauley, They think it's all over…it might just be now: unravelling the ramifications for the European football transfer system post-Bosman, 23 Eur. Competition L. Rev. 331 (2002).Google Scholar

95 E.g. Case C-38/87, Commission v. Greece, 1988 E.C.R. 4415; Case C-145/99, Commission v. Italy, 2002 E.C.R. I-2235. See Koen Lenaerts et al, supra note 64 at 135.Google Scholar

96 Id. Google Scholar