Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T15:23:55.449Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. Free Movement of Goods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Karl Newman  and
Stephen Weatherill
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The last contribution on this topic, which was published in the July 1997 issue of the Quarterly,1 examined the Court's remarkable ruling in CIA Security International S.A. v. Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL,2 in which the Full Court decided that where a member State neglects to notify draft national technical regulations to the Commission in breach of the obligations set out in Directive 83/189,3 it may not rely on those regulations in subsequent proceedings before national courts. The Court's ruling attaches a meaningful penalty to State failure to abide by the obligations of notification stipulated by the Directive. It thereby induces compliance with requirements of transparency on which the Commission pins great faith in its “post-1992” strategy for the management of the internal market. The case law since CIA Security has generated a sufficient number of further illuminating rulings to justify a further tour of the area in this contribution.

Type
Current Developments: European Community Law
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , January 1999 , pp. 217 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1999

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. (1997) 46 I.C.L.Q. 704.Google Scholar

2. Case C-194/94 [1996] E.C.R. 1–2201.Google Scholar

3. (1983) O.J. L109Google Scholar, as amended by Dir.88/182 (1988) O.J. L81Google Scholar and Dir.94/10 (1994) O.J. L100/30.Google ScholarNow consolidated in Dir.98/34 (1998) O.J. L204/37.Google Scholar

4. Case C-13/96 [1997] E.C.R. 1–1753.Google Scholar

5. Case C-226/97, judgment of 16 June 1998.

6. The matter was discussed extensively on television and in newspapers in the Netherlands, e.g. “Richtlijn 83/189 zaait paniek”, NRC Handeslblad, 6 06 1997, p.3.Google Scholar

7. E.g. Case 34/79 R. v. Henn and Darby [1979] E.C.R. 3795Google Scholar; Case 186/87 Cowan [1989] E.C.R. 195Google Scholar; Case 203/80 Casati [1981] E.C.R. 2595.Google Scholar

8. Supra n.1.

9. Case 8/74 [1974] E.C.R. 837.Google Scholar

10. Case 120/78 Rewe Zentrale v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein [1979] E.C.R. 649.Google Scholar

11. Cases C-267, C-268/91 [1993] E.C.R. I–6097.Google Scholar

12. Case 272/80 Biologische Producten [1981] E.C.R. 3277, para.14 of the judgment.Google Scholar

13. Case C-194/94, supra n.2.

14. (1995) O.J. L321/1.Google Scholar

15. See Maher, , “Legislative Review by the EC Commission: Revision without Radicalism”, in Shaw and More, New Legal Dynamics of European Union (1995).Google Scholar

16. E.g. Commission's first annual report on the subsidiarity principle, COM(94)533.

17. Council Resolution on legislative and administrative simplification in the internal market (1996) O.J. C224/5; COM(96)559.Google Scholar

18. The Internal Market after 1992: Meeting the Challenge (Report to the EEC Commission by the High Level Group on the Operation of the Internal Market).

19. Communication of the Commission to the European Council, CSE(97)1, final, 4 06 1997.Google Scholar

20. Commission White Paper, COM(95)163, “Preparation of the Associated Countries of Central and Eastern Europe for Integration into the Internal Market of the Union”; Agenda 2000, subtitled “For a stronger and wider Union”, Supplement 5/97–Bull EU.

21. Supra n.10. The principle was latent in the Dassonville ruling, supra n.9.

22. Case C-265/95 [1997] E.C.R. I–6959.Google Scholar

23. Case 21/84 [1985] E.C.R. 1356.Google Scholar

24. Case 44/84 Hurd v. Jones [1986] E.C.R. 29.Google Scholar

25. Case 74/76 Ianelli and Volpi v. Meroni [1977] E.C.R. 557.Google Scholar

26. Cases C-6, C-9/90 [1991] E.C.R. I–5357.Google Scholar

27. Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pe˚cheur SA v. Germany and R. v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex p. Factortame Ltd and others [1996] E.C.R. I–1029.Google Scholar