1 Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 [1993] ECR I-6097, para 16.Google Scholar

2 With respect to exports, Art 29 (ex 34) EC provides: ‘Quantitative restrictions on exports and all measures having equivalent effect, shall be prohibited between Member States’ [emphasis added].Google Scholar

3 Both Art 28 (ex 30) EC and Art 29 (ex 34) EC are directly effective. With respect to imports, this was confirmed by Case C-46/93 Brasserie du Pécheur SA v Germany [1996] ECR I-1029, para 23.Google Scholar

4 The measure at the national level governing the conduct of trade.Google Scholar

5 The full judgment in this respect is as follows: ‘All trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade are to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions.’ Case 8-74 Procureur du Roi v Benoit Gustave Dassonville [1974] ECR 837, para 5. See above.Google Scholar

6 Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097, para 16.Google Scholar

7 ibid.

8 ibid.

9 ibid.

10 Case 8-74 Procureur du Roi v Benoit Gustave Dassonville [1974] ECR 837.Google Scholar

11 ibid para 5.

12 Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097, para 16.Google Scholar

13 Case 8-74 Procureur du Roi v Benoit Gustave Dassonville [1974] ECR 837.Google Scholar

14 Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097.Google Scholar

15 Part Three, Community Policies. Title 1 = Free Movement of Goods. Chapter 2—Prohibition of Quantitative Restrictions between Member States.Google Scholar

16 See above.Google Scholar

17 See above.Google Scholar

18 Including exports and goods in transit. (2/73) Riseria Luigi Geddo v Ente nazionale Risi [1973] ECR 865, para 7.Google Scholar

19 This would include a prohibition on goods, for example pornographic materials (34/79) R v Henn and Darby [1979] ECR 3795. A quota on imports would also be caught.Google Scholar

20 Art 30 (now 28) EC Art 34 (now 29) EC.Google Scholar

21 Art 28 (ex 30) EC and Art 29 (ex 34) EC.Google Scholar

22 Case 8-74 Procureur du Roi v Benoit Gustave Dassonville [1974] ECR 837.Google Scholar

23 ibid para 5.

24 Also Art 29 (ex 34) EC.Google Scholar

25 Case 8-74 Procureur du Roi v Benoit Gustave Dassonville [1974] ECR 837 para 5.Google Scholar

26 Art 28 (ex 30) EC.Google Scholar

27 In the United Kingdom, for example, this would be by statutory instrument.Google Scholar

28 Also Art 29 (ex 34) EC.Google Scholar

29 Case 8-74 Procureur du Roi v Benoit Gustive Dassonville [1974] ECR 837 para 5.Google Scholar

30 Also Art 29 (ex 34) EC.Google Scholar

31 The principle of ‘mutual recognition’. Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein [1979] ECR 649 para 14.Google Scholar

32 Case 120/78 [1979] ECR 649.Google Scholar

33 Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein. [1979] ECR 649 para 8. ‘Obstacles to movement within the Community resulting from disparities between the national laws relating to the marketing of the products in question must be accepted in so far as those provisions may be recognised as being necessary in order to satisfy mandatory requirements relating … to the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, the protection of public health, the fairness of commercial transactions and the defence of the consumer’ [emphasis added].Google Scholar

34 Case 8-74 Procureur du Roi v Benoit Gustave Dassonville [1974] ECR 837 para 5.Google Scholar

35 In the following judgments, Case C-23/89 Quietlynn Limited and Brian James Richards v Southend Borough Council [1990] ECR I-3059 paras 10 and 11. Case 155/80 Summary Proceedings against Sergius Obel [1981] ECR 1993 para 20 and Case 75/81 Joseph Henri Thomas Blesgen v Belgian State [1982] ECR 1211 paras 9 and 10, for example, the Court held there was no connection with intra-Community trade. It is arguable that this may have evinced an ‘over positive’ approach on the part of litigants to the outcome of litigation.Google Scholar

36 The rule of reason, ‘the first Cassis principle’. See above.Google Scholar

37 In respect of the distinctly applicable measure. Art 30 (ex 36) EC provides: ‘The provisions of Article 28 … shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, … justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; or the protection of industrial and commercial property. Such prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.’Google Scholar

38 The measure that is non-discriminatory of the imported product.Google Scholar

39 Case 120/78 [1979] ECR 649.Google Scholar

40 Case 8-74 Procureur du Roi v Benoit Gustave Dassonville [1974] ECR 837 para 5.Google Scholar

41 ibid.

42 Case 286/81 [1982] ECR 4575.Google Scholar

43 Case 382/87 [1989] ECR 1235.Google Scholar

44 Case C-126/91 [1993] ECR I-2361.Google Scholar

45 Case 8-74 Procureur du Roi v Benoit Gustave Dassonville [1974] ECR 837 para 5.Google Scholar

46 Introduced by Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097 para 16.Google Scholar

47 Cf, eg, Wellingborough Borough Council v Payless D.I.Y. Limited and Another [1990] 1 CMLR 773. B & Q Ltd v Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough Council [1990] 3 CMLR 535. See above.Google Scholar

48 Case 8-74 Procureur du Roi v Benoit Gustave Dassonville [1974] ECR 837 para 5.Google Scholar

49 Either Art 30 (now 28) EC with respect to imports and Art 34 (now 29) EC with respect to exports.Google Scholar

50 See above.Google Scholar

51 In circumstances in which the measure has applied equally to the import and to the domestic product.Google Scholar

52 Case C-23/89 [1990] I-3059, para 12.Google Scholar

53 ibid para 9.

54 ibid.

55 Case 155/80 [1981] ECR 1993.Google Scholar

56 Now Art 28 EC and Art 29 EC respectively.Google Scholar

57 Case 75/81 [1982] ECR 1211.Google Scholar

58 Case C-23/89 [1990] I-3059.Google Scholar

59 Case 155/80 [1981] ECR 1993.Google Scholar

60 Case 75/81 [1982] ECR 1211.Google Scholar

61 See above.Google Scholar

62 Case 286/81 [1982] ECR 4575.Google Scholar

63 ibid para 16.

64 Case 382/87 [1989] ECR1235 para 17.Google Scholar

65 ibid. On the ‘mandatory requirements’ ground of the ‘protection of consumers and fair trading’.

66 Case C-126/91 [1993] ECR I-2361.Google Scholar

67 ibid para 10.

68 In fact this was failed on the question of proportionality.Google Scholar

69 Case C-126/91 [1993] ECR I-2361 para 12.Google Scholar

70 Case 145/88 [1989] ECR 3851.Google Scholar

71 Without naming the ‘mandatory requirement’.Google Scholar

72 145/88 [1989] ECR 3851 para 14.Google Scholar

73 Now Art 28 EC and Art 29 EC.Google Scholar

74 Case C-23/89 [1990] I-3059 para 12.Google Scholar

75 Case 155/80 [1981] ECR 1993 para 21.Google Scholar

76 Case 75/81 ECR 1211 para 11.Google Scholar

77 Case C-23/89 Quietlynn Limited and Brian James Richards v Southend Borough Council [1990] I-3059 para 10. Case 155/80 Summary Proceedings against Sergius Obel [1981] ECR 1993 para 20. Case 75/81 Joseph Henri Thomas Blesgen v Belgian State ECR 1211 para 9.Google Scholar

78 Case 286/81 [1982] ECR 4575 para 15.Google Scholar

79 Case C-126/91 [1993] ECR I-2361 paras 10 and 11.Google Scholar

80 They fell within the application of Art 30 (now 28) EC and were then subject to justification. Compare Roger Buet where the trading rule was held to be a measure having equivalent effect on the basis that it deprived the trader of a method of marketing whereby ‘he realises almost all of his sales’. Case 382/87 [1989] ECR 1235 para 8.Google Scholar

81 Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 [1993] ECR I-6097 para 16.Google Scholar

82 ibid.

83 Case C-23/89 [1990] I-3059.Google Scholar

84 Case 155/80 [1981] ECR 1993.Google Scholar

85 Case 75/81 ECR 1211.Google Scholar

86 Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 [1993] ECR I-6097 para 16.Google Scholar

87 Case 286/81 [1982] ECR 4575 para 15.Google Scholar

88 Case C-126/91 [1993] ECR I-2361 para 10.Google Scholar

89 Case 8-74 Procureur du Roi v Benoit Gustave Dassonville [1974] ECR 837 para 5.Google Scholar

90 In many respects, eg, Torfaen in which the issue of justification arose, was a hybrid judgment, taking in aspects of the two identified approaches. The Sunday trading legislation was recognized as a marketing rule, yet it was held that the ‘rules are not designed to govern the patterns of trade between Member States’. Case 145/88 Torfaen Borough Council v B & Q plc [1989] ECR 3851 para 14. It is noted however that in Case C-322/01 Deutscher Apothekerverband e V v 0800 DocMorris NV, and Jacques Waterval, judgment of 8 Dec 2001, not yet published, the Court confirmed: ‘Even if a measure is not intended to regulate trade in goods between Member States, the determining factor is its effect, actual or potential, on intra-Community trade’ para 67.Google Scholar

91 In Quietlynn, for example, there was no connection with intra-Community trade, only an insignificant proportion of sales were held affected. In Torfaen, Sunday trading rules were held not designed to govern the patterns of trade between Member States. Clearly in that instance there was an effect on trade. The question then became, were the Sunday trading rules proportionate?Google Scholar

92 Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 [1993] ECR I-6097 para 16.Google Scholar

93 ibid.

94 Case 145/88 [1989] ECR 3851.Google Scholar

95 An Art 177 (now 234) EC reference from Cymbran Magistrates' Court.Google Scholar

96 [1990] 1 CMLR. 773 para 29.Google Scholar

97 S 47. ‘Every shop shall, save as otherwise provided by this Part of this Act, be closed for the serving of customers on Sunday: Provided that a shop may be open for the serving of customers on Sunday for the purposes of any transaction mentioned in the Fifth Schedule to this Act.’Google Scholar

98 [1990] 3 CMLR 535 para 7.Google Scholar

99 ibid para 14.

100 Case 145/88 [1989] ECR 3851.Google Scholar

101 ibid.

102 Case 155/80 [1981] ECR 1993.Google Scholar

103 Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 [1993] ECR I-6097 para 16.Google Scholar

104 ibid.

105 See Advocate General Jacobs. Case 412/93 Societe d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v TFI Publicite SA and M6 Publicite SA [1995] ECR I-179 para 34.Google Scholar

106 Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 [1993] ECR I-6097 para 16.Google Scholar

107 Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 [1993] ECR I-6097.Google Scholar

108 Its effect was described as ‘best understood as excluding from the scope of Article 30 only measures of an entirely general character which do not preclude imports, which operate at the point of sale, and which have no effect on trade other than to reduce the overall quantity of goods sold and which in doing so affect imports and domestic products alike’. Case 412/93 Societé d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v TFI Publicite SA and M6 Publicite SA [1995] ECR I-179 para 34.Google Scholar

109 Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 [1993] ECR I-6097.Google Scholar

110 ibid.

111 In Case C-267/91 and C-268/91. Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097, para 12 the national legislation which had imposed a general prohibition on resale of goods ‘at a loss [was] not designed to regulate trade in goods between Member States’ [emphasis added]. This approach had surfaced pre Keck and Mithouard in Case 145/88 Torfaen Borough Council v B & Q plc Case 145/88 [1989] ECR 3851 para 14. See also Case C-322/01 Deutscher Apothekerverband e V v 0800 DocMorris NV, and Jacques Waterval judgment of 8 Dec 2001, not yet published, para 67. See above.Google Scholar

112 Reminiscent of the approach taken in Case 286/81 Oosthoek's Uitgeversmaatschappij BV [1982] ECR 4575. Case 382/87 R. Buet and Educational Business Services (EBS) SARL) v Ministère public. [1989] ECR 1235. Case C-126/91 Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft eV v Yves Rocher GmbH [1993] ECR I-2361.Google Scholar

113 Eg in Case C-71/02 Herbert Karner Industrie-Auktionen Gmbh v Troostwijk GmbH, judgment of 25 Mar 2004 [2004] 2 CMLR 5 (not yet published in ECR), it was held that a national law which prohibited the reference to origin, where goods had originated from an insolvent estate, would merely limit the total volume of sales in that Member State. It would not affect the marking of the import in a different manner from the marketing of the domestic product.Google Scholar

114 Within the meaning of Art 30 (now 28) EC.Google Scholar

115 Eg it was noted by the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-418–421,460–462, and 464/93, C-9–11, 14–15, 23–4, and 332/94 Semeraro Casa Uno Srl and others v Sindaco del Comune di Erbusco and Others. [1996] ECR I-2975 para 24 that the national law in relation to shop hours would not lead to unequal treatment between national products and imported products as regards access to the market.Google Scholar

116 This would accord with the view taken by the Court of Justice which referred to ‘certain selling arrangements’ [emphasis added]. Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 [1993] ECR I-6097 para 16.Google Scholar

117 Case C-320/93 [1994] ECR I-5243.Google Scholar

118 Section 8(2) Act on Advertising of Medicinal Products [Heilmittelwerbegesetz]. Case C-320/93 Lucien Ortscheit GmbH v Eurim-Pharm Arzeneimittel GmbH [1994] ECR I-5243 para 5.Google Scholar

119 The national prohibition ‘must be regarded as a provision prohibiting certain “selling arrangements” within the meaning of Keck and Mithouard’. Advocate General Gulmann. Case C-320/93 Lucien Ortscheit GmbH v Eurim-Pharm Arzeneimittel GmbH [1994] ECR I-5243 para 7.Google Scholar

120 ‘The prohibition of advertising at issue may restrict the volume of imports of medicinal products not authorised in Germany, since it deprives pharmacists and doctors whose participation is essential for … import …, of a source of information on the existence and availability of such products.’ Case C-320/93 Lucien Ortscheit GmbH v Eurim-Pharm Arzeneimittel GmbH [1994] ECR I-5243 para 10.Google Scholar

121 Case C-254/98 Schutverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb and TK-Heimdeinst Sass GmbH [2000] ECR I-151.Google Scholar

122 Art 53(1)(a) Gewerbeordnung 1994 (Austrian Code of Business and Industry 1994). Case C-254/98 Schutverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb and TK-Heimdeinst Sass GmbH [2000] ECR I-151 para 3.Google Scholar

123 By bakers, butchers, and grocers.Google Scholar

124 By traders carrying on trade from a permanent establishment in that Verwaltungsbezirk (Austrian administrative district covering several municipalities or in a municipality adjacent thereto).Google Scholar

125 Case C-254/98 Schutverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb and TK-Heimdeinst Sass GmbH [2000] ECR I-151 para 24.Google Scholar

126 ibid.

127 The ‘selling arrangement’ does not fall within Art 30 (now 28) EC so long as it applies ‘to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and so long as they affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of the domestic product and of those from other Member States’. Case C-254/98 Schutverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb and TK-Heimdeinst Sass GmbH [2000] ECR I-151 para 23. Per Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 [1993] ECR I-6097.Google Scholar

128 In the situation of the trader TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH. Case C-254/98 Schutverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb and TK-Heimdeinst Sass GmbH [2000] ECR I-151 para 31.Google Scholar

129 Either in the administrative district or in an adjacent municipality.Google Scholar

130 Case C-254/98 Schutverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb and TK-Heimdeinst Sass GmbH [2000] ECR I-151 para 26.Google Scholar

131 ibid.

132 Case C-254/98 Schutverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb and TK-Heimdeinst Sass GmbH [2000] ECR I-151.Google Scholar

133 Had trade not been affected, the national measure would have resulted in goods from other Member States never being offered for sale in Austrian Administrative districts. Case C-254/98 Schutverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb and TK-Heimdeinst Sass GmbH [2000] ECR I-151 para 31.Google Scholar

134 Case C-254/98 Schutverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb and TK-Heimdeinst Sass GmbH [2000] ECR I-151.Google Scholar

135 Case C-368/95 [1997] ECR I-3689.Google Scholar

136 Section 9a Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (Unfair Competition Act). Case C-368/95 Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags-und vertriebs GmbH v Heinrich Bauer Verlag [1997] ECR I-3689 para 4.Google Scholar

137 Case C-368/95 Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags-und vertriebs GmbH v Heinrich Bauer Verlag [1997] ECR I-3689 para 11.Google Scholar

138 ibid para 12.

139 Dutch Law, Art 14a, Law No 115 of 31 Mar 1982 on bee-keeping (Lov om biavl). Introduced by Law No 267, 6 May 1993. Case C-67/97 Criminal Proceedings against Ditlev Bluhme [1998] ECR I-8033 para 6.Google Scholar

140 Case C-67/97 Criminal Proceedings against Ditlev Bluhme [1998] ECR I-8033 para 19.Google Scholar

141 It sought to preserve an indigenous animal population. Case C-67/97 Criminal Proceedings against Ditlev Bluhme [1998] ECR I-8033 para 21.Google Scholar

142 ibid para 21. See also Case C-368/95 Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags-und vertriebs GmbH v Heinrich Bauer Verlag [1997] ECR I-3689 para 11.Google Scholar

143 Case C-67/97 Criminal Proceedings against Ditlev Bluhme [1998] ECR I-8033, para 23. The measure was justified [1998] ECR I-8033 para 38 under Art 36 EC on the grounds of the protection of the health and life of humans.Google Scholar

144 Case C-387/93 [1995] ECR I-4663 para 3.Google Scholar

145 In Case C-387/93 Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Domingo Banchero [1995] ECR I-4663 para 36.Google Scholar

146 Case C-387/93 [1995] ECR I-4663.Google Scholar

147 Case C-387/93 Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Domingo Banchero [1995] ECR I-4663 para 36.Google Scholar

148 Case C-67/97 [1998] ECR I-8033.Google Scholar

149 Case C-67/97 Criminal Proceedings against Ditlev Bluhme [1998] ECR I-8033 para 21.Google Scholar

150 Case C-368/95 [1997] ECR I-3689.Google Scholar

151 Intrinsic: ‘Belonging to the thing itself; inherent, essential.’ Per The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ednOUP Oxford 1983).Google Scholar

152 In Familiapress the competitions formed an integral part of the magazine. In Ditlev Bluhme, the prohibition on the introduction or keeping of bees (or their reproductive material) amounted to an intrinsic characteristic of the bees. By contrast in Banchero, the national legislation concerned solely arrangements for retail sale. National legislation penalized the unlawful possession of manufactured tobacco products from other Member States on which excise duty in accordance with Community law had not been paid where the retail sale of those products was reserved to distributors authorized by the State.Google Scholar

153 Issue 9. 9 Feb 1995. Referred to by the national court. Subsequent issues of ‘Laura’ had competitions of the same type with the same prizes on offer. Case C-368/95 Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags-und vertriebs GmbH v Heinrich Bauer Verlag [1997] ECR I-3689 para 3.Google Scholar

154 The phrase used in Case C-368/95 Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags-und vertriebs GmbH v Heinrich Bauer Verlag [1997] ECR I-3689 para 11.Google Scholar

155 Within the terms imposed by Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 [1993] ECR I-6097 para 16.Google Scholar

156 Either under Art 30 (ex 36) EC o r by reference to the ‘mandatory requirement’.Google Scholar

157 Case C-368/95 [1997] ECR I-3689.Google Scholar

158 Case C-67/97 [1998] ECR I-8033.Google Scholar

159 Formerly Art 177 EC. The jurisdiction of the Court of Justice relates to ‘(a) the interpretation of [the EC] Treaty; (b) The validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions of the Community… (c) The interpretation of the statutes of bodies established by an act of the Council’.Google Scholar

160 Case C-368/95 [1997] ECR I-3689.Google Scholar

161 Case C-368/95 [1997] ECR I-3689 para 11. Similarly in Case C-67/97 Criminal proceedings against Ditlev Bluhme [1998] ECR I-8033 para 21, the Court held ‘[i]n those circumstances, its application to the facts of the case cannot be a matter of a selling arrangement.’Google Scholar

162 A truism not readily apparent from Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard. Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 [1993] ECR I-6097.Google Scholar

163 C-267/91 and C-268/91 [1993] ECR I-6097 para 16.Google Scholar

164 Case C-412/93 Societé d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v TFI Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA [1995] ECR I-179 para 37.Google Scholar

165 Joined Cases C-34/95–36/95 [1997] ECR I-3843.Google Scholar

166 Joined Cases C-34/95–36/95 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Forlag AB and TV- Shop I Sverige AB [1997] ECR I-3843.Google Scholar

167 The national law also concerned misleading advertising. Joined Cases C-34/95–36/95 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Forlag AB and TV- Shop I Sverige AB [1997] ECR I-3843 para 9.Google Scholar

168 Pleaded in evidence by Agostini, De. Joined Cases C-34/95–36/95 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Forlag AB and TV- Shop I Sverige AB [1997] ECR I-3843 para 43.Google Scholar

169 That is for the national courts to determine by further enquiry. ‘The efficacy of the various types of promotion is a question of fact to be determined in principle by the referring court.’ Joined Cases C-4/95–36/95 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Forlag AB and TV- Shop I Sverige AB [1997] ECR I-3843 para 43.Google Scholar

170 Then subject to ‘justification’. Provided that the provisions ‘are necessary for meeting overriding requirements of general public importance or one of the aims laid down in Article 36 [now 30] of the Treaty, are proportionate for that purpose, and those aims or overriding requirements could not have been met by measures less restrictive of intra-Community trade.’ Joined Cases C-34/95–36/95 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Forlag AB and TV- Shop I Sverige AB [1997] ECR I-3843 para 47.Google Scholar

171 Joined Cases C-34/95–36/95 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Forlag AB and TV- Shop I Sverige AB [1997] ECR I-3843 para 42.Google Scholar

172 ‘Since it had no other advertising methods for reaching children and their parents.’ Joined Cases C-34/95–36/95 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Forlag AB and TV- Shop I Sverige AB [1997] ECR I-3843 para 43.Google Scholar

173 This is to be assessed at the national level. Joined Cases C-34/95–36/95 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Forlag AB and TV- Shop I Sverige AB [1997] ECR I-3843 para 45.Google Scholar

174 This aspect is an inextricable part of the Keck and Mithouard formula established with respect to the selling arrangement. Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 [1993] ECR I-6097 paras 16 and 17. Joined Cases C-34/95–36/95 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Forlag AB and TV- Shop I Sverige AB [1997] ECR I-3843 para 43.Google Scholar

175 Case C-412/93 [1995] ECR I-179.Google Scholar

176 By contrast, the advertising prohibition had been total in relation to pharmacists in Case C-292/92 Ruth Hünermund and Others v Landesapothekerkammer Baden-Wurttemberg [1993] ECR I-6787 para 1.Google Scholar

177 Art 8. Decree 92/280 27 Mar 1992. Case C-412/93 Societé d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v TFI Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA [1995] ECR I-179 para 2.Google Scholar

178 Within the meaning of Art 30 (now 28) EC.Google Scholar

179 Case C-412/93 Societé d'Imporiation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v TFI Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA. [1995] ECR I-179 para 22.Google Scholar

180 ‘Within the meaning of Dassonville … to all relevant traders operating within the national territory…affect[ing] in the same manner, in law and in fact the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States…. The application of such rules to the sale of products from another Member State meeting the requirements laid down by that State is not by nature such as to prevent their access to the market or to impede access any more than it impedes the access of domestic products.’ Case C-412/93 Societé d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v TFI Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA [1995] ECR I-17 para 21.Google Scholar

181 Case C-412/93 Societé d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v TFI Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA. [1995] ECR I-179 para 23.Google Scholar

182 The measure related only to the internet advertisement of auction of goods from insolvent companies.Google Scholar

183 Case C-71/02 Judgment of 25 Mar 2004 [2004] 2 CMLR 5 (not yet published in the ECR).Google Scholar

184 On the grounds of consumer protection.Google Scholar

185 Case C-71/02 Judgment of 25 Mar 2004 [2004] 2 CMLR 5, para 42 (not yet published in the ECR).Google Scholar

186 Case C-292/92 [1993] ECR I-6787.Google Scholar

187 See Advocate General Jacobs Case C-412/93 Societé d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v TFI Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA [1995] ECR I-179 para 37.Google Scholar

188 Case C-292/92 Ruth Hünermund and Others v Landesapothekerkammer Baden-Wurttemberg [1993] ECR I-6787 para 19.Google Scholar

189 Case C-412/93 [1995] ECR I-179.Google Scholar

190 Case C-412/93 [1995] ECR I-179 para 22.Google Scholar

191 ‘For example, legislation under which parapharmaceutical products may be sold only in pharmacies’ or ‘under which alcoholic beverages may be sold only in licensed stores for consumption off premises.’ These two examples were used by AG Jacobs Case C-412/93 Societé d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v TFI Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA [1995] ECR I-179 para 26.Google Scholar

192 Case C-292/92 [1993] ECR I-6787.Google Scholar

193 Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 [1993] ECR I-6097 para 16.Google Scholar

194 Case C-292/92 [1993] ECR I-6787.Google Scholar

195 Subject to justification by reference to the ‘mandatory requirement’. See above.Google Scholar

196 Case C-292/92 [1993] ECR I-6787.Google Scholar

197 It related to the imposition by a professional association of pharmacists operating in within Land Baden-Wuerttemberg of a rule of professional conduct. Case C-292/92 [1993] ECR I-6787, para 1.Google Scholar

198 Case C-292/92 [1993] ECR I-6787 para 23.Google Scholar

199 Para 10(15) Berufsordnung (Professional Code) of the Professional Association for the Land Baden-Wuerttemberg. Case C-292/92 [1993] ECR I-6787 para 3.Google Scholar

200 Case C-292/92 Ruth Hünermund and Others v Landesapothekerkammer Baden-Wurttemberg [1993] ECR I-6787 para 23.Google Scholar

201 ibid paras 20–3.

202 Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097 para 14.Google Scholar

203 Case C-292/92 [1993] ECR I-6787.Google Scholar

204 Noted also by Jacobs, AG. Case C-412/93 Societé d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v TFI Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA [1995] ECR I-179 para 35.Google Scholar

205 ibid para 19. As Advocate General Tesauro reflected, in Case C-292/92 Ruth Hünermund and Others v Landesapothekerkammer Baden-Wurttemberg [1993] ECR I-6787 para 28, the purpose of Art 30 (now 28) EC is ‘to ensure the free movement of goods in order to establish a single integrated market, … not to strike down the most widely differing measures … to ensure the greatest possible expansion of trade [emphasis added].’

206 Case C-405/98 [2001] ECR I-1795.Google Scholar

207 Swedish Law Lagen 1978: 763. Laying down provisions on the marketing of alcoholic beverages 1 July 1979. Alkohollagen 1994: 738 (Swedish Law on Alcohol). Case C-405/98 Konsumentombudsnannen (KO) and Gourmet International Products AB (GIP) [2001] ECR I-1795 para 3.Google Scholar

208 C-405/98 Konsumentombudsnannen (KO) and Gourmet International Products AB (GIP) [2001] ECR I-1795 para 19, referring to Joined Cases C-34/95–36/95 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Forlag AB and TV- Shop I Sverige AB [1997] ECR I-3843 para 42.Google Scholar

209 Joined Cases C-34/95–36/95 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Forlag AB and TV- Shop I Sverige AB [1997] ECR I-3843 para 42. ‘It cannot be excluded that an outright ban, applying in one Member State of a type of promotion for a product which is lawfully sold there might have a greater impact on products from other Member States.’Google Scholar

210 Case C-405/98 [2001] ECR I-1795.Google Scholar

211 Case C-405/98 Konsumentombudsnannen (KO) and Gourmet International Products AB (GIP) [2001] ECR I-1795 para 21.Google Scholar

212 ‘On the radio and on television, the direct mailing of unsolicited material or the placing of posters on the public highway.’ Case C-405/98 Konsumentombudsnannen (KO) and Gourmet International Products AB (GIP) [2001] ECR I-1795 para 21.Google Scholar

213 Case C-405/98 Konsumentombudsnannen (KO) and Gourmet International Products AB (GIP) [2001] ECR I-1795 para 21.Google Scholar

214 Similar references to ‘national or regional socio-cultural characteristics’ were made by the Court in Case 145/88 Torfaen Borough Council v B & Q plc [1989] ECR para 14 to justify UK Sunday trading rules; above.Google Scholar

215 Case C-292/92 Ruth Hünermund and Others v Landesapothekerkammer Baden-Wurttemberg [1993] ECR I-6787.Google Scholar

216 Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097 para 16.Google Scholar

217 Joined Cases C-34/95–36/95 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Forlag AB and TV- Shop I Sverige AB [1997] ECR I-3843 para 43.Google Scholar

218 ibid.

219 Case C-405/98 Konsumentombudsnannen (KO) and Gourmet International Products AB (GIP) [2001] ECR I-1795 para 21.Google Scholar

220 C-267/91 and C-268/91 [1993] ECR I-6097 para 16.Google Scholar

221 Joined cases C-401 -402/92 Criminal proceedings against Tankstation't Heukske vof and JBE Boermans [1994] ECR I-2199 para 14.Google Scholar

222 ibid.

223 By Art 3 Winkelsluitingswet. (Act on Shop Closing) 1976. Joined cases C-401–402/92 [1994] ECR I-2199 para 3.Google Scholar

224 Art 3(1) Decree 6 Dec 1977 as amended Decree 13 Dec 1988. Joined cases C-401–402/92 [1994] ECR I-2199 paras 3 and 4.Google Scholar

225 To the petrol stations operated by the defendants.Google Scholar

226 Without indicating opening hours and offered for sale a number of articles not linked to road travel in contravention of the national law.Google Scholar

227 Joined Cases C-418–421, 460–2 and 464/93, C9–11, 14–15, 23–4 and 332/94 Semeraro Casa Uno Srl and others v Sindaco del Comune di Erbusco and Others [1996] ECR I-2975.Google Scholar

228 Italian Act 558 28 July 1971. Joined Cases C-418–21, 460–2, and 464/93, C9–11, 14–15, 23–4, and 332/94 Semeraro Casa Uno Srl and others v Sindaco del Comune di Erbusco and Others [1996] ECR I-2975 para 28.Google Scholar

229 Joined cases C-401–402/92 Criminal proceedings against Tankstation't Heukske vof and J.B.E Boermans [1994] ECR I-2199 para 14.Google Scholar

230 Joined Cases C-418–421, 460–2 and 464/93, C9–11, 14–15, 23–4, and 332/94 Semeraro Casa Uno Srl and others v Sindaco del Comune di Erbusco and Others [1996] ECR I-2975 para 24.Google Scholar

231 Determined at the national level; ibid paras 16 and 17.

232 ‘National legislation such as that at issue pursues an aim which is justified under Community law, and that national rules restricting the opening of shops on Sundays reflect certain choices relating to particular national or regional socio-cultural characteristics. It is for the Member States to make those choices in compliance with the requirements of Community law’. Joined Cases C-418–21, 460–2, and 464/93, C9–11, 14–15, 23–4, and 332/94 Semeraro Casa Uno Srl and others v Sindaco del Comune di Erbusco and Others [1996] ECR I-2975 para 25.Google Scholar

233 Joined Cases C-34/95–36/95 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Forlag AB and TV- Shop I Sverige AB [1997] ECR I-3843 para 43.Google Scholar

234 Particularly where long journey times are involved. Eg the import by road by the United Kingdom of soft fruit from Spain.Google Scholar

235 Joined Cases C-34/95–36/95 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Forlag AB and TV- Shop I Sverige AB [1997] ECR I-3843 paras 42–4.Google Scholar

236 Where the rules lay down requirements to be met by the goods, for example, relating to designation, form, size, weight, composition, presentation, labelling, and packaging. Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard. [1993] ECR I-6097 para 15.Google Scholar

237 Case C-169/91 Council of the City of Stoke-Trent and Norwich City Council v B & Q plc [1992] ECR 6635 para 15. See also Case C-69/88 Krantz v Ontranger der Directe Belastingen [1990] ECR 583 para 11, Case C-93/92 CMC Mottorradcentre v Pelin Baskiciogullari [1993] ECR I-5009 para 12. Advocate General Jacob in his Opinion in Case C-412/93 Societé d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v TFI Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA [1995] ECR I-179 para 45 used the description ‘whether the effect of the measure is direct or indirect, immediate or remote, or purely speculative’ [emphasis added].Google Scholar

238 Advocate General Jacobs Case C-412/93 Societé d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v TFI Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA [1995] ECR I-179 para 45.Google Scholar

239 An actual or potential impact. Case 8-74 Procureur du Roi v Benoit Gustive Dassonville [1974] ECR 837.Google Scholar

240 Case 120/78 [1979] ECR 649.Google Scholar

241 Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097.Google Scholar

242 Unless there exists a valid reason for denial, in circumstances of the application of either Art 30 (ex 36) EC of the ‘mandatory requirement’. Identified by Advocate General Jacobs (n 238) para 42.Google Scholar

243 A potent Art 30 (now 28) EC without the constraints of the ‘selling arrangement’ would have achieved this aim, or at least extended the process of scrutiny to all trading rules imposed at the national level.Google Scholar

244 Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097.Google Scholar

245 ibid para 17.

246 ‘It has no significant effect on the global volume of imports and it does not prevent a trader in another Member State from enjoying full access to the market’ Advocate General Jacobs (n 238) para 48.Google Scholar

247 Case C-405/98 [2001] ECR I-1795.Google Scholar

248 Case C-405/98 [2001] ECR I-1795 para 21. Likewise in Joined Cases C-34/95–36/95 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Forlag AB and TV-Shop I Sverige AB [1997] ECR I-3843 para 42, the Court held ‘it cannot be excluded that an outright ban, applying in one Member State, of a type of promotion for a product… might have a greater impact on products from other Member States’.Google Scholar

249 Case C-67/97 [1998] ECR I-8033.Google Scholar

250 ibid para 22.

251 Case C-405/98 [2001] ECR I-1795.Google Scholar

252 Case C-67/97 [1998] ECR I-8033.Google Scholar

253 In both instances though, the measures were justified by recourse to Art 36 (now 30) EC.Google Scholar

254 See, eg, Case C-69/88 Krantz v Ontranger der Directe Belastingen [1990] ECR 583 para 11. Case C-93/92 CMC Mottorradcentre v Pelin Baskiciogullari [1993] ECR I-5009 para 12.Google Scholar

255 C-140–142/94 DIP SpA v Comune di Bassano del Grappa et al. [1995] ECR I-3257 para 3.Google Scholar

256 Case C-134/94 Esso Espanola SA v Comunidad Autonoma de Canarias [1995] ECR I-4223 para 24.Google Scholar

257 Case C-379/92 Criminal proceedings against Matteo Peralta [1994] ECR I-3453 para 23.Google Scholar

258 By contrast the Court has held that the national legislation has a direct and immediate impact on trade. Case C-67/97 Criminal Proceedings against Ditlev Bluhme [1998] ECR I-8033 para 22.Google Scholar

259 C-140–142/94 [1995] ECR I-3257.Google Scholar

260 ibid para 29.

261 ibid.

262 Other than in the most obvious of circumstances, for example, a local authority by-law restricting market opening times in a provincial town.Google Scholar

263 Case C-140, 141, and 142/94 [1995] ECR I-3257.Google Scholar

264 Case C-134/94 [1995] ECR I-4223 at 4249.Google Scholar

265 Case C-140–142/94 [1995] ECR I-3257.Google Scholar

266 Case C-134/94 [1995] ECR I-4223.Google Scholar

267 ‘Not effects too uncertain and too indirect for the obligation which it lays down not to be capable of being regarded as being of such a kind as to hinder trade between Member States.’ Case C-67/97 Criminal Proceedings against Ditlev Bluhme [1998] ECR I-8033 para 22.Google Scholar

268 Case C-134/94 [1995] ECR I-4223 para 24.Google Scholar

269 Note that in Procureur du Roi v Benoit and Gustave Dassonville [1974] ECR 837 para 5, the Court held that Art 30 (now 28) EC applies where the measure is ‘capable of hindering trade’ [emphasis added]. This has a bearing on the question of remoteness. However, in the context of the selling arrangement, ‘[i]t can no longer be presumed that every national provision capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade falls within the scope of Article 30 EC.’ Advocate General Gerven. Joined cases C-401–402/92 Criminal proceedings against Tankstation't Heukske vof and J.B.E Boermans [1994] ECR I-2199 para 24.Google Scholar

270 Eg the requirement to obtain a license before a new shop could be opened. See C-140–142/94 DIP SpA v Comune di Bassano del Grappa et al [1995] ECR I-3257 para 3.Google Scholar

271 C-140–142/94 DIP SpA v Comune di Bassano del Grappa et al [1995] ECR I-3257 at 3289–90.Google Scholar

272 ibid para 71. It is noted that other attributes of the ‘selling arrangement’ were present. The Court held: ‘The Italian Law makes no distinction according to the origin of the goods … that their purpose is not to regulate trade in goods with other Member States.’ C-140–142/94 DIP SpA v Comune di Bassano del Grappa et al [1995] ECR I-3257 para 29.Google Scholar

273 Joined Cases C-418–21, 460–2, and 464/93, C-9–11, 14–15, 23–4, and 332/94 Semeraro Casa Uno Srl and others v Sindaco del Comune di Erbusco and Others [1996] ECR I-2975.Google Scholar

274 ibid para 24.

275 ‘No Member States shall impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products’ [emphasis added]. Art 90 (ex 95) EC.Google Scholar

276 Case 106/84 Commission v Denmark [1986] ECR 833 para 12. Note also the concept of the ‘relevant product market’ for purposes of Art 82 (ex 86) EC in the context of European Community Competition law.Google Scholar

277 In the context of the selling arrangement, the concept of the ‘similar product’ was introduced in case C-391/92 Re Milk Imports: EC Commission v Greece [1995] ECR I-1621 para 18.Google Scholar

278 Above.Google Scholar

279 Case 106/84 Commission v Denmark [1986] ECR 833.Google Scholar

280 An example of a marketplace wherein demand would arguably remain constant whatever the product price would be that for the Manchester United football strip and probably the England football strip. Such high inelasticity of demand would however be a relatively unusual occurrence. Even if demand inelasticity has been attained in a particular marketplace, such status is not absolute, it is subject to fluctuation. For example, could demand for the England football strip after the result of European Cup Competition 2004 be maintained at an inelastic level [assuming that had been achieved in the first instance]?Google Scholar

281 Provided of course that the relevant conditions are met for exemption from the scope of application of Art 28 (ex 30) EC, that the provision ‘applies to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and that it affects in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States’. Case C-159/00 Sapod Audic v Eco-Emballages SA [2002] ECR I-5031 para 73.Google Scholar

282 Case C-159/00 Sapod Audic v Eco-Emballages SA [2002] ECR I-5031.Google Scholar

283 Art 4 Decree No 92-377. Case C-159/00 Sapod Audic v Eco-Emballages SA [2002] ECR I-5031 para 8.Google Scholar

284 Case C-159/00 Sapod Audic v Eco-Emballages SA [2002] ECR I-5031 para 71.Google Scholar

285 ibid para 72. See also Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097 para 15.Google Scholar

286 It is for the national courts to verify that the relevant conditions under Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097 para 16 are met.Google Scholar

287 The obligation can be regarded as a barrier to trade as it is imposed by a Member State. Case C-159/00 Sapod Audic v Eco-Emballages SA [2002] ECR I-5031 para 74.Google Scholar

288 Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097 para 16. ‘Those provisions apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and so long as they affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States.’Google Scholar

289 Case C-159/00 Sapod Audic v Eco-Emballages SA [2002] ECR I-5031.Google Scholar

290 A private contract is not a barrier to trade between Member States. Case C-159/00 Sapod Audic v Eco-Emballages SA [2002] ECR I-5031.Google Scholar

291 ‘Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States’ [emphasis added].Google Scholar

292 See Case C-159/00 Sapod Audic v Eco-Emballages SA [2002] ECR I-5031 para 74.Google Scholar

293 It had been made in pursuance of Art 4, Decree No 92-377. See Case C-159/00 Sapod Audic v Eco-Emballages SA [2002] ECR I-5031 para 74.Google Scholar

294 Case C-159/00 Sapod Audic v Eco-Emballages SA [2002] ECR I-5031.Google Scholar

295 ‘Since the obligation to identify the packaging prescribed by [national law] does not seem to imply an obligation to mark or label that packaging, that obligation does not appear necessarily to refer to the product or its packaging as such.’ Case C-159/00 Sapod Audic v Eco-Emballages SA [2002] ECR I-5031 para 30. The Court however noted that it is for the national court to interpret national law under Art 234 EC para 31.Google Scholar

296 Case C-159/00 [2002] ECR I-5031.Google Scholar

297 ibid.

298 Case C-12/00 [2003] ECR I-459. See also Case C-33/97 Colim NV v Bigg's Continent Noord NV [1999] ECR I-3175 para 37.Google Scholar

299 Case C-12/00 [2003] ECR I-459 para 76.Google Scholar

300 ibid para 80.

301 See Case C-12/00 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain. [2003] ECR I-459 para 80. Case C-470/93 Verein gegen Unwesen in Handel und Gewerbe Koln e. V v Mars Gmbh [1995] 1-1923 para 13.Google Scholar

302 Case C-159/00 [2002] ECR I-5031.Google Scholar

303 Case C-12/00 [2003] ECR I-459.Google Scholar

304 The Court reiterated that the need to alter the product packaging or the labelling prevents the national requirement from constituting a ‘selling arrangement’. Case C-416/00 Tommaso Morellato v Comune di Padova. Judgment of 18 Sept 2003, not yet published, para 29.Google Scholar

305 Case C-416/00. Judgment of 18 Sept 2003, not yet published.Google Scholar

306 ‘Provided that it does not in reality constitute discrimination against imported products.’ Case C-416/00, ibid para 36.

307 ibid.

308 ibid para 36.

309 ibid para 36.

310 ibid.

311 In instances wherein there has been no discrimination against the imported product.Google Scholar

312 Case C-416/00. Judgment of 18 Sept 2003, not yet published.Google Scholar

313 Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097.Google Scholar

314 See, eg, Weatherill, S ‘After Keck: Some thoughts on how to clarify the clarification’ (1996) 33 CMLR 885–906;Google ScholarBarnard, C ‘Fitting the remaining pieces into the goods and persons jigsaw?’ (2001) 26 ELRev 35–59;Google ScholarKoutrakos, P ‘On Groceries, Alcohol and Olive Oil: More on Free Movement of Goods After Keck’ (2001) 26 ELRev 291–407;Google ScholarNic Shuibhne, N ‘The Free Movement of Goods and Art 28 EC: An evolving framework’ (2002) 27 ELRev 408–25.Google Scholar

315 Eg MrGerven, Van. Joined cases C 401–402/92 Criminal proceedings against Tankstation't Heukske vof and J.B.E Boermans [1994] ECR I-2199 at 2201.Google ScholarMrJacobs, Francis. Case C-412/93 Societe d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v TFI Publicite SA and M6 Publicite SA [1995] ECR I-179 at 182. Joined Cases C-34/95–36/95 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Forlag AB and TV- Shop I Sverige AB [1997] ECR I-384 at 3847.Google ScholarMrTesauro, . Case C-368/95 Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags-und vertriebs GmbH v Heinrich Bauer Verlag [1997] ECR I-3689 at 3714.Google Scholar

316 Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097.Google Scholar

317 See Advocate General Jacobs. Case C-412/93 Societé d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v TFI Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA [1995] ECR I-179 para 37.Google Scholar

318 Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097.Google Scholar

319 ibid.

320 Case C-159/00. [2002] ECR I-5031.Google Scholar

321 Case C-292/92 [1993] ECR I-6787.Google Scholar

322 Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097.Google Scholar

323 ibid para 14.

324 ibid.