Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T21:27:28.552Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discrimination and Free Movement in EC Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Nicolas Bernard
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Fundamental issues sometimes hide themselves behind what to an untrained eye might look like a technical and somewhat dry debate. Thus, a layman hearing Community lawyers' talk about the legal basis of legislation might be excused for not realising that the issue may be that of the role of the European Parliament in the European Union, and therefore the democratic legitimacy of the EU institutions. The debate about the function of the concept of discrimination in the law on the free movement of goods, services and persons in the Community is one of those discussions which has more to offer than meets the eye. What the debate is really about is the balance of powers between the member States and the Community and the federal nature of the Community legal order as well as, incidentally, the balance between market principles and other values embodied in legislation. Translated by specialists in the free movement of goods in the Community, it has become, in the context of Article 30 of the Treaty: should we read a “rule of reason” within Article 30, or can Cassis de Dijon be explained in terms of indirect discrimination?

Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , January 1996 , pp. 82 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1996

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. Arts.52 and 59 do not expressly refer to discrimination but a reference to equal treatment in the second para, of Art.52 and in Arl.60 could be read as implying the concept. Art.30 does not refer to discrimination either, but to restrictions on imports, which could be read as requiring a restriction which is specific to imports, or, in other words, a discrimination against imports. As far as free movement of workers is concerned, Art.48(2) explicitly provides that “freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality” but it remains unclear what else such freedom entails.

2. Formerly Art.7 EEC.

3. I.e. the opportunity for an individual to rely on the provisions of Community law on free movement against a State of which he or she is a national.

4. Joined cases C-267/91 and 268/91 Criminal proceedings against Keck and Mithouard (1993) E.C.R. 1–6097.

5. Case 175/78 R. v. Sounders [1979] E.C.R. 1129, [1979] 2 C.M.L.R. 216. para.9.

6. Case 2/74 Jean Reyners v. Belgian State [1974] E.C.R. 631, [1974] 2 C.M.L.R. 305.

7. Case 71/76 Thieffry. Conseil de l'Ordre des Avocats à la Cour de Paris [1977] E.C.R. 765, [1977] 2 C.M.L.R. 373. See also Case 11/77 Patrick v. Ministère des Affaires Culturelles [1977] E.C.R. 1199.

8. Case 340/89 Vlassopoulou v. Ministerium für Justiz, Bundes- und Europaangelegenheitert Baden-Württemberg [1991] E.C.R. I–2357.

9. Idem, para. 15. Emphasis is mine.

10. Case C-19/92 Dieter Kraus v. Land Baden-Württemberg [1993] E.C.R. 1–1663.

11. Supra n.5. See also Case C-112/91 Werner v. Finanzami Aachen-Innenstadi [1993] E.C.R. 1–429, where the Court held that the mere fact of moving one's residence to another member State would not be enough to bring one within the realm of Art.52.

12. See Case C-60/91 Criminal proceedings against Morais [1992] E.C.R. 1–2085.

13. Case 115/78 Knoors v. Secretary of State for Economic Affairs [1979] E.C.R. 399, [1979] 2 C.M.L.R. 357.

14. Council Directive 64/427/EEC of 7 July 1964 laying down detailed provisions concerning transitional measures in respect of activities of self-employed persons in manufacturing and processing industries falling within ISIC major groups 23–40 (Industry and small craft industries) (1963–64) O.J. Sp. Ed., p.148.

15. See paras. 19 and 20 of the judgment.

16. Supra n.10.

17. Case C-419/92 Ingetraul Scholz v. Opera Universitaria di Cagliari and Cinzia Porcedda [1994] E.C.R. 1–505. [1994] 1 C.M.L.R. 873.

18. Case 143/87 Stanion [1988] E.C.R. 3877.

19. Joined cases 154 and 155/87 Wolf and Dorchain [1988] E.C.R. 3897.

20. Now Art.6 EC.

21. If more Belgians than non-Belgians were affected, there may well still be discrimination on grounds of nationality, albeit against Belgians rather than non-Belgians.

22. Case 107/83 Ordre des Avocats du Barreau de Paris v. Klopp [1984] E.C.R. 297, [1985] 1 C.M.L.R. 99.

23. See in particular, concerning medical practitioners and dentists. Cases 96/85 Commission v. France [1986] E.C.R. 1475, [1986] 3 C.M.L.R. 57 and C-351/90 Commission v. Luxembourg [1992] E.C.R. 1–3945. [1992] 3 C.M.L.R. 124.

24. Case 221/85 Commission v. Belgium [1987] E.C.R. 719, [1988] 1 C.M.L.R. 620.

25. See Craig, P. and de Búrca, G., EC Law: Text, Casts, & Materials (1995), p.735.Google Scholar

26. As in Case C-351/90, supra n.23.

27. D. Martin, “Réflexions sur le champ d'application matériel de l'article 48 du traité CE” (1993) Cahiers de Droit Européen 555, 562.

28. E. White, “In Search of the Limits to Article 30 of the EEC Treaty” (1989) 26 C.M.L.Rev.235, 241.

29. For an example of such a situation in the context of freedom to provide services, see Case C-41/90 Höfner and Elser v. Macrotron GmbH [1991] E.C.R. 1–1979.

30. As in Klopp, supra n.22.

31. Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v. Dassonville [1974] E.CR. 837, [1974] 2 C.M.L.R. 436.

32. See the observation by D. Chalmers that “The only certainty about Article 30 EC was that it was confused”: “Repackaging the Internal Market: The Ramifications of the Keck Judgment” (1994) 19 E.L.Rev. 385.

33. Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentrale AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein [1979] E.C.R. 649, [1979] 3 C.M.L.R. 494.

34. See in particular L. W. Gormley, “‘Actually or Potentially, Directly or Indirectly?’ Obstacles to the Free Movement of Goods” (1989) Y.E.L. 197.

35. For a remarkable analysis of the case law in discrimination terms see G. Marenco, “Pour une interprétation traditionnelle de la notion de mesure d'effet équivalent” (1984) Cahiers de Droit Européen 291.

36. Supra n.4.

37. See, inter alia, K. Mortelmans, “Article 30 of the EEC Treaty and Legislation Relating to Market Circumstances: Time to Consider a New Definition?” (1991) 28 C.M.L.Rev. 115; White, op. cit. supra n.28.

38. An effects-based criterion of discrimination is assumed. See infra for a more general discussion of the appropriate concept of discrimination to be used in free movement.

39. Or intent.

40. The possibility of justification is linked to the nature of indirect discrimination as an expression of distributive justice. See John Gardner, “Liberals and Unlawful Discrimination” (1989) 9 O.J.L.S. 1, 11.

41. Council Directive 79/7/EEC on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (1979) O.J. L6/24. Art.7 allows, inter alia, discriminatory treatment in relation to the determination of pensionable age.

42. Joined cases C-1/90 and C-176/90 Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior SA and Publivia SAE v. Departmento de Sanidad y Seguridad Social de la Generalitat de Cataluna [1991] E.C.R. 1–4151, para.13.

43. Case C-2/90 Commission v. Belgium [1992] E.C.R. 1–4431.

44. Even the derogation for the protection of intellectual property can be understood as a derogation for discriminatory measures: see G. Marenco and K. Banks, “Intellectual Property and the Community Rules on Free Movement: Discrimination Unearthed” (1990) 15 E.L.Rev. 224.

45. Subject to what will be said infra in relation to quantitative restrictions, as opposed to measures having an equivalent effect.

46. Case 15/85 Conegate Ltd v. HM Customs and Excise [1986] E.C.R. 1007, [1986] 1 C.M.L.R. 739.

47. Case 34/79 R. v. Hum and Darby [1979] E.C.R. 3795.

48. L. Catchpole and A. Barav, “The Public Morality Exception and the Free Movement of Goods: Justification of a Dual Standard in National Legislation?” [1980/1] L.I.E.I. 1.

49. The approach is quite comparable to that encountered in the free movement of workers in relation to the public policy derogation in Art.48(3): see Case 41/74 Van Duyn v. Home Office [1974] E.C.R. 1337, [1975] 1 C.M.L.R. 1.

50. See, inter alia, the Commission's White Paper on the completion of the internal market (COM(1985)310 Final). In a different but not entirely unrelated context the Court held, in relation to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), that cross-border supplies of services which do not involve the movement of persons were not unlike trade in goods and fell within the scope of the common commercial policy (see Opinion 1/94 Re the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization [1994] E.C.R. 1–5267).

51. See in particular Case C-288/89 Stichting Collectieve Antenncvoorziening Gouda and others v. Commissariaat voor de Media [1991] E.C.R. 1–4007.

52. Idem, para.12 (emphasis added).

53. I.e. post-Gouda.

54. Case C-360/89 Commission v. Italy [1992] E.C.R. 1–3401.

55. Case C-275/92 HM Customs and Excise v. Cerhart and Joerg Schindler [1994] E.C.R. 1–1039.

56. The formula is borrowed from Case 152/73 Sotgiu v. Bundespost [1974] E.C.R. 153, para.11.

57. For a good summary of the main trends see McCrudden, C. (Ed.), Anti-Discrimination Law (1991).Google Scholar

58. And similarly customs duties will affect imported goods.

59. Supra n.47.

60. Supra n.2Z

61. Op. cit. supra n.28.

62. Supra n.55.

63. Case C-204/90 Bachmann v. Belgian Slate [1992] E.C.R. 1–249, [1993] 1 C.M.L.R. 785.

64. Case C-106/91 Claus Ramrath v. Ministre de la Justice [1992] E.C.R. 1–3351.

65. Case 33/74 Van Binsbergen v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid [1974] E.C.R. 1299, [1975] 1 C.M.L.R. 289, para.11 (emphasis mine).

66. Art.36 for goods, Art.48(3) and (4) for workers and Arts.55 and 56 for establishment and services.

67. And not merely non-arbitrarily discriminatory bans as in Henn and Darby, supra n.47.

68. See e.g. the French Turkey Imports case: Case 40/82 Commission v. UK [1982] E.C.R. 2793, [1982] 3 C.M.L.R. 497.

69. Or is disproportionate to the objective it serves and is therefore, to the extent that it is disproportionate, devoid of justification.

70. Art.7A EC.

71. Case 170/78 Commission v. United Kingdom [1983] E.C.R. 2263, [1983] 3 C.M.L.R. 512.

72. (1971) 401 U.S. 424.

73. Per Chief Justice Burger, Idem, p.430.

74. Case 170/78, supra n.71, at para.8.

75. See in particular Case 15/81 Schul v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten [1982] E.C.R. 1409, para 31, where the Court expressed the view that the concept of common market “involves the elimination of all obstacles to intra-Community trade in order to merge the national market into a Single Market bringing about conditions as close as possible to those of a genuine internal market”.

76. It is therefore somewhat surprising that the Commission, in its communication to the Council and European Parliament on the principle of subsidiarity (SEC(92)1990 Final), should take the view that internal market policies constitute exclusive competences of the Community within the meaning of Art.3B, which are excluded by that Art. from the field of application of the principle of subsidiarity, when the structure of the law is clearly based on that very principle.

77. See N. Reich, “The ‘November Revolution’ of the European Court of Justice: Keck, Meng and Audi Revisited” (1994) 31 C.M.L.Rev. 459, 480.

78. Case C-2/91 Staatsanwaltschaft beim Landgerichi Berlin v. Wolf W. Meng [1993] E.C.R. 1–5751.

79. Or in the reverse situation where the State delegates its regulatory power to private economic operators.

80. Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch v. Association Union Cycliste Internationale [1974] E.C.R. 1405, [1975] 1 C.M.L.R. 320, para.17.

81. See e.g. Case 21/84 Commission v. France (re postal franking machines) [1985] E.C.R. 1355 (free movement of goods) or, regarding Art.48 and the labour market, Scholz, supra n.17.

82. See Reich, op. cit. supra n.77.

83. See supra.

84. Council Reg.1408/71/EEC on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (1971–11) O.J. Sp. Ed., p.416. It has been amended several times, most recently by Reg.1249/92 (1992) O.J. L136/28.

85. I.e. the applicable law is that of the State in which the worker is employed (Art.13).

86. I.e. periods of insurance or employment in another member State are taken into account when assessing entitlement to benefits (Art.18).

87. See Art.10.

88. I.e. issues relating to the product itself, its packaging, etc.

89. See e.g. Mattera, A., Le marché unique européen (2nd edn, 1990), pp.516–522.Google Scholar

90. C-384/93 Alpine Investments v. Minister van Financien, decision of 10 May 1995, not yet reported.

91. Case 15/79 P.B. Groenveld BV v. Produktschap voor Vee en Vlees [1979] E.C.R. 3409, [1981] C.M.L.R. 207.

92. See e.g. Case C-339/89 Alsthom Atlantique SA v. Compagnie de construction mécanique Sulzer SA [1991] E.C.R. 1–107, para.14.

93. On mutual recognition and harmonisation as different degrees on a regulatory coordination scale, see K. Gatsios and P. Seabright, “Regulation in the European Community” (1989) 5 Oxford Rev. Economic Policy 37, 42–44.