Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:27:53.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty and the “Dormant” Commerce Clause by the European Court of Justice and the US Supreme Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Georg Haibach
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There are numerous publications on the interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty by the European Court of Justice1 which for the last 20 years has been one of the most controversial issues in EC law. It is, however, surprising that there is much older, yet strikingly similar, case law of the US Supreme Court which has remained almost unnoticed in Europe. In this article the respective case law of the two courts will be compared. Such a comparison is not only of interest as such, but can also contribute to the discussion about the correct scope of Article 30—which has certainly not yet been exhausted.

Type
Shorter Articles, Comments and Notes
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , January 1999 , pp. 155 - 167
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. Cf. e.g. White, E., “In Search of the Limits to Article 30 of the EEC Treaty” (1989) 15 E.L.Rev. 224Google Scholar; Mortelmans, K., “Article 30 of the EEC Treaty and Legislation Relating to Market Circumstances: Time to Consider a New Definition?” (1991) 28 C.M.L. Rev. 115Google Scholar; Steiner, J., “Drawing the Line: Uses and Abuses of Article 30 EEC” (1992) 29 C.M.L. Rev. 749Google Scholar; Wils, W., “The Search for the Rule in Article 30 EEC: Much Ado About Nothing?” (1993) 18 E.L.Rev. 475Google Scholar; Friedbacher, T., “Motive Unmasked: The European Court of Justice, the Free Movement of Goods and the Search for Legitimacy” (1996) E.L.J.226.Google Scholar

2. Gunther, G., Constitutional Law (1985), p.231.Google Scholar

3. McLeod v. J. E. Diworth Co. 322 U.S. 327, 330 (1944).Google Scholar

4. Great Atl & Pac. Tea Co. v. Cottrell 424 U.S. 366, 380 (1976).Google Scholar

5. Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. 294 U.S. 511, 523 (1935).Google Scholar

6. Case 8/74, Procureur du Roi v. Dassonville [1974] E.C.R. 837.Google Scholar

7. Wils, op. cit supra n.1, at pp.476–478Google Scholar

8. Minnesota v Clover Leaf Creament Co. 449 U.S. 456 (1981).Google Scholar

9. Case 302/86, Commission v Denmark [1988] E.C.R. 4607.Google Scholar

10. Dean Milk Co. v Madison 340 U.S. 349 (1951).Google Scholar

11. Case 124/81, Commission v. United Kingdom [1983] E.C.R. 203Google Scholar; note that, in contrast to the Supreme Court, the ECJ does not have the power to invalidate national law, under Art.177 it can only interpret EC law.

12. 22 U.S. (9 Wheat) 1 (1824).Google Scholar

13. Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co. 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 245 (1829).Google Scholar

14. See Taney's, opinion in the Licence case, 5 How. 504 (1847).Google Scholar

15. Cooley v. Board of Wardens 53 U.S. (12 How.) 299 (1851).Google Scholar

16. Plumley v. Massachusetts 155 U.S. 461 (1894)Google Scholar; Smith v. st. Louis Sw. Ry. Co. 181 U.S. 248 (1901)Google Scholar; Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio 183 U.S. 238 (1902)Google Scholar; Sligh v. Kirkwood 237 U.S. 52 (1915)Google Scholar; Hebe Co.v. Shaw 248 U.S. 297 (1919)Google Scholar; Bayside Fish Flour Co. v. Gentry 297 U.S. 422 (1936).Google Scholar

17. Dissent in Di Santo v Pennsylvania 273 U.S. 34 (1927).Google Scholar

18. Cappelletti, M. et al. , Integration through law, Vol.1, Book 3 (1986), p.224.Google Scholar

19. Gunther, , op. cit. supra n.2, at p.276.Google Scholar

20. H.P. Hood & Sons v. Du Mond 336 U.S. 525 (1949).Google Scholar

21. Philadelphia v. New Jersey 427 U.S. 617 (1978).Google Scholar

22. Supra, n. 10.

23. Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Comm'n 432 U.S. 333 (1977).Google Scholar

24. Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. 450 U.S. 662 (1981).Google Scholar

25. Cf. Craig, P. and de Burca, G., EC Law (1995), p.589.Google Scholar

26. Cases C–267 and 268/91, Criminal Proceedings against Keck and Mithouard [1993] E.C.R. 1–6097.Google Scholar

27. Craig, and de Burca, , op. cit. supra n.25, at p.599.Google Scholar

28. Stone, G. et al. , Constitutional Law (1986), p.290.Google Scholar

29. South Carolina State Highway Department v Barnwell Bros. 303 U.S. 177 (1938)Google Scholar; Southern Pacific Co. v Arizona 325 U.S. 761 (1945)Google Scholar; Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. 359 U.S. 520 (1959)Google Scholar; Raymond Motor Transportation, Inc. v. Rice 434 U.S. 429 (1978)Google Scholar; Kassel, supra n.24.

30. Pike v. Bruce Chruch Inc. 397 U.S. 137 (1970).Google Scholar

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

32. Cf. for this “modern” version of the Cassis de Dijon formula, para. 15 of the Keck judgment (supra n.26), and Case C—55/94, Reinhard Gebhard v. Consiglì dell' ordine degli avvocati e procuratori di Milano [1995] E.C.R. 1–4165 (para.39).Google Scholar

33. Supra n.26

34. Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. 450 U.S. 662 (1981).Google Scholar

35. Blasi, V., “Constitutional Limitations on the Power of States to Regulate the Movement of Goods in Interstate Commerce”, in Sandalow, T. and Stein, E., Courts and Free Markets: Perspectives from the United States and Europe (1982), p.199.Google Scholar

36. Plumley v. Massachusetts 155 U.S. 461 (1894)Google Scholar; Hygrade Provision Co. v Sherman 266 U.S. 176 (1925)Google Scholar; Pacific States Box and Basket Co. v White 296 U S. 176 (1935).Google Scholar

37. Milk Control Board v. Eisenberg 306 U.S. 346 (1939)Google Scholar; Parker v. Brown 317 U.S. 341 (1943)Google Scholar; Cities Service Co. v. Peerless Co. 340 U.S. 179 (1950).Google Scholar

38. Sandalow, and Stein, , op. cit supra n.35, at p.24.Google Scholar

39. Wils, , op. cit supra n.1, at pp.476–478.Google Scholar