Illegal Actions against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard - Essay Example

EU Law Keck Decided Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Background of the Case 4 Explanation to the Area of Law 7 Facts and DecisionJudgments along with Examples of Similar Cases 10 Conclusion 12 References 14 Introduction The major concern of this essay is to signify the decision made by the EU Court of Justice in relation to the joined case of Keck and Mithouard, C-267/91 and C-268/91 respectively. The point of judgment was primitively concerned the open trading of products, where the court amended ‘Cassis De Dijon’ patterns and declared that national provisions that restrict selling of certain agreements were not covered under Article 30 of the EEC treaty (1957-1999), as long as such provisions concerned with the dealers who functioned within the national boundaries and affected the case laws, in terms of promotion of domestic products and other member states’ products. The initial issue in the case was that court did not derail from the earlier notion about the idea of a measure that had an equal consequence to quantitative confinement on imports, which further triggered confusions between the provisions of Article 28 and 30. While rendering the decision in the two cases, the court agreed with the fundamental belief in Dasonville [Procureur du Roi v. Dassonville et al, Case 8/74, (1974) E.C.R. 837, 852, (1974) 2 C.M.L.R. 436, 448] & [Keck, [1994] E.C.R. 1-6097, 6130]. The purpose to obstruct intra-community dealing, when judging this was not a prerequisite for finding a violation in Article 30 [Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft v. Weinvertreibs-GmbH, Case 95/82, [1981] E.C.R. 1217, 1226]; P.B. Groenveld BV v. Produktschap voor Vee en Vlees, Case 15/79, [1979] E.C.R. 3409, [1981] 1 C.M.L.R. 207, 211 & EC Commission v. United Kingdom, Case 40/82, [1982] E.C.R. 2793, 2825-26, [1982] 3 C.M.L.R. 497, 535]. Even though, there was dissatisfaction regarding reasoning in Torfaen case, preceding to the Keck case1, it was unambiguous that court had acknowledged all actions being wedged with such measures that had an equivalent effect, but were warranted to be reasonable socio-economic strategy options [Torfaen, [1989] E.C.R. 3851, [1990] 1 C.M.L.R. 33; Union departementale des syndicats CGT de lAisne v. SIDEF Conforama et. al., Case C,-312/89, [1991] E.C.R. 1-997, 1025, [1993] 3 C.M.L.R. 746, 767; The State of Belgium v. Andre Marchandise, Case C-332/89, [1991] E.C.R. 1-1027, 1041, [1993] 3 C.M.L.R. 746, 767 & Stoke-on-Trent, (1992] E.C.R. 1-6335, [1992] 1 C.M.L.R. 426, 464].At the time of hearing and judgments preceding Keck, the court also conferred on various selling practices and procedures [The Republic (France) v. JeanMarie Delattre, Case C-369/88. [1991] E.C.R. 1-1487, [1993] 2 C.M.L.R. 445; SCP Boscher, Studer et Fromentin v. SA British Motors Wright et al., Case C-239/90, [1991] E.C.R. 1-2023, [1994] 3 C.M.L.R. 410]2. Background of the Case In illegal actions against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard, in the joint cases of C-267/91 and C-268/91 respectively, the Tribunal de Grande Instance, a regional court in Strasbourg, France, referred a groundwork judgment as per Article 177 of EEC Treaty, opposing the parties in European Court of Justice (ECJ). The tribunal court raised two questions on interpreting the rules of treaty that was concerned with ‘Competition and freedom of movement within the Community’. Enquiries were also made and raised in ECJ with regard to illegal procedures against Keck and Mithouard, being accused for reselling products in unchanged prices that were less than their authentic obtained prices3. In protection, Keck and Mithouard challenged the common restrictions on reselling at a loss, as laid down by the provisions of Article 1 of French Law No 63-628, 1963 and altered by Article 32 Order No 86-1243, 1986, to be irreconcilable with Article 30 of treaty and values of open movement inside the society comprising of people, money and services4. The defendants also reported that restriction on resale at loss, under some cases, is likely to be persistent within the treaty under coverage of Article 85 and is irreconcilable with free movement of people, capital, services, free competition of non discrimination under Article 3 & 7. It was particular because the restriction makes reselling at loss, an offence and excuses the manufacturer from the reach of restriction, such that manufacturer would be free to sell the products that he produces, develops and improves and deforms competition among dealers on the basis of place of establishment and nationality5. The Tribunal De Grande Instance affirmed to continue with the proceedings and submitted two questions for groundwork judgment to the Court of Justice for the joint case. Initially, the Tribunal resold its products at loss and removed the extent of restrictions on producer so that the dealer is free to sell products that was produced and processed at a price less than the determined cost price in the market. Secondly, the Tribunal said that competition gets distorted among different traders on the basis of their origin and place of establishment6. The grounds for reference also gave an idea that the Tribunal had thought over the query, with conditions of treaty, regarding companionability on restriction of resale of products at a loss, even if, the restriction of products at loss appeared to be rationalized with the aim of defending the customers and ruling of fair and detrimental competition7. In July 1992, the case was handed over to the Second Chamber while in Nov 1992, the court ruled to join C-267/91 as well as C-268/91, as joined cases for written and verbal methods of judgment. On hearing, the court made a decision to instigate a verbal procedure that excluded any enquiry. In same year, the Second Chamber regarded Article 95(3) of ‘Rules of Procedure’ to be applied and the case was handed to judgment court8. The decision of reopening of verbal process was taken by the court. It was also decided that parties must be able to address certain queries during the time of hearing before appearing in the court. These queries included identifying the financial consequences of resale on loss to local, national and global retail markets in intra–community dealings and focused particularly on their behavioral changes. It also emphasized the identification of whether such consequences were direct, indirect or tentative and if they were obstructing the marketing of imported products more than national products and hence, creating an anti-competitive environment within the domestic market. The corresponding query related to inhibition of promotional sales techniques in accordance with restriction on reselling products at loss or if it created a national pricing control mechanism9. Explanation to the Area of Law Article 34 was related with intra-European Union imports and restricted quantitative prohibitions and measures that had a corresponding effect among the member states. The court, in joint case of Keck and Mithouard, ruled that [i] it was obligatory to re-examine and elucidate the case laws in relation to increased tendency of merchants to bring Article 34 of the treaty in the way to challenge such regulations whose effects were to restrict their marketable autonomy, even where those regulations were not intended at member states’ products. The court held and referred to Cassis de Dijon that regulations those were laid down would be met by such products and comprised of measures having corresponding influences that were restricted by Article 34. Simultaneously, [ii] in comparison to what had been decided earlier, the submission of goods to members of regional conditions prohibited certain arrangements of selling as not to hamper the trading among member states within Dassonville Judgement, whereby the case laws of Article 34, presented classical justification on the joint case of Keck & Mithouard. Although, a common approach was taken by the court in this case, as the case was dependent on groundwork that was limited to promotion and were regarded as promoting arrangements and fall outside the area of Article 34, specifically, in case it was non discriminatory10. Article 28 imposed quantitative confinement on exports and all measures that had an equal effect but should be restricted between member states of custom duties on export and import and all such charges, which had an equal effect along with adoption of regular tariff customs in relation to third party nations. Article 28 (1999-2009) also dealt with quantitative obstructions on imports and all measures that had an equal effect had to be prohibited between the member states11. When Keck & Mithouard were decided, it was Article 30 (1957-1999) in the original EEC treaty. Article 30 to 34 grounded decisions regarding provisions on contrary to impose import and export restrictions and transit goods that were rationalized on the basis of public guidelines, decency, safety, safety of national treasures that acquired artistic and archeological values, focused on security of life and wellbeing of flora and fauna and human beings, along with protection of marketable and industrial assets. Article 30 also stated that such restrictions would not comprise a means of concealed obstructions and subjective discrimination among the member states12. In this case, Keck & Mithouard claimed that French legislation, which prohibited resale at a loss, comprised a measure that had an equal effect within the use of Article 30. The court however did not draw back on bringing the commercial legislation in the range of Article 30 of treaty. The discouraging character of restriction on reselling at a loss, with regard to global manufacturers was made severe because it was only concerned with the resale and focused on the fact that most global merchants were resellers13. In addition, the global merchant had to become familiar with the changes in French case laws that were connected with restrictions of reselling at a loss, if he wished to establish himself in France. Moreover, the merchant could have been dispirited by the delicacy of such legislations at concern and appliance by the courts. The indications in the main proceedings concluded that restrictions on resale of products at a loss affects the promotion of that product and as a result, falls within the range of Article 3014. The defendants in main proceedings argued to the enquiries of the court that Article 30 of EEC Treaty must be grasped through with the sense that it prevents the reselling the products at a loss. In relation to Article 30 of the EEC treaty, the judgment court held that the nationwide conditions, which restricts the retail sale of domestic and imported products at prices, which are below the actual purchased value compensated by merchants and thus, cannot affect the promotion of imported products, exclusively. As a consequence, it will compose of a measure that has an equal effect towards quantitative prohibitions on imports15. Facts and Decision Judgments along with Examples of Similar Cases The Tribunal De Grande Instance, a regional court of Strasbourg, suggested two questions to the judgment court, which were a groundwork ruling as per Article 177 of EEC treaty. These questions were based on competition and liberty of openness inside the society. These questions were lifted with regard to illegal actions against Keck and Mithouard, who were being accused for reselling of their products in an unaffected condition of prices, which was less than their authentic price of purchase, being in contrast with Article 1 of French Law No 63-628 of July 1963 and revised by Article 32 of Order No 86-1243 of December 198616. In response, the indicted parties argued that a common restriction on resale, at a loss, is incompatible with Article 30 of the Treaty, along with rules of free movement of capital, people, services and competition within the community. Suggestions were made for hearing by the court to reveal the facts of the case, the procedures and written explanations, which were argued for court’s analysis process17. As per ruling in Case 308/86 Ministère Public v Lambert [1988] ECR 4369, the concern in national legislation for main proceedings related to trading activities that were being purchased and sold within the boundaries of national province, not considering the ethnic groups who were connected with it. From the queries proposed for preliminary decision making, it emerged that the national court searched for assistance for the probable anti-competitive consequences of the procedures in query, for the establishment of community set in Article 3 of treaty, devoid of particular reference to any executed guidelines of the treaty in competition18. Article 30 stated that quantitative prohibitions on imports and dealings having similar effects are restricted among member states. The court apprehended that any measure that would be competent of obstructing intra-community dealings is likely to essentially or potentially comprise a measure that had an equal effect upon a quantitative obstruction. Furthermore, the mounting propensity of traders for summoning Article 30 of the Treaty for challenging any regulation whose effects were to restrict the marketable liberty of dealers, even if those regulations were not intended on products from other member states, the judgment court regarded it as essential for clarifying and re-analyzing the case laws19. Illustratively, with the case, ‘Cassis de Dijon’ (Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein [1979] ECR 649), it was ascertained with the commencement of case laws in deficiency of synchronization with legislation, hindrances relating to movement of products, which were the results of applying for goods that came from other member states, were produced illegally and were being promoted. In subsequence, the regulations laid down such pre-requisites to be met by such products, comprised measures that had equal effects that were prohibited by Article 3020. Notably, as per Dassonville judgment (Case 8/74 [1974] ECR 837), the application to goods from other member states of regional provisions obstructed and prohibited selling of certain arrangements that were not to encumber dealings among the member states, as long as such conditions were being applied to appropriate dealers, being managed within the national boundaries and as they were affected by the promotion of familial goods and member states goods21. Application of those provisions for sale of goods from other member states that met the requirements, laid down by such states, indicated otherwise than to restrict their entrance in the foreign markets or hinder the accessibility to domestic goods. Hence, the responses to be forwarded to the national court was that Article 30 of the Treaty should be considered as not to be applied on member states legislations that imposed a particular restriction on reselling of goods at loss22. Conclusion The latest decisions in case of Ligur Carni, [1993] E.C.R. 1-6621and Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e. V v. Clinique Laboratories SNC et. al., made it lucid that Article 30 holds an important position as one of the elementary theories concerning community law. The basic rule of Dassonville judgment, collective with reason was sufficient enough to authorize the Court of Justice to guide and national court to make a decision in proceedings linking to Article 177, as it needed to be appropriately related in the justice court. The analysis in case of Keck and Mithouard (i.e. joint cases of C-267/91 and C-268/91) had provided all the characteristics of defining ‘a camel’, and seemed like the result of what may be described as slightest of preponderances23. Conclusively, in response to the enquiries referred to the EU justice court by Tribunal de Grande Instance, in 1991, the court stated and declared Article 30 of the EEC treaty should be understood as not concerned with legislation of member states that enforces the common restrictions of reselling products by incurring losses24. References Barnard Catherine and Scott Joanne, The Law of the Single European Market: Unpacking the Premises. (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2002). Barnard Catherine, The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms. (Oxford University Press, 2013). Berry David S, Caribbean Integration Law. (Oxford University Press, 2014). biicl.org, ‘Before the Court of Justice of the European Communities’ [1979] (Reference by the Finanzgericht, Hessen, under Article 177 EEC) accessed 17 Dec. 2014. Craig Paul P, EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. (Oxford University Press, 1998). curia.europa.eu, ‘Judgment of 24. 11. 1993 —Joined Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91’ [1993] (Judgment of the Court) accessed 17 Dec. 2014. CVCE, ‘Judgment of the Court of Justice, Keck and Mithouard, Joined cases C-267/91 and C-268/91 (24 November 1993)’ [2012] (Publication) accessed 17 Dec. 2014. Davies Gareth, European Union Internal Market. (Routledge, 2003). eur-lex.europa.eu, ‘Judgment Of The Court’ [1993] (Judgment Of 24. 11. 1993 —Joined Cases C-267/91 And C-268/91) accessed 17 Dec. 2014. European Union, ‘Guide To The Application Of Treaty Provisions Governing The Free Movement Of Goods’ [2010] (Free Movement Of Goods) accessed 17 Dec. 2014. Feria Rita de la and Vogenauer Stefan, Prohibition of Abuse of Law: A New General Principle of EU Law?. (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011). Gormley Laurence W, ‘Fordham International Law Journal’ [1995] (Two Years after Keck) accessed 17 Dec. 2014. Horspool Margot and Humphreys Matthew, European Union Law. (Oxford University Press, 2012). Helberger Natali, Controlling Access to Content: Regulating Conditional Access in Digital Broadcasting. (Kluwer Law International, 2005). Ihle-Masip M I, The relationship of the Free Movement of Capital to the other Fundamental Freedoms. (diplom.de, 2005). Isenbaert Mathieu, EC Law and the Sovereignty of the Member States in Direct Taxation. (IBFD, 2008). Ivanovna Irina, Korolevich Viktorija, Novoksanova Polina, Skerskans Andris, Zaharcenko Valerija,  Korolevich Ilja, Maisjuks Andrejs, Poddubny André and Vanaga Lina, ‘Relevant Cases of the European Court of Justice’ [2008] (EC Internal Market Law) accessed 17 Dec. 2014. Janicka Katarzyna, ‘Articles 28 – 30 EC and Mutual Recognition and Mutual Recognition’ [2008] (Free Movement of Goods) accessed 17 Dec. 2014. Ketilsdóttir Írunn, ‘The Efta Court Comparison With The Ec Courts And Effects On Ecj Case Law’ [2006] (Aarhus School Of Business) accessed 17 Dec. 2014. Kyushu University Faculty of Law and Graduate Schools for Law, ‘Cases C-267 and 268/91 Griminal Proceedings against Keck and Mithouard’ [1993] (Free Movement of Goods: Quantitative Restrictions) accessed 17 Dec. 2014. Schulze Reiner, Schulte-Nolke Hans, Jones Jackie, A Casebook on European Consumer Law. (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2002). Tryfonidou Alina, Reverse Discrimination in EC Law. (Kluwer Law International, 2009). Weatherill Stephen, Cases and Materials on EU Law. (Oxford University Press, 2012). Weiler J.H.H. and Kocjan Martina, ‘The Internal Market: Non-Tariff Barriers’ [2005] (Teaching Material) accessed 17 Dec. 2014. Weiler J.H.H, Cho Sungjoon and Feichtner Isabel, ‘Unit V: Quantitative Restrictions and Measures Equivalent to Quantitative Restrictions’ [2011] (International and Regional Trade Law: The Law of the World Trade Organization) accessed 17 Dec. 2014. Read More