Free Movement of Goods within the European Union - Research Paper Example

FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION HAS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATIONS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN PREVENTING DISCRIMINATION? Introduction One of the four freedoms guaranteed under the European Treaty is the free movement of goods. The concept of a single market, which is the goal of the European Union means that there should be no restrictions for the flow of goods from one member state to other. It aims at a single economic entity without borders in the Union. In fact the official website of the European Union states “The single market is all about bringing down barriers and simplifying existing rules to enable everyone in the EU - individuals, consumers and businesses - to make the most of the opportunities offered to them by having direct access to 27 countries and 480 million people.” General Policy Framework http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/top_layer/index_1_en.htm It goes on to explain that the consumers in the member states will benefit by lower prices because of the increased competition. They will have a wider choice of things to buy. They will also benefit from higher levels of protection against monopolies and other unfair trade practices. But it is found that the ideal has not been achieved and despite of the various rules and regulations the European Community has not succeeded in ensuring that on Member State does not discriminate against products other Member States. This is however admitted by the European Union which says that more needs to be done to complete the single market. Its official website has this to say “Despite its achievements so far, the single market is not yet complete. Indeed, creating a genuinely integrated market is not a finite task, but rather an ongoing process, requiring constant effort, vigilance and updating. Indeed, technological and political developments mean that the environment in which the Single Market functions is changing all the time. Although many obstacles have been removed, other barriers have come to light and will go on doing so.” (article Completing The Single Market) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/top_layer/index_3_en.htm This essay will attempt to study whether individual member States still discriminate against products from other Member States despite the rules ensuring non discrimination. The European Union The European Union as it is known now was originally formed as a trade organisation by a few states. It is now an economic entity as well as a political one. It has been a prominent player in world affairs and grown from a mere consortium of six countries to a strong organisation of 27 Member States. In 1951, six countries formed the European Coal and Steel Community. These countries were the newly formed West Germany, Italy, France, Luxembourg, Belgium and Netherlands. Within about six decades of its existence it has become a trading bloc with advanced law and a strong judicial framework to administer it effectively. Single Market Successive treaties entered in to by and between Member States of the European Union have established a system of trading which makes it compulsory for member states to allow free movement of goods within the European Union comprising of various countries. This means that an individual member state will not do any act which will make it impossible for traders from other member states to sell their goods in that member state. One of the four freedoms as contemplated under the European Community is the free movement of goods. As said above the single market contemplates a community with no national boundaries as far as movement and trade of goods goes. Ideally there should be no problem in the implementation of this particular policy when it has been adopted and ratified by all the Member States. Yet there is discrimination in favour of local goods and against goods from another member State. What is stated in the law is not done in fact. Member States do discriminate as far as goods go. This is obvious from the number of matters that reach the courts of law. Indeed, as the time goes by and circumstances change, the European Court of Justice has had to intervene in many matters to ensure that the provisions of the treaties are complied with by Member States. Discrimination State Aid The most common form of discrimination is state aid. This means that a Member State will favour certain undertakings or industries. The state aid may consist of favouring the production of specific goods. For example, a small country may make a provision in its law that a specific company will have the exclusive right to produce a range of products in the household electrical appliances. The country may be justified according to that particular country where the company is the only one having the competence and funds to operate that particular business, but this amounts to discrimination in favour of that company. Quantitative Restrictions Quantitative restriction on import and export of goods as part of discrimination against products from other nations is an effective way of discrimination. It has been a weapon of choice for countries to discriminate against goods from another country. In the times prior to the twentieth century, except for industrialised nations and nations where trading was the major business, state craft was not advanced enough to contemplate the modern notions of Gross Domestic Product, Per Capita Income etc. So the other nations had no way to use the quantitative restriction system to discriminate. Anyway, they did not have either the necessity nor could they afford to discriminate against the stronger countries. However, as time progressed, smaller countries realized that it is advantageous to put quantitative restrictions. Quantitative restrictions in international trade are termed quotas. These are usually specifically stated in the law. Thus a particular country may limit export of a particular product to a particular tonnage. This is also practiced by countries by banning import from a particular country. Some countries may ban import of certain products for use other than in a particular industry etc. Quantitative restrictions in these cases are called import quotas. Usually quantitative restrictions are imposed only on import. But quantitative restrictions can also be imposed on exports. For example a country may be the best place to produce wine of a particular rare and fine vintage. It will not be a decision contrary to the applicable law if the producer decides not to export the wine. However if the country makes it illegal to export the wine, it will amount to a quantitative restriction. Import quotas are used to protect the interest of domestic producers. The restriction on import results in a deficit of goods, which is exploited by the domestic producers by hiking the prices of goods. The domestic producer benefits from the restriction at the cost of the consumer having to pay more. The customer also has less choice, and may suffer because of inferior quality of product, especially if the Member State putting the restriction does not have the most advanced technology. For example, a country may put restriction on import of electronic items from the United Kingdom. But the technology needed to make goods to the standard of goods produced in the United Kingdom may be lacking there. In that case, the customer suffers both ways. She pays more money and gets an item which is less than the best available. There are many ways in which countries can apply quotas, but the most usual is to restrict the number of goods if the same is ascertainable, and many Member States have done that directly or indirectly in the past. Measures having Equivalent Effect “Measures having equivalent effect” is not a term used in the Treaty of the European Commission. Consequently there is no precise definition of the term. However they are taken to mean actions of individuals, rulings of a court or an enactment of a state which has an effect equivalent to the quantitative restriction. This is to say that the said measure will work to discriminate against import of a particular product, even though there is no quantitative restriction or total ban on the product. For example, a country may restrain its traders from beer having alcoholic content more than 8%. This is not a total ban on beers and producers of beers of various percentages of alcoholic contents are not affected. But those producers who produce only beers having alcoholic strength more than 8% will suffer. The act of the state in restricting import of beers only to those having alcohol content less than 8% is a measure having equivalent effect. There are two types of measures having equivalent affect. One is distinctly applicable measure. It means that the discrimination is specifically against products which are to be imported. The other type of discrimination is a measure where the state makes a rule which applies to both locally made goods and imported goods. As per principles of settled law and as laid down by the courts of law in various judgments quoted elsewhere in this essay, the intent of the measure having equivalent effect need not be discriminatory. It is sufficient for the measure to have an effect that is discriminatory. An example is a regulation by a country which makes it mandatory on part of fruit sellers to paste stickers on the packs containing the fruit specifying the country of origin of the same. This measure is indistinctly applicable measure because it applies both to locally produced fruit and imported fruit. But the mischief this rule plays is that it allows the identification of the local products from imported products, thus all--owing the potential buyers to play out their prejudices regarding imported goods. Another way in which there can be discrimination is when a Member State makes it mandatory that a particular imported product be sold above a particular amount. For example United Kingdom specifies that all imported leather wallets should be sold at a price above £30. This amounts to distinctly applicable measure. EUROPEAN UNION LAW REGARDING COMMON MARKET Article 2 of the TEC The Article 2 of the TEC specifies the objective of the community thus “The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union and by implementing common policies or activities referred to in Articles 3 and 4, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious, balanced and sustainable development of economic activities a high level of employment and of social protection, equality between men and women, sustainable and non-inflationary growth, a high degree of competitiveness and convergence of economic performance, a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States.” Article 3 of the TEC Article 3 TEC sets out Community activities based on the objectives mentioned in the previous Article. The following are relevant to the common market (internal market) and consequently to public procurement: Article 3 TEC (parts) 1. For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein: (a) the prohibition, as between Member States, of customs duties and quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods, and of all other measures having equivalent effect; (b) a common commercial policy; (c) an internal market characterised by the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital; (d) measures concerning the entry and movement of persons as provided for in Title IV; (g) a system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted; (h) the approximation of the laws of Member States to the extent required for the functioning of the common market; Article 28 of the TEC In a very short but strong sentence, Article 28 sets out the restrictions against discrimination of the easiest type. “Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States.” Article 29 Though not necessary in all likelihood, the Article 29 provides for exports also. “Quantitative restrictions on exports, and all measures having equivalent effect, shall be prohibited between Member States.” Article 30 Article 30 is the provision for defence against charges of discrimination as it provides exemptions to strict regulations in the earlier two Articles. The provisions of Articles 28 and 29 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit 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. Article 94 “The Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, issue directives for the approximation of such laws, regulations or administrative provisions of the Member States as directly affect the establishment or functioning of the common market.” HISTORY OF LAW REGARDING FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS AND FACILITATING TRADE In 1919, a few individuals from various backgrounds around the world formed an association named International Chamber of Commerce. The trading community felt the necessity because of advances in the means of transport. Also because of the technical advances more and more goods were manufactured and consumers in various countries had increased awareness about the necessities and luxuries available around the world. Prior to the establishment of International Chamber of Commerce, there were no rules or law governing the trade of goods between states. There were no rules regarding the investment of capital, insurance or finance in international trade. With a view to abolish these deficiencies, the International chamber of Commerce has developed an elaborate system of rules, guidelines and codes of practice. SOME LANDMARK CASES Quantitative restriction has been defined broadly by the Court of Justice in Geddo v. Ente as ‘... a measure which amounts to a total or partial restriction of, according to the circumstances, imports, exports or goods in transit.’ It will include bans and quotas. Measures having an equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction have been defined in the Geddo case as: ‘... measures, …. whatever the description or technique employed, they can also consist of encumbrances having the same effect.’ This definition, however, lacks clarity and accuracy. “Procureur du Roi v. Dassonville was a landmark in the application of legal principles relating to non discrimination between goods of member states. In the said case, the European Court of Justice defined measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions as “All trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intraCommunity trade are to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions.” This is a very broad definition which is now known as ‘the Dassonville formula’. Directive 70/50/EEC was operational for a limited period but it has provided two different types of MEQRs: Article 2 covers national rules which only apply to imports (referred to as distinctly applicable rules); Article 3 applies to national rules which apply equally to imported and domestic products (referred to as indistinctly applicable rules). In the case of Commission v. Ireland the Irish government started a ‘Buy Irish’ campaign. The campaign failed as the sale of Irish goods actually declined, but the campaign was challenged as being discriminatory. The Irish government argued that the failure of the campaign had not affected trade within the Community. The ECJ, applying the Dassonville formula, held that the campaign was capable of affecting, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, trade within the Community, and therefore it constituted an MEQR; it was not necessary to look at the success or otherwise of the measure. In Commission v. UK the ECJ stated that marking of origin ‘enables consumers to distinguish between domestic and imported products and thus enables them to assert any prejudices which they may have against foreign products’. In Criminal Proceedings against Keck and Mithouard the facts were that Keck & Mithouard sold French beer and coffee at retail prices lower than their own purchase price. They were prosecuted in the French courts for selling goods at a price lower than their actual purchase price (resale at a loss) which was violated French law. Keck and Mithouard claimed that the French law was contrary to Article 28. The ECJ held that: “By virtue of Article 30, quantitative restrictions and all measures having equivalent effect are prohibited between Member States. The Court has consistently held that any measure which is capable of directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, hindering intra-Community trade constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction. In view of the increasing tendency of traders to invoke Article 30(now 28) of the Treaty as a means of challenging any rules whose effect is to limit their commercial freedom even where such rules are not aimed at products from other Member States, the Court considers it necessary to re-examine and clarify its case law on this matter. However, contrary to what has previously been decided, the application to products from other Member States of national provisions restricting prohibiting certain selling arrangements is not such as to hinder directly or indirectly, actually or potentially trade between Member States within the Meaning of the Dassonville judgment, provided that those provisions apply to all affected traders operating within the national territory and provided that they affect in the same manner, in law and in fact the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States. Accordingly, the reply to be given to the national court is that Article 30 of the EEC Treaty is to be interpreted as not applying to legislation of a Member State imposing a general prohibition on resale at a loss.” In the case of Semeraro Casa Uno Srl v. Sindaco del Commune di Erbusco, the facts were that a shopping centre challenged the Italian law that prohibited shops from opening on Sundays unless in special circumstances on the ground that it violated Article 30(now 28). The ECJ held that the Italian law concerned selling arrangements and was therefore outside the scope of this Article. It will be clear from the findings in Procureur du Roi v. Dassonville, Keck and Mithouard case and Semeraro Casa Uno Srl v. Sindaco del Commune di Erbusco case that the opinion of the ECJ has evolved over the period of time In the past the ECJ defined the meaning of measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction to cover all rules which are capable of hindering directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, trade within the EU States but after Keek case the ECJ limits the ambit of Article 28 by drawing a distinction between measures which relate to the goods themselves such as composition, packaging and presentation and measures which relate to selling arrangements. The ECJ has held that only measures relating to the goods fall within the scope of Article 28 and that the measures relating to selling arrangements fall outside the scope of this Article. The ECJ again made this distinction in Punto Casa SpA v. Sindaco del Comune de Capena case by holding that the Italian Sunday retail closing rules fell outside the scope of Article 28 and in Tankstation case by holding that national rules governing the types of products gasoline stations could sell when opened outside the usual retail shop closing times fell outside the scope of Article 28. Nonetheless, the word "selling arrangement" is very difficult to understand and may cause some difficulties. If the selling arrangements are the rules relating to when the shops are open and close or the rules relating the length of working time, they may be easy to understand. However, if the selling arrangements are the rules relating to advertising, free offers, and the like, they may be difficult to understand because they may relate much more closely to the products. EXCEPTIONS PLEADED BY STATES VIOLATING ARTICLE 28 AND ECJ RULINGS THEREON Though the restrictions against discrimination are strict, there are exceptions to these, in the form of exemptions under Article 30 of the TEC. However, the said article 30 is used by the Member States to discriminate against goods from other Member States. The ECJ has construed the provisions of Article 30 regarding exemption from provisions of Article 28 very strictly. The second clause of Article 30 provides that reliance on any of the listed derogations must be objectively justified: i.e. it must not simply be a means (direct or indirect) of protecting domestic producers. In assessing justification under Article 30, the Court of Justice will require the Member State to show not only that the State has an interest that requires protection (e.g. on the grounds of public morality), but also that the means chosen to protect the interest is proportionate to that end, i.e. the means chosen to achieve the objective hinders the free movement of goods the least (the question that needs addressing is whether there is any other action available which would be less restrictive to the free movement of goods, but would nevertheless meet the objective). In Oberkriesdirecktor Des Dreises v. Handelsonderneming Moorman case, the facts were that the Federal Republic of Germany maintained its legislation providing for systematic inspection of particular goods passing its border. The ECJ held that where the Community directives provide the harmonization of measures necessary to ensure the protection of animal and human health, recourse to Article 30 on the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants grounds, is no longer justified. Therefore, German legislation violated Article 28 and could not be justified by Article 30. Harmonization of law within the Community will ensure lesser opportunities for the Member States to justify trade restrictions under Article 30 and will be one of the best ways to break down the technical barriers. Article 94 provides for harmonization. However, Article 94 authorizes directives, not regulations. Therefore, they have no direct effect. Public morality In R v. Henn and Darby the defendants were convicted for having shipped pornographic material from Rotterdam (Holland) to Felixstowe (England). The argument for the defendants was that there was discrimination because there was a total ban on imported pornography, but not on domestically produced pornography. The Court of Justice held that the UK did not breach the second sentence. Although there was no absolute ban with regard to domestic products, they found that the purpose of UK law was to restrain the domestic manufacture and marketing of pornography to such an extent that there could not be said to be any lawful trade of such goods within the UK (application of the de minimus rule). Because the Court of Justice decided that the treatment of domestic and imported goods was equal, this is an indistinctly applicable measure rather than a distinctly applicable measure. However, the ECJ took another view in Conegate Ltd v. Commission of Customs and Excise. Conegate imported lifesize inflatable dolls which customs officials decided as they were against public policy and seized the goods. It was found that UK law had breached the former Article 28 and the Article 30 did not apply, because there was a lawful trade in such goods within the UK. In Conegate the restrictions imposed on domestic inflatable dolls were not such as to amount to a prohibition on their manufacture or marketing: UK law put some restrictions on the sale of such goods. Accordingly, while a Member State can decide the terms of public morality it cannot put more restrictions on imported goods than domestic goods. Public security Campus Oil Ltd v. Minister for Industry and Energy Irish law required petrol importers to buy 35% of their requirements from a State owned refinery whose prices were fixed by the Irish Government. It was argued by Ireland that they had to keep their refineries working for which the restriction was necessary. The ECJ held that the measure must satisfy the proportionality test. Therefore the quantities covered by the scheme (i.e. 35% in this particular case) must not be greater than that required to ensure that the State refinery can survive; it would be a breach if the requirement had been for 75%. Protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants The ECJ has dealt with defences of the breach of Article 28 under the provisions of Article 30. The ECJ examined whether the protection of public health is the real purpose behind the Member States action, or whether it is designed to protect domestic producers. In Commission v. UK, the UK adopted what amounted in practice to an import ban on poultry meat and eggs from all other Member States except Denmark and Ireland on the pretext of preventing the spread of Newcastle disease. In fact imports of poultry into the UK had increased significantly, and the domestic producers had pressurized the government to impose the ban just before Christmas so that domestic poultry farm owners would benefit from the ban. The Court of Justice concluded that the import ban was motivated more by commercial reasons than by considerations of public health and a restriction on trade. Indistinctly applicable measures In ReweZentraleAG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein the German authorities refused to allow the import of the liqueur ‘Cassis de Dijon’ into Germany from France. German law stipulated that liqueurs had to have an alcoholic strength of 25%, that of the French drink was less than 20%. This is a much cited case in EU law. This gave following rules of appreciation of the restrictions imposed. The rule of mutual recognition The first Cassis principle is that if goods have been sold in one Member State, they can be sold in any other Member without restriction. To restrict the sale of such goods, the importing state must prove that ‘rules of reason’ apply. The rule of reason The second Cassis principle, the ‘rule of reason’ is, ‘... 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 in particular to the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, the protection of public health, the fairness of commercial transactions and the defence of the consumer.’ Even after all of this, fairness of commercial transactions and protection of the consumer may allow exemption of a rule from the provision of Article 28. It should be appreciated that this list is not exhaustive, and it includes defences which are not available under Article 30. Therefore the range of defences available to indistinctly applicable measures is greater than that for distinctly applicable measures. Any measure which satisfies the rule of reason will not be caught by Article 28; this is separate and distinct from the Article 30 (previously Article 36) derogations (considered above). Application of the rule of reason The rule of reason only applies to an indistinctly applicable measure. This has been held by ECJ in Italian State v. Gilli and Andres and other cases. Consumer protection In Commission v. Germany, Germany prohibited the marketing of beer which failed to comply the provisions it Beer Duty Act 1952. The Commission challenged two provisions (1) the name ‘Bier’ could only be used for products brewed using malted barley, hops, yeast and water alone. The law was defended on the ground that it was necessary to protect the German consumer who associated the label ‘Bier’ with beverages made exclusively from these ingredients. ECJ held that consumer interests could be met through better labelling rather than an outright ban. Fairness of commercial transactions One of the arguments in the Cassis case was that Cassis, with lower alcohol content, gained an unfair competitive advantage because it paid less tax as compared to liqueur with higher content prevalent in the importing State. However this argument was rejected by ECJ. The Cassis list is not an exhaustive list. The list was left open so that it could be added to by the Court of Justice as its case law developed. The protection of the environment has been held by the Court of Justice to come within the rule of reason in Commission v. Denmark. The above discussion will clearly show that though the provisions of the Article 28 are applied strictly, the states still find ways to discriminate against imports. There are plenty of defences available, apart from the exemptions provided in the Article 30. It can be said that the ban on discrimination is followed more in breach than in honour. Though the ECJ has ruled effectively in various matters referred to in this essay, it is still not enough to instill in the Member States a sense of duty to obey the provisions. Though the Article 28 has been successful in minimizing quantitative restrictions, measures equivalent to quantitative restrictions are still applied so as to discriminate against imports. This is more so in the case of the measures indistinctly applicable. As the EU website itself says, law will have to keep evolving with changing times. This is necessary to give effect to the true meaning of provisions of law made for the benefit of the citizens of the Community and ensure a free market with fewer barriers and more choices for customers. The freedom of movement of goods is one of the four freedoms granted to guarantees such freedom. But in practice we find that the states for the protection of their interests and so as not to offend the traders within its national boundaries do discriminate against goods imported from other member states, and thus defy the provisions of Article 28. We must therefore accept that the states within the community have been successful in discriminating against imports despite of the rules. References Single market for goods http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/top_layer/index_18_en.htm accessed April 17, 2010 Maastricht treaty http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/economic_and_monetary_affairs/i nstitutional_and_economic_framework/treaties_maastricht_en.htm accessed April 17, 2010 fewer barriers http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/index_en.htm accessed April 17, 2010 Loos v. Netherlands Inland Revenue. http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61962J0026:EN:H TML accessed April 17, 2010 Transport non discrimination and direct effect http://grahnlaw.blogspot.com/2008/05/eu-tfeu-transport-non- discrimination.html accessed April 17, 2010 blog http://eulaw.typepad.com/eulawblog/2009/02/free-movement-of-goods- motorcycle-trailers-product-use-and-road-safety-case-c-11005.html accessed April 17, 2010 Articles of the Treaty establishing the European Community http://eur- lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12002E/htm/C_2002325EN.003301.html accessed April 17, 2010 Case Law 2/73 Geddo v. Ente [1973] ECR 865 Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v. Dassonville [1974] ECR 837 Case 249/81 Commission v. Ireland [1982] ECR 4005 Case 207/83 Commission v. UK [1985] ECR 1201 Case 34/79 R v. Henn and Darby [1979] ECR 3795 Case 121/85 Conegate Ltd v. Commission of Customs and Excise [1986] ECR 1007 Case 231/83 Cullet v. Centre Leclerc [1985] ECR 305. Case 72/83 Campus Oil Ltd v. Minister for Industry and Energy [1984] ECR 2727 Case 40/82 Commission v. UK [1982] ECR 2793 Case 124/81 Commission v. United Kingdom [1983] ECR 203 Case 120/78 ReweZentrale AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein [1979] ECR 649, ‘Cassis de Dijon’ Case 788/79 Italian State v. Gilli and Andres [1980] ECR 2071 Case 178/84 Commission v. Germany [1987] ECR 1227 Case 286/86 Ministre Public v. Deserbais [1988] ECR 4907 Case 788/79 Italian State v. Gilli and Andres [1980] ECR 2071 Case 261/81 Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v. de Smedt PvbA [1982] ECR 3961 Case 27/80 Fietje [1980] ECR 3839 Case 178/84 Commission v. Germany [1987] ECR 1227 Case 302/86 Commission v. Denmark [1988] ECR 4607 Cases 60 and 61/84 Cinetheque SA v. Federation Nationale des Cinemas Francais [1985] ECR 2605 Case 145/88 Torfaen Borough Council v. B&Q plc [1989] ECR 765 Case 207/73 Commission v. UK [1985] ECR 1201 Case 261/81 Walter Rau [1982] ECR 3961 Cases C267 and 268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Keck and Mithouard [1993] ECR I6097 Cases C401and 402/92 Criminal Proceedings against Tankstation t Heustke vof and JBE Boermans [1994] ECR I2199 Cases C69 and 258/93 Punto Casa SpA v. Sindaco del Commune di Capena [1994] ECR I2355 Cases C292/ 92 R Hunermund v. Landesapothekerkammer BadenWurttemburg [1993] ECR I6787 Case C416/ 00 Morellato [2003] I9343, Case 121/85 Conegate Ltd v. Commission of Customs and Excise [1986] ECR 1007 Case 174/82 Officier van Justitie v. Sandoz BV [1983] ECR 2245 Case C95/01Greenham v Abel [2004] 3 CMLR 33 Case 418/93 Semeraro Casa Uno Srl v. Sindaco del Commune di Erbusco ECR 1996 p. 2975 Read More