The Court’s reasoning was developed further in the ‘ Cassis de Dijon’ judgment, which laid down the principle that any product legally manufactured and marketed in a Member State in accordance with its fair and traditional rules, and with the manufacturing processes of that country, must be allowed onto the market of any other Member State. In its ‘ Dassonville’ judgment, the Court of Justice took the view that all trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade were to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions (see Case 8/74 of 11 July 1974 and paragraphs 63 to 67 of Case C-320/03 of 15 November 2005). Prohibition of measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions: Article 34 and Article 35 of the TFEU The Court of Justice of the European Union considers that any charge, whatever it is called or however it is applied, ‘which, if imposed upon a product imported from a Member State to the exclusion of a similar domestic product has, by altering its price, the same effect upon the free movement of products as a customs duty’, may be regarded as a charge having equivalent effect, regardless of its nature or form ( Joined cases 2/62 and 3/62, and Case 232/78). Since there is no definition of the aforementioned concept in the Treaty, case law has had to provide one. Prohibition of charges having an effect equivalent to that of customs duties: Article 28(1) and Article 30 of the TFEU These objectives became central in the ongoing effort to achieve free movement of goods. This deadline was not met in the case of the supplementary objectives – the prohibition of measures having an equivalent effect, and the harmonisation of relevant national laws. The elimination of customs duties and quantitative restrictions (quotas) between Member States was accomplished by 1 July 1968. Later on, the emphasis was placed on eliminating all remaining obstacles to the free movement of goods, with a view to creating the internal market. Originally, the free movement of goods was seen as part of a customs union between the Member States, involving the abolition of customs duties, quantitative restrictions on trade and equivalent measures, and the establishment of a common external tariff for the Union. The right to the free movement of goods originating in Member States, and of goods from third countries which are in free circulation in the Member States, is one of the fundamental principles of the Treaty (Article 28 of the TFEU). Legal basisĪrticle 26 and Articles 28-37 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). A study from early 2021 pictures how the effect of future pandemics on the free movement of goods may be lessened by implementing measures that boost the internal market’s resilience. The COVID-19 pandemic has had negative implications for the free movement of goods, however. The adoption of the New Legislative Framework in 2008 strengthened the free movement of goods, the EU’s market surveillance system and the CE mark. The principles of mutual recognition, elimination of physical and technical barriers and promotion of standardisation were added in order to continue the completion of the internal market. The free movement of goods is secured through the elimination of customs duties and quantitative restrictions and the prohibition of measures having an equivalent effect.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |