WorkConnexions

Articles 23-31 of the treaty of Rome set out the law in relation to the free movement of goods. Article 23 states that the EC community shall be based upon union which shall cover all trade in goods an shall involve the prohibition between member states of customs and duties on imports and exports and all charges having equivalent effect.

There are number of exceptions to this rule that have been developed since the treaty of Rome's implementation. It is important to note that EU Law imposes a negative duty not to do something as seen in Article 25. The rule of reason was developed to allow indistinctly applicable measures to exist.

MEQRs was first developed in the case of Dassonville and is very broad in its meaning which meant that a lot of actions by member states fell foul of the act. Distinctly and indistinctly applicable measures refers to goods that are imported or which are imported and domestically produced. It is easier to assess breaches of distinctly applicable measures because in assessing their effect on the market. It is easier to show discrimination in favour of domestic products as the case of Dassonville. Indistinctly applicable measures is less straight forward.

In the case of Cassis de Dijon EU law underwent some substantive changes in this area. The case dealt with the prohibition of various liquors in Germany with an alcohol content lower than 25%. The claimant attempted to import alcohol with a content of 15 to 20 percent. The ECJ introduced two principles to address this problems caused by its previous failure in the dassonville case to distinguish between distinctly applicable and indistinctly applicable measures. These would allow exceptions whereby indistinctly applicable measure would not be subject to article 28 and therefore allow those indistinctly applicable measures to stand.

Restriction will be allowed for indistinctly applicable measure if they can satisfy certain mandatory requirements such as:

Effectivenss of Fiscal supervision
Protection of Public health
Fairness of consumer transactions
Defence of the consumer

The general rule appears to be that if a measure is necessary then it can be allowed under the Rule of Reason. Because the rule of reason is not exhaustive it can only give examples of what has been permitted in the past.

The core of this policy is that there are number of internal member state laws which raises the question as whether internal law that almost seems customary actually prohibites trade as under Article 28. In Cinetheque where the French government prohibited the releases of films on video tapes and other mediums intill after a substantial period where they had been shown in cinemas. This was purely an internal measure but it did affect trade. If the ideals of the rule of reason are to be met. This case was argued under protection of a member states culture. Can be seen as a direct hindrance to other competitors in the field outside. Although it did protect the French film industry and probably could have been better argued under defence of the consumer. They could have claimed that it protected copyright and insured a reasonable return on investment. Instead they argued on protection of culture and lost.

With liberalisation of the indistinct applicable measure in Keck & Mithouard where the ECJ ruled that if a measure constituted a selling arrangement then it would not breach Article 28. In Torfaen which related to Sunday trading the ECJ found the rule of reason could be applied comfortably to stop the misuse of article 28. The matter concerned whether the English law limiting opening hours was in contravention of free trade. This case would have been step to far that the ECJ could expect to overrule the council in such a minor matter. The case matter Torfean is not in close proximity to article 28 and so the exception is justified as an indistinct applicable measure in relation the extension of the rule in Keck & Mithouard.

A selling measure gave not just the courts but also individual member states the freedom to interpret Article 28 in the most suitable way as to enhance the EU objectives. As there are quirks in each individual's countries business practises and the values that people living there place on them. As in Torfean the ECJ recognised that there a number of special instances' where the matter is best left to the national courts so as not to bring the whole article 28 into disrepute with unlimited amount of claims.