umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Article 28 E.C. and rules on use: A step towards a workable doctrine on measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions
Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Law.
Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Law.
2010 (English)In: The Columbia journal of European law, ISSN 1076-6715, Vol. 16, no 1, 191-231 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In June 2009 the European Court of Justice (E.C.J.) decided the Mickelsson case (C-142/05). Mickelsson concerns the application of the (in)famous Article 28 E.C. prohibiting practical obstacles to the free movement of goods within the European Union. The meaning of Article 28 is notoriously vague and has given rise to extensive case law. Mickelsson brings attention to a little discussed dimension of Article 28 E.C.: the fact that rules on use (i.e. national measures regulating how, when, and by whom goods can be used) can constitute practical obstacles to trade (so called MEQRs—measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions). Rules on use do not fit the conventional concepts and principles established in the case law of the E.C.J.

In this Article we examine the application of Article 28 on rules on use, but we also discuss the implications of this development for the free movement of goods in general. We argue that the recent decisions handed down by the E.C.J. have three distinct advantages over previous case law on MEQRs. Firstly, the Court of Justice has approached the concept of MEQRs broadly, thus managing to accommodate national measures that do not easily fit the traditional categories employed in relation to Article 28. Secondly, the Court’s approach is pragmatic and allows for the relatively simple identification of obvious breaches while providing a more nuanced approach based on market access for “hard cases.” Finally, the new approach improves upon existing case law without discarding workable elements established previously.

While many questions remain unanswered, we argue that the Court’s recent case law on rules on use is a clear and much needed step in the right direction towards a workable doctrine of MEQRs, not only for rules on use but for the entire field of free movement of goods.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
New York: Parker School of Foreign and Comparative Law , 2010. Vol. 16, no 1, 191-231 p.
National Category
Law
Research subject
europarätt
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-32763OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-32763DiVA: diva2:305698
Available from: 2012-03-30 Created: 2010-03-25 Last updated: 2017-12-12Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Lindholm, JohanDerlén, Mattias
By organisation
Department of Law
In the same journal
The Columbia journal of European law
Law

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 257 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf