Free movement of goods: Recent developments in the case law

Common Market Law Review

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 649-704

  Oliver, Peter ^a,b   Enchelmaier, Stefan ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ LIBRE DE BRUXELLES   (Belgium)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMPETITION AND TAX LAW   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 62349092743     PISSN: 01650750     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (367)

1. Joined Cases C-267 & 268/91, [1993] ECR I-6097.
2. Developments in Community legislation and Commission Communications will not be charted here. Readers may, however, wish to take note of the Commission interpretative Communication on facilitating the access of products to the markets of other Member States: the practical application of mutual recognition (O.J. 2003, C 265/2);
3. they may also be interested in the package of measures to boost trade in goods within the EU, unveiled by the Commission on 14 Feb. 2007 (IP/07/181), in particular the proposal for a Regulation laying down procedures relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another Member State, COM(2007)36 final.
4. E.g. Oliver "Some Further Reflections on the Scope of Articles 28-30 (ex 30-36) EC", 36 CML Rev. (1999), 783;
5. see also more generally Oliver and Roth "The Internal Market and the Four Freedoms", 41 CML Rev. (2004) 407.
6. Emphasis added.
7. Emphasis added.
8. Joined Cases 314-316 & 83/82, Waterkeyn, [1982] ECR 4337;
9. Case 286/81, Oosthoek, [1982] ECR 4575;
10. th ed., vol. 1, (Nomos, 2003), at p. 962;
11. th ed. (Sweet & Maxwell, 2003) at paras. 6.96 et seq.
12. As to persons, see Case 115/78, Knoors v. Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, [1979] ECR 399;
13. Case C-136/78, Auer, [1979] ECR 437;
14. Case C-175/78, R v. Saunders, [1979] ECR 1129;
15. Cases C-35 & 36/83, Morson and Jhanjhan v. Netherlands, [1982] ECR 3273;
16. Case C-332/90, Steen v. Deutsche Bundespost, [1992] ECR I-341;
17. Martin and Guild, Free Movement of Persons in the European Union, (Butterworths, 1996), pp. 25-6;
18. Wölker and Grill in von der Groeben and Schwarze (note 6 supra, pp. 1325-7 and Troberg and Tiedje in Groeben and Schwarze, note 6 supra, p. 1513. As to services, see Knoors (cited supra) and Cases 52/79, Procureur du Roi v. Debauve, [1980] ECR 833 and C-70/95, Sodemare v. Lombardy, [1997] ECR I 3395;
19. Martin and Guild, at pp. 71-2 and Troberg and Tiedje, at p. 1625. As to capital, see Case C-515/99, Reisch v. Salzburg, [2002] ECR I-2157 and Leo Flynn, "Coming of age: The free movement of capital, case law 1993-2002", 38 CML Rev. (2001), 773 at 784-5.
20. Case C-441/04, [2006] ECR I-2093.
21. Joined Cases C-363/93 etc., [1994] ECR I-3957. See Keppenne and van Ypersele "Vers une application du droit communautaire à des obstacles à la libre circulation des merchandises à l'intérieur d'un Etat membre", (1994) JTDE, 179;
22. Slotboom, "L'application du Traité CE au commerce intraétatique? Le cas de l'octroi de mer", (1996) CDE, 9;
23. Weyer, "Freier Warenverkehr, rein innerstaatliche Sachverhalte und umgekehrte Diskriminierung", (1998) EuR, 435.
24. Joined Cases 2 & 3/69, Diamantarbeiders v. Brachfeld, [1969] ECR 211, para 14.
25. Lancry, para 27.
26. Para 28.
27. Para 29.
28. In the case on the customs system between Germany and Austria, the Permanent Court of International Justice of 1931 endorsed Austria's view that the following arrangements "certainly" constituted a customs union: "uniformity of customs law and of customs tariff; unity of the customs frontiers and of the customs territory vis-à-vis third States; freedom from import and export duties in the exchange of goods between the partner States; apportionment of the duties collected according to a fixed quota" (Compendium of Consultative Decrees, Directives and Opinions, Series A-B, no. 41, p. 51). Art. XXIV(8)(a) GATT 1947 reads: "A customs union shall be understood to mean the substitution of a single customs territory for two or more customs territories, so that (i) duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce [apart from certain exceptions] are eliminated with respect to substantially all the trade between the constituent territories of the union ⋯" (emphasis added).
29. A.G. Poiares Maduro in para 46 of his Opinion in Case C-72/03, Carbonati Apuani v. Carrara, [2004] ECR I-8027, and A.G. Léger in para 122 of his Opinion in Case C-293/02, Jersey Produce Marketing Organisation v. Jersey Potato Marketing Board, [2005] ECR I-9543. See further below.
30. That principle is now enshrined in Art. 5 EC and the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (O.J. 1997, C 340/105).
31. Para 30.
32. Para 31. The ruling in Lancry was confirmed in Joined Cases C-485 & 486/93, Simitzi v. Kos [1995] ECR I-2665, where the principle was also extended to "exports" from the region concerned.
33. See note 15 supra.
34. See note 15 supra.
35. Para 46 of the Opinion.
36. Para 69 of the Opinion.
37. Para 46.
38. nd ed. (OUP, 2006), at pp. 36 et seq.
39. This is reflected in Art. 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (O.J. 2000, C 364/1).
40. See the text accompanying footnote 13;
41. see para 22 of the judgment in Carbonati.
42. Para 23 of the judgment.
43. The circumstance that some of the affected consignments would remain in Italy, albeit outside Carrara, is beside the point: Case C-47/90, Delhaize v. Promalvin, [1992] ECR I-3669 (see Part 9 below). Conversely, it is well established that restrictions on imports into part of the territory of a Member State may fall under Art. 28 EC: Cases C-21/88, Du Pont de Nemours v. Unità Sanitare Locale, [1990] ECR I-889;
44. C-1/90, Aragonesa de Publicidad v. Departamento de Sanidad, [1991] ECR I-4151;
45. C-277/91, Ligur Carni v. Unità Sanitare Locale, [1993] ECR I-6621 and C-67/97, Bluhme, [1998] ECR I-8033.
46. Para 108 of the A.G.'s Opinion. Somewhat idiosyncratically, the Jersey legislation defined "export" as "The sending of sale of potatoes outside of the Island whether directly or via some other place to a destination in the United Kingdom, the Bailiwick of Guernsey or the Isle of Man for consumption there".
47. On the status of the Channel Islands, see Oliver, op. cit. note 6 supra, at para 3.03.
48. Art. 3 of Council Regulation 2913/92 establishing the Community customs code, O.J. 1992, L 311/17, as amended.
49. See Simmonds, "The British Islands and the Community", (1968-1969) CML Rev., 153.
50. Para 122.
51. That view had been advanced by A.G. Tesauro in Case C-300/89, Commission v. Council (titanium dioxide), [1991] ECR I-2687 at 2887-9 and tacitly accepted by the Court in that case. For a review of the literature on this issue, see Oliver, note 6 supra, at p. 8.
52. Case C-465/00, Rechnungshof v. Österreichischer Rundfunk, [2003] ECR I-4989, para 41, confirmed in Case C-101/01, Lindqvist, [2003] ECR I-12971, para 40.
53. Para 140 of his Opinion. At first sight, this approach might appear to be at variance with the ruling in Case C-30/01, Commission v. United Kingdom (failure to implement certain Directives in Gibraltar), [2003] ECR I-9481, where Art. 95 was effectively treated by the Court as an adjunct to the Treaty provisions on free movement; the Court found that Community legislation based on Art. 95 and relating to goods was "inextricably tied" to the free movement of goods (para 62) and therefore did not apply to goods in territories outside the Community customs territory. However, on closer examination, the Opinion in Jersey potatoes is consonant with that judgment: there is no contradiction between saying (i) that Art. 95 is an adjunct to the Treaty provisions on free movement, and (ii) that Art. 95 is a valid legal basis for legislation which goes further than those Treaty provisions.
54. Joined Cases C-321/94 etc., Criminal proceedings against Jacques Pistre and others, [1997] ECR I-2343.
55. This development was preceded by Case C-132/93, Steen v. Deutsche Bundespost, [1994] ECR I-2715. In that case, the Court held that, in a situation to which Art. 39 EC does not apply because it is internal to one Member State, nothing precludes national courts from considering whether a measure entailing reverse discrimination is contrary to their national Constitution.
56. Case C-448/98, Guimont, [2000] ECR I-10663 and Case C-71/02, Karner v. Troostwijk, [2004] ECR I-3025, paras. 19-20. This case law was transposed to services in Case C-6/01, Anomar v. Portugal, [2003] ECR I-8621, and to capital in Reisch (note 7 supra) and Case C-300/01, Salzmann, [2003] ECR I-4899.
57. Simon and Lagondet, "Libre circulation des marchandises et situations purement internes: chronique d'une mort annoncée", Europe - Edition du Juris-Classeur July 1997, p. 7;
58. Tagaras, "Règles communautaires de libre circulation, discriminations à rebours et situations dites 'purement internes'", in Melanges en hommage à Michel Waelbroeck (1999) vol II, p. 1499;
59. Weyer, op. cit. note 9 supra. For Enchelmaier (Europä isches Wirtschaftsrecht (Kohlhammer, 2005), p. 67, para 40), no actual trade is required to trigger the application of Art. 28 to distinctly applicable measures, but some pre-existing trade must be affected if the measure is indistinctly applicable. Some authors welcome this development: Gaja, "Les discriminations à rebours: un revirement souhaitable" in Melanges en hommage à Michel Waelbroeck and Weyer, cited supra. For a favourable but more cautious approach, see Judges Due and Gulmann "Restrictions à la libre circulation intracommunautaire et situations purement internes" in Colneric, Edward, Puissochet, Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer (Eds.), Une communauté de droit: Festschrift für Gil Carlos Rodríguez Iglesias (2003) p. 377 at 382.
60. See in particular Cases C-28/95, Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst, [1997] ECR I-4161 and C-130/95, Giloy v. Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main-Ost, [1997] ECR I-4291, both noted by Betlem 32 CML Rev. 165;
61. also Oliver "La recevabilité des questions préjudicielles: la jurisprudence des années 1990", (2001) CDE, 15.
62. Case C-159/00, [2002] ECR I-5031.
63. Paras. 71 et seq. of his Opinion.
64. For an analogous judgment in relation to Art. 39 EC, see Case C-281/98, Angonese, [2000] ECR I-4139.
65. O.J. 1983, L 109/8, as amended; now replaced by Directive 98/34 (O.J. 1998, L 204/37) as amended.
66. Note 8 supra.
67. Para 9.
68. Case C-292/92, [1993] ECR I-6787 at 6813.
69. At 6813; similarly, para 37 of the Opinion of A.G. Poiares Maduro in Cases C-158 & 159/04, Alfa Vita, judgment of 14 Sept. 2006, nyr.
70. Case C-62/00, Mary Carpenter, [2002] ECR I-6279
71. This judgment has been the subject of widespread criticism; see editorial, 40 CML Rev. 537 at 541;
72. Hatzopoulos and Do "The case law of the ECJ concerning the free provision of services: 2000-2005", 43 CML Rev. (2006), 923 at 943-944 and 987-988;
73. Puth "Die unendliche Weite der Grundfreiheiten des EG-Vertrages", 37 EuR 860;
74. and Reich, "Citizenship and Family on Trial: A Fairly Optimistic Overview of Recent Court Practice with Regard to Free Movement of Persons", 39 CML Rev., 615. For a generally more favourable view, see Nic Shuibhne, "Free Movement of Persons and the Wholly Internal Rule: Time to Move On?", 39 CML Rev., 731. On the erosion of the requirement of an interstate element generally, see Hatzopoulos and Do, at 943-945.
75. Cases C-148/02, Garcia Avello, [2003] ECR I-11613;
76. C-200/02, Chen, [2004] ECR I-9925, para 19;
77. and C-403/03, Schempp, [2005] ECR I-6421, para 22. For criticism, see Enchelmaier, op. cit. note 40 supra at p. 209 (para 164).
78. In Garcia Avello and Chen, the children concerned were relying on the fact that they were nationals of a Member State other than the defendant State; and in Schempp the plaintiff's tax problems arose out of the fact that his ex-wife had moved from Germany to Austria.
79. Note 39 supra.
80. Case C-299/95 [1997] ECR I-2629, especially para 15.
81. Case note, (2004) CML Rev., 1683 at 1695-6.
82. Note 19 supra.
83. Op. cit. note 24 supra, at p. 40.
84. Note 51 supra, at 987.
85. Relevant literature in this millennium includes: Baquero Cruz, Between Competition and Free Movement, (2002), pp. 105-125;
86. Canaris, "Drittwirkung der gemeinschaftsrechtlichen Grundfreiheiten", in Bauer, Czybulka, Kahl and Vosskuhle (Eds.), Umwelt, Wirtschaft und Recht, (Tübingen, 2002), 29;
87. Enchelmaier, op. cit. note 40 supra, at p. 37;
88. Ganten, Die Drittwirkung der Grundfreiheiten, (Duncker & Humblot, 2000);
89. Mortelmans "The Relationship between the Treaty Rules and Community Measures for the Establishment and Functioning of the Internal Market - Towards a Concordance Rule", 39 CML Rev., 1303;
90. Oliver, op. cit. note 6 supra, paras. 4.26-4.42;
91. Oliver and Roth, op. cit. note 3 supra, at 421-429;
92. Snell, "Private Parties and the Free Movement of Goods and Services", in Andenas and Roth (Eds.), Services and Free Movement of Goods in EU Law (OUP, 2002) at p. 211;
93. Van den Bogaert, "Horizontality", in Barnard and Scott, The Law of the Single European Market, (Hart, 2002), pp. 123;
94. and Vieweg and Röthel "Verbandsautonomie und Grundfreiheiten", (2002) ZHR, 6 et seq.
95. Case 58/80, [1981] ECR 181
96. Joined Cases 177 & 178/82, [1984] ECR 1797, paras. 11 and 12.
97. Case 311/85, [1987] ECR 3801, para 30;
98. see also Case 65/86, Bayer v. Süllhöfer, [1988] ECR 5249, para 11.
99. E.g. Case 78/70, Deutsche Grammophon v. Metro, [1971] ECR 487 at 500.
100. A.G. Warner in Cases 55 & 57/80, Membran v. GEMA, [1981] ECR 147 at 174-5;
101. Baquero Cruz, op. cit. note 60 supra, at 604;
102. see more generally Müller-Graff, op. cit. note 6 supra, para 324.
103. Note 42 supra, para 74 of the judgment.
104. Case C-325/00, [2002] ECR I-9977, noted by Jarvis 40 CML Rev. 715.
105. In any case, a Member State can only be liable for the acts of private parties in highly exceptional circumstances: Cases C-265/95, Commission v. France (violent protests by farmers), [1997] ECR I-6959, noted by Jarvis 35 CML Rev. (1998), 1371
106. and Schwarze (1998) EuR, 53, and C-112/00 Schmidberger v. Austria [2003] ECR I-5659, para 59;
107. see also Oliver, op. cit. note 6 supra, at para 6.109.
108. Op. cit., note 67 supra.
109. Case 36/74, [1974] ECR 1405.
110. See also Cases 13/76, Donà v. Mantero, [1976] ECR 1333;
111. C-415/93, Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association v. Bosman, [1995] ECR I-4921;
112. C-51/96, Deliège v. Ligue Belge de Judo, [2000] ECR I-2549
113. and C-176/96, Lehtonen v. Fédération Royale Belge des Sociétés de Basketball, [2000] ECR I-2681.
114. Case 309/99, Wouters v. Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, [2002] ECR I-1577, para 120.
115. Also, in Case C-411/98, Ferlini v. Centre Hospitalier du Luxembourg, [2000] ECR I-8081, which concerned an agreement between all the hospitals in a Member State fixing the fees for health care, the Court stated that Art. 12 EC applies where "a group or organization ⋯ exercises a certain power over individuals and is in a position to impose on them conditions which adversely affect the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Treaty" (para 50). Surely the more obvious solution would have been to apply Arts. 81 and 82.
116. Case C-281/98, Angonese v. Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano, [2000] ECR I-4139, para 36.
117. See case note by Lane and Nic Shuibne (2000) CML Rev. 1237.
118. For a critique of the Court's reasoning, see Enchelmaier, note 40 supra, at 37-39.
119. Notes 64 and 65 supra.
120. Case C-383/01, [2003] ECR I-6065
121. On the relationship between Articles 25 and 28, see Case 74/76, Iannelli v. Meroni, [1977] ECR 557;
122. Case 32/80, Kortmann, [1981] ECR 251 and Case C-78/90, Compagnie Commerciale de l'Ouest, [1992] ECR I-1847.
123. As to the interface between Arts. 28 and 90, see Case 27/67, Frink-Frucht, [1968] ECR 223;
124. Iannelli; Case C-252/86, Bergandi, [1988] ECR 1343;
125. and Compagnie Commerciale de l'Ouest. Finally, as to the respective scope of Arts. 25 and 90, see Case C-234/99, Nygård, [2002] ECR I-3657, para 17.
126. Case C-47/88, [1990] ECR I-4509
127. Para 13.
128. Para 42 of his Opinion.
129. Para 76.
130. Case 7/61, Commission v. Italy, [1961] ECR 317 at 329;
131. Case 95/81, Commission v. Italy [1982] ECR 2187, para 27 and Case C-254/98, TK-Heimdienst Sass, [2000] ECR I-151, para 33.
132. See generally Feiden, Die Bedeutung der "Keck" - Rechtsprechung im System der Grundfreiheiten, (Duncker & Humblot, 2003), pp. 121;
133. Mortelmans, "Excepties bij non-tarifaire intracommunautaire belemmeringen: assimilatie in het nieuwe EG-Verdrag?", 45 SEW, 182 at 189;
134. O'Keeffe and Bavasso, "Four Freedoms, One Market and National Competence: In Search of a Dividing Line", in Liber Amicorum in Honour of Lord Slynn of Hadley, vol. I, (2000) p. 541;
135. Snell, Goods and Services in EC Law - A Study of the relationship between the Freedoms (OUP 2002);
136. Timmermans, "Note on Case C-384/93 Alpine Investments v. Minister van Financiën", 44 SEW, 244;
137. van Gerven, "Articles 30, 48, 52 and 59 after Keck and Mithouard", 2 Columbia Journal of European Law, 217.
138. O.J. 2000, C 264/1. Art. 1 reads: "Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected." Until its judgment of 27 June 2006 in Case C-540/03, European Parliament v. Council (Directive on family reunification), the Court declined to acknowledge the very existence of the Charter; but in para 38 of that judgment, it finally endorsed the general view that the Charter has persuasive authority, although it is not legally binding.
139. Cases C-377/98, Netherlands v. Parliament and Council (Directive on biotechnological inventions), [2001] ECR I-7079, para 70, and C-36/02, Omega Spielhallen v. Bonn, [2004] ECR I-9609.
140. In Art. 1 of the Charter and in Netherlands v. Parliament and Council, human dignity is referred to as an independent fundamental right. In Omega (cited supra) the Court stated that: "the Community legal order undeniably strives to ensure respect for human dignity as a general principle of law. There can therefore be no doubt that the objective of protecting human dignity is compatible with Community law, it being immaterial that in Germany the principle of respect for human dignity has a particular status as an independent fundamental right." (para 34)
141. A.G. Stix-Hackl at para 78 of her Opinion in Omega; references omitted.
142. This occurred in Cases C-484/99, Svensson and Gustavsson, [1995] ECR I-3955.
143. Case C-222/97, Trummer and Mayer [1999] ECR I-1661
144. Case C-452/04, judgment of 3 Oct. 2006, nyr.
145. See e.g. Case 18/84, Commission v. France, [1985] ECR 1339, para 12.
146. See generally Everling, "Sur la jurisprudence récente de la Cour de justice en matière de libre prestation de services rendus dans d'autres Etats membres", 1984 CDE, 3;
147. Pertek in Blumann (Ed.), "Commentaire Mégret: Libre circulation des capitaux", 3rd ed. (2003) at p. 53;
148. Snell, Goods and Services in EC Law: A Study of the Relationship between the Freedoms, (OUP, 2002) p. 226;
149. Troberg and Tiedje, Commentary on the Treaty provisions on services in von der Groeben and Schwarze, op. cit. note 6 supra, at pp. 1616-7.
150. Para 32 of the judgment.
151. This description was coined by Steindorff, "Gemeinsamer Markt als Binnenmarkt", 150 ZHR (1986), 687, at 692.
152. Note 1 supra.
153. We the Court - the European Court of Justice and the European Economic Constitution (Hart 1998) at p. 99.
154. O.J. 2004, C 310/1. Readers of this Review are deemed to know that this Constitution has not (yet) been ratified by all the Member States.
155. See generally Hatzopoulos and Do, op. cit. note 51 at 950.
156. Case C-390/99, Canal Satélite Digital v. Spain, [2002] ECR I-607, para 32.
157. Case C-387/01, [2004] ECR I-4981.
158. Para 54.
159. E.g. Case C-451/99, Cura Anlagen v. Auto Service Leasing, [2002] ECR I-3193, para 18 (leasing as a service with the ancillary movement between Member States of the leased cars);
160. Case C-6/01, Anomar v. Portugal, [2003] ECR I-8621, paras. 54-56 (offering of games of chance as a service, with an ancillary supply of gaming machines);
161. Omega Spielhallen, note 85 supra, paras. 25-27 (equipment for laser-games);
162. the reverse situation (services ancillary to the distribution of goods) prevailed in Case C-20/03, Burmanjer et al., [2005] ECR I-4133, para 33.
163. See Enchelmaier, op. cit. note 40 supra paras. 281-286 (pp. 306-309),
164. Hatzopoulos and Do, op. cit. note 51 supra at 948-956
165. and Oliver, op. cit. supra note 6, paras. 2.34-2.50 (p. 35-44).
166. Note 99 supra.
167. Paras. 32-33.
168. Case 7/78, [1978] ECR 2247
169. In Thompson itself, only coins were in issue. That judgment was confirmed in Bordessa (note 88 supra), where the principle was held to apply equally to banknotes.
170. See Flynn, op. cit. supra note 7 at 773.
171. Case 120/78, Rewe-Zentral v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, [1979] ECR 649.
172. Joined Cases C-401 & 402/92, 't Heukske v. Boermans, [1994] ECR I-2199 and C-69/93, Punto Casa v. Capena, [1994] ECR I-2355.
173. Case C-319/92, Commission v. Greece (processed milk for infants), [1995] ECR I-1621.
174. Hünermund (note 48 supra), Case C-412/93, Leclerc-Siplec, [1995] ECR I-179, Case C-34/95, Konsumentenombudsmannen v. De Agostini, [1997] ECR I-3843, Case C-405/98, Konsumentenombudsmannen v. Gourmet International, [2001] ECR I-1795.
175. Case C-63/94, Belgapom v. ITM Belgium, [1995] ECR I-2467. These were already subject to a discrimination test prior to Keck, see e.g. Case 13/77, GB-Inno v. ATAB, [1977] ECR 2115.
176. Case C-470/93, Verein gegen Unwesen im Handel v. Mars, [1995] ECR I-1923 and Case C-368/95, Vereinigte Familiapress v. Heinrich Bauer Verlag, [1997] ECR I-3689. Mars concerned a prohibition on the sale of ice-cream bars with wrapping papers bearing the symbols "+ 10%". Theoretically, two alternative options were open to the Court: it could treat such a measure either as a labelling requirement (a product-bound measure) or it could treat it as advertising (a, "selling arrangement"). Familiapress related to a prohibition on the sale of periodicals containing games or competitions for prizes; again this could have been categorized as a restriction on the content of the periodicals (a product-bound measure) or as a restriction on promotion (a "selling arrangement"). In both cases, the Court found that the measures in issue were to be regarded as product-bound.
177. Recent additions to the vast literature on the topic (not all of it critical) include: Classen, "Die Grundfreiheiten im Spannungsfeld von europäischer Marktfreiheit und mitgliedstaatlichen Regelungskompetenzen", (2004) EuR 416;
178. Enchelmaier, "The Awkward Selling of a Good Idea, or: For a Traditionalist Interpretation of Keck", 22 YEL (2003), 249;
179. idem, "Four Freedoms, How Many Principles?", 24 OJLS (2004), 155;
180. Mayer, "Die Warenverkehrsfreiheit im Europarecht - eine Rekonstruktion", (2003) EuR, 793;
181. Müller-Graff, commentary on Article 28 EC, op. cit. note 6 supra, para 239, note 715, and para 240, note 720;
182. Oliver, op. cit. note 6 supra, paras. 6.54 et seq.;
183. Oliver and Roth, op. cit. note 3 supra.
184. Note 111 supra, paras. 38 et seq.
185. Opinion of A.G. Jacobs in Leclerc-Siplec, paras. 39-45.
186. The Court has consistently rejected the application of de minimis test in this area of the law: Cases 177-178/82, Van de Haar, [1984] ECR 1797,
187. and Case C-67/97, Bluhme, [1998] ECR I-8033.
188. Para 21 of the Opinion.
189. Case C-239/02 [2004] ECR I-7007, paras. 67 et seq.
190. Note 49 supra.
191. Note 111 supra, para 42.
192. Case C-337/95 [1997] ECR I-6013, para 51.
193. Note 111 supra, para 21, noted by Stuyck (2001) CDE, 683.
194. Note 48 supra.
195. Paras. 33, 36, and 40-41 of the Opinion, noted (only the Opinion) by Reich, (2006) EuZW, 304-305.
196. Opinion (supra note 49), paras. 43-45.
197. Case C-110/05 (pending).
198. Para 39.
199. Case C-142/05 (pending).
200. Paras. 42 et seq.
201. The case law is replete with similar examples such as the prohibition on the sale of cider vinegar (Case 788/89, Gilli, [1980] ECR 2071), substitute milk powder (Case 216/84, Commission v. France, [1988] ECR 793 and Case 76/86, Commission v. Germany, [1989] ECR 1021) and pasta manufactured from soft wheat (Case 407/85, Drei Glocken, [1988] ECR 4233 and Case 90/86, Zoni, [1988] ECR 4285).
202. It is generally considered that in Case C-384/93, Alpine Investments BV v. Minister van Financiën, [1995] ECR I-1141, the Court declined to transpose the principles laid down in Keck to services. However, the better view is that it found that the restriction in issue in Alpine, a ban on "cold-calling", was not a selling arrangement: see Enchelmaier, "The Awkward Selling of a Good Idea, or a Traditionalist Interpretation of Keck", 22 YEL (2003), 249, at 315-317 and "Four Freedoms, How Many Principles?" 24 OJLS (2004), 155, 165-168, and Snell op. cit. note 83 supra at pp. 29, 67, 94-98, 222. Hatzopoulos and Do, op. cit. note 51 supra at 960, maintain that, as a result of recent shifts in the case law on services, the rules on goods and services are now equivalent to one another despite the different language employed by the Court.
203. See also Feiden op. cit., note 83 supra. As to whether Keck should apply to persons, see A.G. Tizzano's Opinion in Case C-442/02, Caixa-Bank France v. Ministre de l'Economie, des Finances et de l'Industrie, [2004] ECR I-8961. In two recent cases, the Court has declined to transpose the principles in Keck to the free movement of capital: Cases C-98/01, Commission v. UK ("BAA Golden Share"), [2003] ECR I-4641, paras. 45-47, and Case C-463/00, Commission v. Spain (Repsol), [2003] ECR I-4579, paras. 59-61; (both cases are noted by Gippini-Fournier and Rodríguez Míguez, 1 RDUE (2003), 39-86, and by Spindler, (2003) RIW, 850-858). However, once again it would seem that the Court did not reject the application of the principles in Keck to the free movement of capital outright, but merely considered that the measures in issue in these cases were not comparable to selling arrangements. See Barnard, The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms (OUP, 2004) at p. 471, Haferkamp, Die Kapitalverkehrsfreiheit im System der Grundfreiheiten des EG-Vertrags, (Nomos, 2003), pp. 84, 95.
204. Note 99 supra, para 30.
205. In the same vein, the Court has repeatedly held during the reference period that any legislation which required any alterations to a product or its packaging did not relate to selling arrangements: Cases C-12/00, Commission v. Spain, (Chocolate), [2003] ECR I-459, paras. 75, 76;
206. C-14/00, Commission v. Italy, (Chocolate), [2003] ECR I-513, paras. 75, 76;
207. Case C-416/00, Morellato v. Commune di Padova, [2003] ECR I-9343, paras. 27-36, noted by Rigaux, (2003) 11 Europe Chron. n° 13, p. 7-11;
208. C-463/01, Commission v. Germany, (Packaging), [2004] ECR I-11705, paras. 66-69;
209. C-309/02, Radlberger Getränkege sellschaft und Spitz v. Land Baden-Württemberg, [2004] ECR I-11763, para 71. This is scarcely novel, since packaging requirements are expressly mentioned in the list of product-bound requirements in para 15 of Keck.
210. Paras. 18 and 19.
211. Note 39 supra.
212. Note 42 supra, paras. 72-73.
213. E.g. Case C-6/98 ARD v. Pro Sieben Media [1999] ECR I-7599, para 48.
214. Case C-322/01, Deutscher Apothekerverband v. 0800 DocMorris and Waterval, [2003] ECR I-14887, para 69.
215. Note 138 supra; this case has been annotated by Streinz, (2003) EuZW, 37-44;
216. Koenig, Beer and Meurer, (2004) Zeitschrift für euro päisches Sozial- und Arbeitsrecht, 57-64;
217. Marwitz, (2004) Multimedia und Recht, 218-222;
218. Delforge, (2004) Revue de droit commercial belge, 435-461.
219. In his note on this case (42 CML Rev., 189 at 202-204), Lang maintains that no discrimination occurred in this case, since virtual pharmacies established in Germany were subject to the ban in precisely the same way as those situate in other Member States. This approach appears unduly narrow and at variance with economic reality. At the same time, one can only agree with his expression of concern that an excessively extensive reading of the concept of de facto discrimination will undermine Keck.
220. Case C-416/00, [2003] ECR I-9343, para 37.
221. Case C-319/92, [1995] ECR I-1621.
222. By the same token, it has been held that no tax discrimination exists within the meaning of the first para of Article 90 EC if, within a system of tax bands formed on the basis of objective criteria, only products imported from other Member States fall within the higher bands: Case 140/79, Chemial Farmaceutici v. DAF, [1981] ECR 1, paras. 12-18, Case C-132/88, Commission v. Greece, (Car taxation), [1990] ECR I-1593, para 18.
223. Para 53.
224. Case 229/83 [1985] ECR 17.
225. Para 27.
226. C-137/00, Milk Marque and National Farmers' Union, [2003] ECR I-7975, paras. 114-115.
227. Note 138 supra, para 130.
228. The case law on the other three fundamental freedoms has followed a broadly similar path. Case C-23/93, TV10 v. Commissiariaat voor de Media, [1994] ECR I-4795, which related to services, was decided along the same lines as Leclerc. However, in more recent judgments the Court has demonstrated great indulgence towards such practices. This is evidenced by Case C-212/97, Centros, [1999] ECR I-1459, where Danish nationals resident in Denmark were held to be entitled under Art. 43 EC to set up a company in the United Kingdom so as to evade national rules for the establishment of companies, even though the company traded exclusively in Denmark. Similarly, in Case C-109/01, Akrich, [2003] ECR I-9607, the plaintiff in the main case was a Moroccan man whose wife was a United Kingdom national; after he was expelled from that Member State, the couple moved to Ireland, with the express purpose of enabling him to invoke his rights under Council Regulation 1612/68 (OJ English Spec. Ed. 1968(II), p. 475) as amended, which supplements Art. 39 EC; despite this, the Court held that, pursuant to that provision, Mr Akrich was entitled to re-enter the United Kingdom. See generally Cases C-110/99, Emsland- Stärke, [2000] ECR I-11569 and C-279/05, Vonk, judgment of 11 Jan. 2007, nyr, and Kjellgren, "On the Border of Abuse: The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice on Circumvention, Fraud and Abuses of Community Law", in Andenas and Roth, op. cit. note 60 supra, Tryantafyllou, "L'interdiction des abus de droit en tant que principe general du droit communataire", (2002) CDE, 611 and Denis Waelbroeck, "La notion d'abus de droit dans l'ordre juridique communautaire" in Mélanges en hommage à Jean-Victor Louis (Editions de l'Université Libre de Bruxelles, 2003), vol. I at p. 595.
229. Case 15/79, [1979] ECR 3409, para 7.
230. Case C-9/89, Spain v. Council, [1990] ECR I-1383, para 21, and Case 339/89, Alsthom Altantique, [1991] ECR I-107, para 14.
231. Case 155/80, [1981] ECR I-3147.
232. Delhaize, note 28 supra, para 12;
233. Case C-80/92, Commission v. Belgium (radiocommunications equipment), [1994] ECR I-1019, para 24;
234. Case C-203/96, Dusseldorp v. Minister van Milieubeheer, [1998] ECR I-4075, and Case C-209/98, FFAD v. Københavns Kommune, [2000] ECR I-3743, para 34.
235. Case C-388/95, [2000] ECR I-3123, para 41.
236. Para 7.
237. Note 153 supra, para 34 of the judgment.
238. Case 207/83, Commission v. UK ('Origin markings'), [1985] ECR 1201, para 17.
239. Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776),
240. reprinted in W.B. Todd (ed.), Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, vol. 1, Oxford 1976, Book I, Ch. III, para 1 (p. 31): "[a]s it is the power of exchanging that gives occasion to the division of labour, so the extent of this division must always be limited by the extent of that power, or, in other words, by the extent of the market.".
241. Case C-415/93, [1995] ECR I-4921.
242. Defalque, Commentaire Mégret - Le droit de la CEE, 2nd ed. (1992) Vol. 1 at 268;
243. Müller-Graff, commentary on Art. 29 in v.d. Groeben and Schwarze, op. cit. note 6 supra, at para 15;
244. VerLoren van Themaat "De artikelen 30-36 van het EEG-verdrag" RM Themis 4/5 (1980) 378. Contra, A.G. Capotorti in Oebel (note 152 supra).
245. Enchelmaier, note 40 supra, at 91-96, Müller-Graff, commentary on Art. 29 EG in v.d. Groeben and Schwarze, op. cit. note 6 supra, at para 21 et seq.;
246. Oliver and Roth, op. cit. note 3 supra at 419-421;
247. Roth, "Wettbewerb der Mitgliedstaaten oder Wettbewerb der Hersteller?", 159 ZHR, 78;
248. Schroeder, "Art. 29 EGV", in Streinz (Ed.), EUV/EGV, (2003), at para 5;
249. von Wilmowsky, "Ausnahmebereiche gegenüber den EG-Grundfreiheiten?", 31 EuR, 362, 363.
250. Note 131 supra, para 55 of the Opinion.
251. See both articles referred to in note 161 supra;
252. see also Müller-Graff, op. cit. note 161 supra, paras. 21 et seq.
253. Müller-Graff, op. cit. supra note 6, para 28;
254. Oliver and Roth, op. cit. supra note 3.
255. Case C-108/01, Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma and Salumificio S. Rita v. Asda and Hygrade, [2003] ECR I-5121;
256. Case C-469/00, Ravil v. Bellon and Biraghi, [2003] ECR I-5053,
257. both noted by Enchelmaier, 41 CMLRev. (2004), 825.
258. See also Case C-12/02, Grilli, [2003] ECR I-11585, para 41.
259. Note 147 supra, para 118.
260. Note 165 supra, para 22 of his Opinion.
261. Delhaize, note 28 supra, Belgium v. Spain, note 154 supra.
262. O.J. 1996, L 148/1, as sub se quent ly amended. This Regulation lists Protected Designations of Origin as granted under Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and de sig na tions of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, O.J. 1992, L 208/1, as subsequently amended; the latter Regulation has now been replaced by Regulation 510/2006 (O.J. 2006, L 93/12). For a fuller exposition, see Enchelmaier supra note 165, p. 826 et seq.
263. It is well established that Community legislation must comply with the Treaty provisions on free movement. For Art. 28, the Court had already so held in Case C-51/93, Meyhui NV v. Schott Zwiesel Glaswerke AG, [1994] ECR I-3879, para 11;
264. cf. Prosciutto di Parma, supra note 165, para 53,
265. Ravil, supra note 165, para 86.
266. Equally, it is plain that a treaty concluded by a Member State may fall foul of the Treaty: Case C-3/91, Exportur v. LOR, [1992] ECR I-5529, para 8
267. and, on the Benelux trademark law, Dior, note 121 supra; paras. 21-25.
268. Case C-66/00, Bigi, [2002] ECR I-5917, para 32.
269. Prosciutto di Parma, supra note 165, paras. 54, 56-58;
270. Ravil, supra note 165, paras. 40-43.
271. Note 108 supra.
272. Case 823/79, Carciati, [1980] ECR 2773 and
273. Case 134/83, Abbink, [1986] ECR 4097.
274. Case C-362/88, GB-Inno v. Confédération du commerce luxembourgeois, [1990] ECR I-667;
275. Case C-99/01, Linhart and Biffl, [2002] ECR I-9375;
276. Case C-166/03, Commission v. France (Precious metals), [2004] ECR I-6535;
277. Case C-147/04, De Groot en Slot Allium and Bejo Zaden, [2006] ECR I-245.
278. Case 6/81, Industrie Diensten Groep v. Beele, [1982] ECR 707;
279. Case C-51/94 Commission v. Germany ("sauce hollandaise"), [1995] ECR I-3599, paras. 33-36.
280. Case 302/86, Commission v. Denmark (disposable bottles), [1988] ECR 4607;
281. Case C-2/90, Commission v. Belgium (Walloon waste), [1992] ECR I-4431
282. Case C-389/96, Aher-Waggon v. Germany, [1998] ECR I-4473, para 20;
283. Case C-379/98, PreussenElektra v. Schleswag, [2001] ECR I-2099,
284. and Case C-320/03, Commission v. Austria (lorries), [2005] ECR I-9871.
285. Oebel, note 152 supra;
286. Case C-169/91 Stoke-on-Trent v. B&Q, [1992] ECR I-6635.
287. Vereinigte Familiapress, note 113 supra.
288. Schmidberger, supra note 68, discussed in Part 10.4 below.
289. Case 178/84, Commission v. Germany (beer), [1987] ECR 1227, para 30, and Case C-239/90, Boscher, [1991] ECR I-2023, para 17.
290. De Agostini, note 111 supra, para 46.
291. Familiapress, note 113 supra, para 18.
292. This approach was first laid down in Case 113/80, Commission v. Ireland (origin marking), [1982] ECR 1625.
293. The most striking and best known example is the Walloon Waste case, supra note 177, relating to the environment. In addition, in certain cases the Court found a measure to be "indistinctly applicable" on the most tenuous basis, merely so as to be able to consider the mandatory requirements at all: Case 16/83, Prantl, [1984] ECR 1299 and Case 274/87, Commission v. Germany (meat), [1989] ECR 229. Similarly, in Commission v. Austria (note 177 supra), A.G. Geelhoed found that the restriction in issue was "indistinctly applicable" even though local traffic was exempted (paras. 89 et seq. of the Opinion);
294. see case note by Schrauwen 2006 CML Rev. 1447.
295. Among the authors supporting the traditional approach, the following should be mentioned: Ahlfeld, Zwingende Erfordernisse im Sinne der Cassis-Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs zu Art. 30 EGV (1997) passim;
296. Hatzopoulos, "Exigences essentielles, impératives ou impérieuses: une théorie, des théories, ou pas de théorie du tout?" (1998) RTDE 191.
297. Contra Barnard, "Fitting the remaining pieces into the goods and persons jigsaw", 26 EL Rev. (2001), 35 at 54;
298. Fremuth, "'Cassis de Dijon'; Zu der dogmatischen Einordnung zwingender Erfordernisse", (2006) EuR, 866;
299. Roth "Diskriminierende Regelungen des Warenverkehrs und Rechtfertigung durch die 'zwingende Erfordernisse' des Allgemeininteresses" , (9/2000) WRP, 979;
300. and Weiler, "The Constitution of the Market Place", in Craig and De Búrca (Eds.), The Evolution of EU Law, (Oxford, 1999) at p. 366.
301. Note 153 supra, paras. 89-90 of the Opinion.
302. Note 177 supra.
303. Para 226 of his Opinion.
304. De Agostini, note 111 supra;
305. Case C-120/95, Decker v. Caisse de maladie des employés privés, [1998] ECR I-1831;
306. PreussenElektra, and Aher-Waggon, both cited supra note 177.
307. See in particular A.G. Geelhoed in Commission v. Austria, note 177 supra.
308. Op. cit., note 51 supra, at p. 961,
309. referring to Case C-243/01, Gambelli, [2003] ECR I-13031, para 60,
310. and Case C-262/02, Commission v. France (Loi Evin), [2004] ECR I-6569, para 23.
311. They regard this trend as a sign that the case law is "reaching maturity" (ibid.).
312. Case 40/82, Commission v. United Kingdom (Newcastle disease), [1982] ECR 2793
313. and Case 42/82, Commission v. France (Italian wine), [1983] ECR 1013.
314. Note 133 supra. The same legislation was in issue in Radlberger (note 133 supra), which was decided at the same time in almost identical terms.
315. Note 177 supra.
316. The protection of the environment has been consistently recognized as a valid ground of justification; see note 177 supra.
317. Commission v. Germany (note 133 supra) paras. 79-82;
318. Commission v. Austria (note 177 supra) para 90.
319. Paras. 81-82.
320. Para 66 of his Opinion.
321. Para 111.
322. Paras. 87 et seq.
323. Sometimes the Court even identifies an alternative measure which would achieve the desired aim without restricting trade between Member States to the same degree. Thus a requirement of adequate labelling of products has often been held to be a suitable substitute for a total sales ban ("Cassis de Dijon", note 108 supra, para 13) or a ban on the use of a particular designation (Guimont, note 39 supra, paras. 31-34). Also, for a recent example, see Case C-387/99, Commission v. Germany ("vitamins"), [2004] ECR I-3751, para 81.
324. Note 99 supra, paras. 35-42.
325. See also Commission v. Germany ("vitamins"), note 202 supra.
326. Note 138 supra.
327. Paras. 112-116 (non-prescription medicines) and 119-124 (prescription medicines).
328. Notably Directive 92/28 on the advertising of medicinal products for human use (O.J. 1992, L 113/13) and Directive 2000/31 on certain legal aspects of information society services in particular electronic commerce, in the internal market (O.J. 2000, L 178/1).
329. Case C-260/89, [1991] ECR I-2925.
330. See also Case C-32/90, Commission v. Germany, (imports of pharmaceuticals) [1992] ECR I-2575, para 23;
331. Familiapress, note 113 supra;
332. Mary Carpenter, supra note 50;
333. see Oliver, op. cit. supra note 58, pp. 238-242.
334. Note 68 supra.
335. Paras. 73 and 74.
336. Paras. 81 and 82.
337. As to the free movement of goods, see in particular, Case 46/76, Bauhuis v. Netherlands, [1977] ECR 5. As to Art. 10(2) ECHR, see ECtHR judgment of 26 Nov. 1991, The Observer and The Guardian v. United Kingdom, A. 216 p. 30 para 59 (a);
338. the Court expressly recognized in Case C-274/99P, Connolly v. Commission, [2001] ECR I-1611, para 41, that Art. 10(2) was to be construed strictly.
339. Para 73 of its judgment (quoted supra). In his case note on Schmidberger (40 CML Rev. 1499), Christopher Brown berates the Court for giving insufficient weight to fundamental rights. In view of this crucial passage of the judgment, this criticism seems somewhat harsh. However, the complaint that the Court's fundamental rights scrutiny lacks sufficient rigour is by no means new: see Frenz, "Grundfreiheiten und Grundrechte", 37 EuR, 606 at 611-613.
340. Paras. 96-99 of the Opinion.
341. In contrast, some controversy surrounds the possible relevance of the demonstrators' motives. The Court found that "the specific aims of the demonstration are not in themselves material in legal proceedings such as those instituted by Schmidberger" (para 66 of the judgment). Brown, op. cit. supra note 214 at 1505, questions whether this approach is compatible with the ECHR; in his view, the situation would have been quite different, if the demonstrators had planned to use the motorway to perform drama or to hold a neo-Nazi march. What is more, the Court appeared to contradict itself in a later passage of its ruling (para 86), when it distinguished Case C-265/95, Commission v. France, (violent protests by farmers), [1997] ECR I-6959 (noted by Jarvis, 35 CML Rev., 1371 and Schwarze, 33 EuR, 53) on the grounds that there the farmers' actions were protectionist in intent. Conceivably, the message from the Court is that any motives are acceptable as long as they are not protectionist. However, with the increased emphasis on fundamental rights and human dignity, and the fact that the internal market has retained its central importance in the Community, would the Court really allow the interests of neo-Nazi protesters to outweigh those of free movement?
342. Case 30/77, Bouchereau, [1977] ECR 1999 at para 35: "⋯ recourse by a national authority to the concept of public policy presupposes ⋯ the existence ⋯ of a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to the requirements of public policy affecting one of the fundamental interests of society".
343. See also para 108 of A.G. Léger's Opinion in Case 1/96, Compassion in World Farming, [1998] ECR I-1251.
344. Note 85 supra, noted by Ackermann, 42 CML Rev. (2005), 1107-1120.
345. "Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar. Sie zu achten und zu schützen ist Verpflichtung aller staatlichen Gewalt." ("Human dignity is inviolable. All public authorities are under a duty to respect and protect it."). Art. 1(1) of the Charter (note 84 supra) is obviously modelled on this provision.
346. Para 93.
347. Familiapress, note 113 supra.
348. Omega, para 31, referring to Case 41/74, van Duyn v. Home Office, [1974] ECR 1337 para 18 and Bouchereau, note 217 supra, para 34.
349. For an up to date account, see Stothers, Parallel Trade in Europe: Intellectual Property, Competition and Regulatory Law (Hart, 2007), chapt. 2.
350. First Council Directive of 21 Dec. 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (89/104/EEC), O.J. 1989, L 40/1, as subsequently amended. For a complete list of all Community instruments relating to intellectual property, see europa.eu.int/eurlex/lex/en/repert/1720.htm.
351. Case C-16/03, Peak Holding v. Axolin-Elinor, [2004] ECR I-11313, para 35 (trade marks).
352. Note 225 supra.
353. Paras. 18, 23, 48.
354. Paras. 39-44.
355. Paras. 52-55.
356. Case C-244/00, van Doren + Q v. Lifestyle sports + sportswear, [2003] ECR I-3051.
357. Paras. 32-41, following the instructive Opinion of A.G. Stix-Hackl, paras. 78-79, 99-100. On the burden of proof, see also Case C-405/03, Class International v. Colgate Palmolive, [2005] ECR I-8735, paras. 73-74.
358. Joined Cases C-71-73/94, Eurimpharm v. Beiersdorf, [1996] ECR I-3603, paras. 42 et seq., sum med up in para 70. For a summary of the jurisprudence on repackaging, see also Case C-143/00, Boehringer Ingelheim et al. v. Swingward and Dowelhurst, [2002] ECR I-3759, paras. 12-16.
359. Boehringer Ingelheim, supra note 232, noted by Gross and Harrold, (2002) EIPR, 497;
360. Dengler, (2002) RDUE, 393;
361. Dryden and Middle miss, (2003) J.B.L. 82;
362. Case C-443/99, Merck, Scharp & Dohme v. Paranova, [2002] ECR I-3703, noted by Dengler loc. cit. The discussion in the main text will focus on the more fully reasoned Boehringer case. In the same proceedings, a second reference is pending: Case C-348/04, Boehringer Ingelheim et al. v. Swingward and Dowelhurst (No. 2), concerning the extent to which repackaging may be considered necessary. A.G. Sharpston delivered her Opinion on 6 April 2006.
363. Case C-143/00, supra note 232, paras. 50-53;
364. Case C-443/99, supra note 233, paras. 25-32;
365. see also the instructive discussion by A.G. Jacobs in his joint Opinion in both cases, paras. 85-100, 110-111, 118.
366. The other five conditions are: (i) that the new packaging does not affect the original condition of the pro duct, and the consumer is provided, where necessary, with adequate instructions; (ii) that the new packaging is not liable to damage the reputation of the product or the proprietor; (iii) that the producer is in formed of the repackaging, and of the trader's intention to market the repackaged product; (iv) that the fact that re packaging has oc curred is indicated, as well as the names of the proprietor and the repackager; and (v) that the proprietor is provided on demand (or together with the notice in accordance with the third condition) with a specimen of the repackaged product. See joined Cases C-71/94 to C-73/94, Eurim pharm v. Beiersdorf, [1996] ECR I-3603, paras. 42 ff, summed up in para 70. For a summary of the jurisprudence on repackaging, see also Case C-143/00, Boehringer, supra note 232, paras. 12-16, and the Opinion in Case C-348/04, Boehringer No. 2, supra note 233.
367. "⋯ democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Churchill, House of Commons, 11 Nov. 1947