What Keck and Mithouard Should Have Said: Same Same, but Different

• Autores: Elisabeth Schöyen
• Localización: European papers: a journal on law and integration, ISSN-e 2499-8249, Vol. 8, Nº. 1, 2023, págs. 373-383
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (pdf)
• Resumen

  • This rewriting of Keck and Mithouard (joined cases C-267/91 and C-268/91 ECLI:EU:C:1993:905) aims to retain the "spirit" of Keck without resorting to categorising national measures into "product requirements" and "certain selling arrangements". The judgment is informed by Senn and Nussbaum’s capability approach and a social justice perspective on the free movement of goods. To this effect, Schøyen’s judgment affirms that only national measures which either negatively impact the competitive position of goods from other Member States or prevent their market access altogether require justification. Thus, the judgment clarifies that product requirements in the sense of Cassis de Dijon (case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein ECLI:EU:C:1979:42) are measures having equivalent effect because they impose a double burden on foreign producers. The Sunday trading case law, by contrast, is overturned, like in Keck itself.