The aim of this thesis is to identify some of the obstacles to trade, that occurs on the common market, and to analyse the errors that still occurs in the national authorities application of the principle of mutual recognition. Is the principle of mutual recognition sufficient for the creation of a common market, or is there a need for additional measures to cope with the obstacles to trade that still exists on the common market? The problems related to the incorrect procedures of the national authorities and the fact that undertakings prefer to bring their products in to line with the rules of every single member state must be solved, if the principle of mutual recognition is to become trustworthy. On some areas, harmonisation ought to be chosen above the principle of mutual recognition, but in other cases an increased administrative collaboration, mandatory training for the national authorities or information campaigns intended mainly for undertakings could be the answer. The possibility to help undertakings to sue member states for damages should also be investigated. If these problems are solved, the principle of mutual recognition, in addition to harmonisation, could become an excellent tool for the upholding of the free movement of goods in the common market.

The free movement of goods constitutes one of the fundamental principles of the European Union and entitles goods entrance to the internal market. Sweden had before 1995 few monopolies concerning the import, export, manufacturing, distribution and retail on alcohol, and had to as a result of entering EU abolish four of these. The monopoly on retail, Systembolaget, was retained, and is still today strictly controlled by limited number of stores as well as restricted openly-hours. Systembolaget contributes an important part of the Swedish Alcohol Policy, which main purpose is to limit the accessibility of alcohol in Sweden. Another essential purpose is to prevent alcohol to reach people under the age of twenty, and this is upheld by strict age-controls when purchasing alcohol from Systembolaget. Lately it has been argued that the Swedish prohibition of private import of alcohol con-stitutes a restriction of the free movement of goods and in breach of Article 28 EC. The exception of such restriction is presented in Article 30 EC and allows Member States to obtain national trade barriers if a justification based on the protection of the public health could be made. The Commission is of the opinion that the Swedish prohibition constitute such a restriction referred to in Article 28 and is not willing to accept the justification to protection of the public health. The Swedish government however, is reluc-tant to remove the prohibition and argues that consumers that require a certain product can import alcohol through Systembolaget. An elimination of the ban would undermine the core purpose with Systembolaget which is to protect the public health and prevent alcohol to be distributed to people under the age of twenty. According to the Alcohol Act a person who has turned twenty can legally import alco-hol to Sweden when he is travelling with the goods if those products are for his personal use. A proposal has been presented to a redefinition of private import, which would in-clude situation where the buyer is not personally travelling with the goods, yet the transportation is carried out on the buyer’s behalf. Such purchases are often referred to distance purchase, and in those situations should the excise duty be laid down in the coun-try where the good was released for consumption. In distance sales the seller is respon-sible for the transportation of the goods but also to pay excise duty on the products in the country of destination. A redefinition of private import to include transportation made on the buyer’s behalf could create problems since there is no actual contract between the seller and the transporting-company. Problems can then arise since the seller has no possibility to control that the buyer is of the legal age or guaranteeing that the alcohol is for that person’s use / Den fria rörligheten av varor utgör en grundstomme inom den Europeiska Unionen, vilken erkänner varor från medlemsstaterna tillträde till den gemensamma marknaden. Sverige hade fram till 1995 fem olika monopol som reglerade importen, exporten, tillverkningen, distributionen och försäljningen av alkohol, men var tvungen som ett led i inträdet till EU att avveckla fyra av dessa. Kvar återstod försäljningsmonopolet, Systembolaget, vilket än idag är strikt reglerat genom begränsat antal butiker och öppet-tider. Systembolaget utgör in viktigt beståndsdel i den svenska alkoholpolitiken, vilken har till syfte att begränsa alkoholen och dess skadeverkningar i Sverige. Ett viktigt mål är också att motverka att alkoholen når ut till ungdomar under 20år, varvid strikta kon-troller av ålder sker vid köp på Systembolaget. På senare tid har det diskuterat huruvida det svenska förbudet mot privat införsel av alkohol skall anses vara förenligt med den fria rörligheten av varor och den uppställda artikel 28 i EG-fördraget. Där stadgas det att inga importrestriktioner skall hindra varor tillträde till den gemensamma marknaden. Det uppställda undantaget i artikel 30 berättigar medlemsstaterna att behålla en sådan restriktion om det kan anses nödvändigt till skyddet för den allmänna hälsan. Kommission har i ett motiverat yttrande upplyst Sve-rige att förevarande förbud utgör en sådan restriktion som avses i artikel 28 och att förutsättningarna att behålla ett sådant förbud inte kan anses uppfyllda. Den svenska regeringen anser att förbudet fyller en viktig funktion genom att begränsa tillgängligheten av alkoholen på den svenska marknaden, samt upplyser att en konsument som önskar importera särskilda produkter kan göra detta genom Systembolaget. Att tillåta konsumenter att importera fritt skulle försvaga det ursprungliga syftet med Systembolaget, vilket är att skydda den allmänna hälsan och minska risken för att alkohol blir tillgänglig för ungdomar. Enligt Alkohollagen kan en person som har fyllt 20 fritt importera alkohol till Sverige under förutsättning att denne reser in med varorna till Sverige och att dessa varor är för hans personliga nyttjande. En föreslagen utvidgning av definitionen privat import kan komma att inkludera varutransporter vilka sker för köparens räkning, ofta kallade distans köp. Detta skiljer sig då nämnvärt från distansförsäljning där säljare står för transporten, och är skyldig att betala punktskatt i destinationslandet för dessa varor. Vid distans köp skall ingen beskattning ske i destinationslandet, under förutsättning att dessa avgifter har betalts i varans ursprungsland. En utvidgning av definition av privat import till att innefatta varutransporter organiserade av köparen kan skapa problem då inget riktigt kontrakt föreligger mellan säljaren och transportbolaget. Svårigheter kan då uppstå för säljarens då denne saknar möjlighet att kontrollera att köparen är av påstådd ålder och att alkoholen är avsedd för dennes personliga konsumtion.

<p>The free movement of goods constitutes one of the fundamental principles of the European Union and entitles goods entrance to the internal market. Sweden had before 1995 few monopolies concerning the import, export, manufacturing, distribution and retail on alcohol, and had to as a result of entering EU abolish four of these. The monopoly on retail, Systembolaget, was retained, and is still today strictly controlled by limited number of stores as well as restricted openly-hours. Systembolaget contributes an important part of the Swedish Alcohol Policy, which main purpose is to limit the accessibility of alcohol in Sweden. Another essential purpose is to prevent alcohol to reach people under the age of twenty, and this is upheld by strict age-controls when purchasing alcohol from Systembolaget.</p><p>Lately it has been argued that the Swedish prohibition of private import of alcohol con-stitutes a restriction of the free movement of goods and in breach of Article 28 EC. The exception of such restriction is presented in Article 30 EC and allows Member States to obtain national trade barriers if a justification based on the protection of the public health could be made. The Commission is of the opinion that the Swedish prohibition constitute such a restriction referred to in Article 28 and is not willing to accept the justification to protection of the public health. The Swedish government however, is reluc-tant to remove the prohibition and argues that consumers that require a certain product can import alcohol through Systembolaget. An elimination of the ban would undermine the core purpose with Systembolaget which is to protect the public health and prevent alcohol to be distributed to people under the age of twenty.</p><p>According to the Alcohol Act a person who has turned twenty can legally import alco-hol to Sweden when he is travelling with the goods if those products are for his personal use. A proposal has been presented to a redefinition of private import, which would in-clude situation where the buyer is not personally travelling with the goods, yet the transportation is carried out on the buyer’s behalf. Such purchases are often referred to distance purchase, and in those situations should the excise duty be laid down in the coun-try where the good was released for consumption. In distance sales the seller is respon-sible for the transportation of the goods but also to pay excise duty on the products in the country of destination.</p><p>A redefinition of private import to include transportation made on the buyer’s behalf could create problems since there is no actual contract between the seller and the transporting-company. Problems can then arise since the seller has no possibility to control that the buyer is of the legal age or guaranteeing that the alcohol is for that person’s use</p> / <p>Den fria rörligheten av varor utgör en grundstomme inom den Europeiska Unionen, vilken erkänner varor från medlemsstaterna tillträde till den gemensamma marknaden. Sverige hade fram till 1995 fem olika monopol som reglerade importen, exporten, tillverkningen, distributionen och försäljningen av alkohol, men var tvungen som ett led i inträdet till EU att avveckla fyra av dessa. Kvar återstod försäljningsmonopolet, Systembolaget, vilket än idag är strikt reglerat genom begränsat antal butiker och öppet-tider. Systembolaget utgör in viktigt beståndsdel i den svenska alkoholpolitiken, vilken har till syfte att begränsa alkoholen och dess skadeverkningar i Sverige. Ett viktigt mål är också att motverka att alkoholen når ut till ungdomar under 20år, varvid strikta kon-troller av ålder sker vid köp på Systembolaget.</p><p>På senare tid har det diskuterat huruvida det svenska förbudet mot privat införsel av alkohol skall anses vara förenligt med den fria rörligheten av varor och den uppställda artikel 28 i EG-fördraget. Där stadgas det att inga importrestriktioner skall hindra varor tillträde till den gemensamma marknaden. Det uppställda undantaget i artikel 30 berättigar medlemsstaterna att behålla en sådan restriktion om det kan anses nödvändigt till skyddet för den allmänna hälsan. Kommission har i ett motiverat yttrande upplyst Sve-rige att förevarande förbud utgör en sådan restriktion som avses i artikel 28 och att förutsättningarna att behålla ett sådant förbud inte kan anses uppfyllda. Den svenska regeringen anser att förbudet fyller en viktig funktion genom att begränsa tillgängligheten av alkoholen på den svenska marknaden, samt upplyser att en konsument som önskar importera särskilda produkter kan göra detta genom Systembolaget. Att tillåta konsumenter att importera fritt skulle försvaga det ursprungliga syftet med Systembolaget, vilket är att skydda den allmänna hälsan och minska risken för att alkohol blir tillgänglig för ungdomar.</p><p>Enligt Alkohollagen kan en person som har fyllt 20 fritt importera alkohol till Sverige under förutsättning att denne reser in med varorna till Sverige och att dessa varor är för hans personliga nyttjande. En föreslagen utvidgning av definitionen privat import kan komma att inkludera varutransporter vilka sker för köparens räkning, ofta kallade distans köp. Detta skiljer sig då nämnvärt från distansförsäljning där säljare står för transporten, och är skyldig att betala punktskatt i destinationslandet för dessa varor. Vid distans köp skall ingen beskattning ske i destinationslandet, under förutsättning att dessa avgifter har betalts i varans ursprungsland.</p><p>En utvidgning av definition av privat import till att innefatta varutransporter organiserade av köparen kan skapa problem då inget riktigt kontrakt föreligger mellan säljaren och transportbolaget. Svårigheter kan då uppstå för säljarens då denne saknar möjlighet att kontrollera att köparen är av påstådd ålder och att alkoholen är avsedd för dennes personliga konsumtion.</p>

<p>The aim of this thesis is to identify some of the obstacles to trade, that occurs on the common market, and to analyse the errors that still occurs in the national authorities application of the principle of mutual recognition. Is the principle of mutual recognition sufficient for the creation of a common market, or is there a need for additional measures to cope with the obstacles to trade that still exists on the common market? The problems related to the incorrect procedures of the national authorities and the fact that undertakings prefer to bring their products in to line with the rules of every single member state must be solved, if the principle of mutual recognition is to become trustworthy. On some areas, harmonisation ought to be chosen above the principle of mutual recognition, but in other cases an increased administrative collaboration, mandatory training for the national authorities or information campaigns intended mainly for undertakings could be the answer. The possibility to help undertakings to sue member states for damages should also be investigated. If these problems are solved, the principle of mutual recognition, in addition to harmonisation, could become an excellent tool for the upholding of the free movement of goods in the common market.</p>

ES vidaus rinka suprantama kaip teritorija be sienų, kurioje be kitų laisvių užtikrinamas ir laisvas prekių judėjimas. Laisvas prekių judėjimas yra labiausiai išplėtota iš vadinamųjų keturių „laisvių“ ir bene sėkmingiausiai veikianti Europos Bendrijos sritis. Automobilių pirkimas-pardavimas taip pat patenka į laisvo prekių judėjimo principų reguliuojamą sritį, nes autmobiliai taip pat yra „Prekės“. Taigi automobilių registravimo draudimas yra akivaizdus laisvo prekių suvaržymo pavyzdys, nes joks žmogus nebus suinteresuotas pirkti automobilį žinodamas, kad negalės jo registruoti ir naudoti. Tyrimo tikslas buvo išsiaiškinti, ar toks Lietuvoje taikomas draudimas nepažeidžia laisvo prekių judėjimo principų. Visų pirma, svarbiausio laisvam prekių judėjimui taikomo proporcingumo principo. Jis reikalauja, kad naudojamos priemonės atitiktų tą tikslą, kurio jomis siekiama. Taigi nukrypti nuo bendrosios taisyklės leidžiama tik tiek, kiek yra būtina keliamiems tikslams pasiekti. Tyrimo rezultatai parodė, kad Lietuvos institucijų veiksmai nėra proporcingi siekiamiems tikslams. Visų pirma, proporcingumo principas nereikalauja Bendrijos šalių atsisakyti naudoti laisvą prekių judėjimą varžančias priemones. Antra, taikomas „dešiniavairių“ automobilių registracijos draudimas, nepagrindžiant moksliniais tyrimais ar skaičiavimais, negali būti pateisinamas tik dėl galinčio kilti pavojaus kitiems eismo dalyviams, žmonių sveikatai ir visuomenės saugumui. Išanalizavus kitų šalių praktiką... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / The free movement of goods is the most successful project in European Community. It is an important part of the internal market described in EC treaty as follows: the internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty. It is necessary to ensure the appropriate application of principles of free movement goods in European Community. Only this way it is possible to ensure fair competition among states companies and keep internal market competitive to the rest of the world. For the majority of products, EU countries have adopted the principle of mutual recognition of national rules. Any product legally manufactured and sold in one member state must be allowed to be placed on the market in all others. Articles 34 and 35 of the Treaty on Functioning of European Union deals with the prohibition of quantitative restrictions and measures having an equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports and exports. Measures having an equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions mean laws, regulations, administrative provisions, administrative practices, and all instruments issuing from a public authority including recommendation which have similar effect to quantitative restrictions. These articles are a leading tool to deal with elimination of technical barriers which are the most dangerous to free movement of goods notion. Only on the... [to full text]

La jurisprudence de la CJUE correspond à un véritable mode d'emploi du marché intérieur des marchandises. En l'absence d'harmonisation, il revient en effet à la Cour d'arbitrer les choix conflictuels entre le principe de libre circulation des marchandises promu par le traité et les politiques non économiques défendues par les Etats membres de l'UE. Or, l'action du juge communautaire se caractérise par des interprétations ambitieuses du traité, mais au risque de sacrifier une ligne jurisprudentielle parfaitement claire. Notre analyse souligne à cet égard un compromis parfois critiquable entre les enjeux mercantiles, d'une part, et les impératifs non marchands, d'autre part. Elle promeut également une évolution vers une jurisprudence stabilisée signe d'une maturité dans la recherche du compromis nécessaire entre l'exigence d'un marché intégré et le respect des souverainetés nationales. / The influence of the Court of Justice of the EU on the evolution of the internal market for goods within the EU is at the heart of the issue to determine the degree of freedom that Community law intends to grant to the member states through the process of negative integration. The criteria selected by the judicial body of the EU to interpret and apply the provisions of the treaty are not neutral. Our analysis emphasizes a sometimes criticisable compromise between commercial issues on one hand, and non economic issues, on the other hand. It also promotes the idea that the time for a stabilised jurisprudence would be a sign of maturity in the search for a compromise between the need for an integrated market and respect of national sovereignties.

The thesis explores the interface between competition law and market integration, in the application of Article 102TFEU. It focuses on ‘market separation’ and addresses conduct that has the intent, or effect, of hindering cross-border trade, either in the form of geographic price discrimination or in the form of exclusionary abuses, in which out-of-State competitors are affected. In doing so, the thesis delves into a comparative analysis of the Treaty requirements under Article 102TFEU when applied in market separation cases and the Treaty requirements under the free movement provisions. It begins with a comparison of the objectives of the two sets of provisions and assesses how their historical link is echoed, presently, in the requirement of ‘effect on trade’ under Article 102TFEU (Chapter I). Following this, the thesis explores the asymmetry as between the addressees of the two sets of provisions (Chapter II). It is argued that ‘undertaking with a dominant position’, as a distinct condition of the application of Article 102TFEU, is the outer limit to any expansive view of direct horizontal applicability of the freedoms. Therefore, alleged market separation by dominant undertakings should be subject to Article 102TFEU alone. Subsequently, the material scope of the prohibitions contained in the two sets of provisions is addressed. Here, it is argued that, in the vast majority of market separation cases, there is nothing special about the interface between competition law and the Internal Market. Rather, the inherent limits of economic integration, as reflected in the notion of trade barriers, should also be taken into account under the enforcement of Article 102TFEU against dominant undertakings (Chapter III). Tensions between competition law and the Internal Market may, nevertheless, arise when non-economic values, as reflected in the notion of justified trade barriers, come into play. In these cases, the interface between competition law and the Internal Market is better conceptualised as a question of unclear attribution of the market distorting effect to the undertaking and/or the State (Chapter IV). A revised defence of shared responsibility for the market separation is proposed, which would render the legality of State intervention under the free movement provisions a necessary condition for the application of Article 102TFEU against the dominant undertaking (Chapters V and VI).

The paper aims to embrace the establishment, development of rules and functioning of the freedom of movement of goods on the internal market of the EU and the impact which the European Court of Justice (ECJ) case law had in this domain and still has today. It opens with the description of the internal market and the freedom of movement of goods, the role of the internal market for the European integration, the development of this freedom in the context of the internal market development and basic characteristics of the freedom of movement of goods. Thereafter, the focus shifts to the legal rules of the internal market and freedom of movement of goods, to the CJEU as one of the main European institutions, its role, competences, composition and the different types of proceedings in front of this Court as well as the changes brought by the Lisbon Treaty. The final part is devoted to the analysis of the chosen ECJ decisions that are considered to be the most significant for the free movement of goods. The paper provides comprehensive overview of the topic implying that the ECJ case law played an important role in the domain of free movement of goods and significantly influenced its functioning.

Bendroji prekybos politika yra viena iš geriausiai integruotų ES šalių narių bendradarbiavimo sričių ir yra vienas iš svarbiausių ekonominio augimo veiksnių. Prekybos santykių liberalizavimas sąlygojo konkurencingumo augimą, įgalino imtis tokių projektų, kurių pavienės valstybės savarankiškai įvykdyti būtų nepajėgios. ES teisyne numatytomis priemonėmis tarp valstybių narių buvo panaikinti tarifiniai ir netarifiniai barjerai, fizinės laisvo prekių kliūtys, įteisintas abipusio pripažinimo principas davė naują postūmį vidaus rinkos liberalizavimui. Šalių narių patirtis bei statistiniai duomenys rodo, kad prisijungimas prie ES prekybinio regioninio darinio duoda dideles naudos. Tai iliustruoja ir Lietuvos ekonominio augimo rodikliai. Prekybos politikos negalima atskirti nuo kitų ES šalių narių gyvenimo sričių integracijos. Prekybos veikėjai dinamiškoje rinkoje susiduria su naujais iššūkiais (naftos kainų augimu, demografiniais pokyčiais, konkurencijos augimu ir t.t.), kurie veikia prekybos politiką, daromus sprendimus. Prekybos politika apima platų spektrą problemų, kurios turi būti sprendžiamos drauge su kitų vykdomų politikų problemomis. / Common trade policy is one of the best integrated spheres of cooperation between EU member states. It is one of the most important factors of economic growth. Liberalization of trade relations predetermined the development of competitiveness, enable to undertake projects which would be too complex to implement by one individual state. EU acquis establishes measures for the elimination of tariffs and non-tariff barriers, physical barriers to trade between the member states, mutual recognition gave a fresh power for further liberalization of the single internal market.

Le rôle intégratif que la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes (CJCE) a joué dans la construction européenne est bien connu et très documenté. Ce qui l'est moins ce sont les raisons qui l'ont motivé, et le motivent encore. Si certains se sont déjà penchés sur cette question, un aspect a néanmoins été complètement négligé, celui de l'influence qu'a pu avoir à cet égard le contexte conjoncturel sur la jurisprudence communautaire et plus précisément sur l'orientation que la Cour a choisi de lui donner. Dans ce cadre, les auditoires de la Cour ont un rôle déterminant. Pour s'assurer d'une bonne application de ses décisions, la Cour est en effet amenée à prendre en considération les attentes des États membres, des institutions européennes, de la communauté juridique (tribunaux nationaux, avocats généraux, doctrine et praticiens) et des ressortissants européens (citoyens et opérateurs économiques). Aussi, à la question du pourquoi la CJCE décide (ou non) d'intervenir, dans le domaine de la libre circulation des marchandises, en faveur de l'intégration économique européenne, j'avance l'hypothèse suivante: l'intervention de la Cour dépend d'une variable centrale : les auditoires, dont les attentes (et leur poids respectif) sont elles-mêmes déterminées par le contexte conjoncturel. L'objectif est de faire ressortir l'aspect plus idéologique de la prise de décision de la Cour, largement méconnu par la doctrine, et de démontrer que le caractère fluctuant de la jurisprudence communautaire dans ce domaine, et en particulier dans l'interprétation de l'article 28 du traité CE, s'explique par la prise en compte par la Cour des attentes de ses auditoires, lesquels ont majoritairement adhéré à l'idéologie néolibérale. Afin de mieux saisir le poids - variable - de chaque auditoire de la Cour, j'apprécierai, dans une première partie, le contexte conjoncturel de la construction européenne de 1990 à 2006 et notamment le virage néolibéral que celle-ci a opéré. L'étude des auditoires et de leur impact sur la jurisprudence fera l'objet de la seconde partie de ma thèse. Je montrerai ainsi que la jurisprudence communautaire est une jurisprudence « sous influence », essentiellement au service de la réalisation puis de l'approfondissement du marché intérieur européen. / The integrative role played by the Court of Justice of the European Communities (CJEC) in the construction of Europe is well known and documented. However the reasons that have motivated the CJEC in this role are far less known. Although some studies have been conducted on this topic, one aspect has been completely ignored: the influence of the conjunctural context on the European Community case law, and more precisely the orientation that the Court has chosen to give to the latter. Within this scope the Court's audiences play a determining role. To ensure that its decisions are well followed, the CJEC takes into consideration the expectations of the Member States, the European institutions, the judicial community (national tribunals, Advocates General, doctrine and practitioners), and the European citizens and economic operators. In regard to the question as to whether or not the CJEC decides to intervene in the domain of free movement of goods, in favour of the European economic integration, I argue the following hypothesis: the intervention of the Court depends on a central variable, that of the audiences, of which the expectations (and their relative weight) are determined by the conjunctural context. My objective is to point out the ideological aspects of the Court's decision making, mostly unknown to legal scholarship, and to demonstrate that the fluctuating character of case law in this domain, and more precisely in the interpretation of Article 28 of the CE Treaty, is explained by the Court’s taking into consideration the expectations of its audiences, which are mainly committed to the neoliberal ideology. In order to evaluate the varying weight of each audience of the CJEC, the first part of the thesis will delve into the conjunctural context and the European construction from 1990 to 2006 where in particular, we observe a turn towards neoliberalism. The study of the audiences and their impact on EC case law will be the subject of the second part of the thesis. I will show that this case law is "under influence", essentially to the service of the development and the strengthening of the European internal market.