General Principles of Law in the Eu - Essay Example

It has been said that there were two main aspects for achieving a common market; the first being "negative integration" which required removal of existing barriers and the second requiring "harmonization" of rules so as to be in compliance with the set community rules which require positive steps so that the products can move freely within the EU this is known as positive integration1. When making an analysis of free movement it is necessary to differentiate between monetary barriers which are illustrated under Art 23-25 or under Article 90, which is discriminatory taxation and other barriers which do not deal with charges which are covered under Article 28-30.

There have been at time quantitative restrictions which have restrained either the quantity of exports or imports. A restriction can take the form of a ban, quotas, or the requirement of obtaining licenses. For the purpose of ascertaining what a good is the ECJ stated in Commission v. Italy2 that the provisions of free movement of goods applied to any produce which can be valued in money and can form the basis for a commercial transaction. It can be clearly stated from the fact that Synthostein is a good and so the provisions for free movement of goods do apply to it.

By the facts it can be said that there has been a quantitative restriction placed by Loamshire Borough Council on the import of Synthostein and so Art28 will be discussed along with its interpretation to the facts.Article 28 states that 'quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between member states'.In Geddo v Ente Nazionale Risi3 quantitative restrictions was said to be total or partial restriction on imports, exports or goods in transit.

This tends to include a complete ban. (Commission v. Italy (Re Ban on Pork and Imports)4. It also includes quotas as stated in Salgoil SpA v. Italian Ministry for Foreign Trade5. Furthermore, even if it is found that the ban on imports is only on a certain or part of the member state, it would still be classified as a quantitative restriction. This was illustrated in the Ditle v. Bluhm6e case where a prohibition on import by Danish on a small island named Laeso of bees or reproductive material was found to be a quantitative restriction even though it was only for the island and for the purpose of protecting the Laeso brown bee.

In order for the Article 28 to be applied it has been found necessary that a state measure should have been taken. This is what was found in the case of Commission v. Ireland 'Buy Irish' 7where it was found that the Irish Goods Council had the involvement of the state in the appointment of its Managing Committee and that it was run on state funding. However it has been seen that measures taken by state have been interpreted in the