Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . STATE MONOPOLIES OF A COMMERCIAL CHARACTER - DUTY TO ADJUST - SCOPE

( EEC TREATY , ART . 37 )

2 . FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS - MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - PRICE CONTROLS - PERMISSIBILITY - CONDITIONS

( EEC TREATY , ART . 30 )

3 . STATE MONOPOLIES OF A COMMERCIAL CHARACTER - DUTY TO ADJUST - SCOPE - MONOPOLY REQUIRING OBSERVANCE OF A UNIFORM TRADING MARGIN FOR RETAIL SALES ON THE DOMESTIC MARKET - PRODUCTS OF THE STATE MONOPOLY NOT SUBJECTED TO THAT REQUIREMENT ON FOREIGN MARKETS - SITUATION ARISING FROM DISPARITIES BETWEEN NATIONAL LAWS - DISCRIMINATION - NONE

( EEC TREATY , ART . 37 )

Summary

1 . ARTICLE 37 OF THE TREATY DOES NOT DEMAND THE TOTAL ABOLITION OF NATIONAL MONOPOLIES HAVING A COMMERCIAL CHARACTER BUT REQUIRES THEM TO BE ADJUSTED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO ENSURE THAT NO DISCRIMINATION REGARDING THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH GOODS ARE PROCURED AND MARKETED EXISTS BETWEEN NATIONALS OF MEMBER STATES .

IT IS CLEAR NOT ONLY FROM THE WORDING OF ARTICLE 37 BUT ALSO FROM ITS POSITION IN THE GENERAL SCHEME OF THE TREATY THAT THE ARTICLE IS DESIGNED TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS THROUGHOUT THE COMMON MARKET , IN PARTICULAR BY THE ABOLITION OF QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS AND MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT IN TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES , AND THEREBY TO MAINTAIN NORMAL CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION BETWEEN THE ECONOMIES OF MEMBER STATES SHOULD A GIVEN PRODUCT , IN ONE OR OTHER OF THOSE STATES , BE SUBJECT TO A NATIONAL MONOPOLY OF A COMMERCIAL CHARACTER . 2 . NATIONAL MEASURES REGULATING THE FIXING OF PRICES , WHICH APPLY WITHOUT DISTINCTION TO DOMESTIC AND TO IMPORTED PRODUCTS , DO NOT IN THEMSELVES CONSTITUTE A MEASURE HAVING AN EQUIVALENT EFFECT TO A QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTION , BUT THEY MAY HAVE SUCH AN EFFECT WHEN , ON ACCOUNT OF THE PRICE LEVEL FIXED , THEY PLACE IMPORTED PRODUCTS AT A DISADVANTAGE , IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE THEIR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE DUE TO LOWER PRODUCTION COSTS IS NEUTRALIZED OR ELSE BECAUSE A MAXIMUM PRICE IS FIXED AT SO LOW A LEVEL THAT - GIVEN THE GENERAL STANDING OF IMPORTED PRODUCT AS COMPARED WITH NATIONAL PRODUCTS - TRADERS WISHING TO IMPORT THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION INTO THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED COULD DO SO ONLY AT A LOSS .

3 . THE FACT THAT THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO A STATE MONOPOLY OF A COMMERCIAL CHARACTER HAVE THE EFFECT OF OBLIGING FOREIGN PRODUCERS TO OBSERVE A UNIFORM TRADING MARGIN FOR RETAIL SALES ON THE DOMESTIC MARKET , WHEREAS NO COMPARABLE DUTY EXISTS IN RESPECT OF THE PRODUCTS OF THAT SAME MONOPOLY WHEN THEY ARE MARKETED ABROAD , DOES NOT AMOUNT TO DISCRIMINATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 37 OF THE TREATY . IT IS MERELY THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF A MONOPOLY HAVING A COMMERCIAL CHARACTER AND ENTAILING THE REGULATION OF TRADING MARGINS , WHEREAS NO SUCH MONOPOLY AND NO SUCH REGULATION EXIST IN OTHER MEMBER STATES . IF THE DISPARITIES BETWEEN NATIONAL LAWS ON TRADING MARGINS FOR THE RETAIL TRADE IN SUCH PRODUCTS WERE TO HAVE ADVERSE EFFECTS ON COMPETITION IN THE COMMON MARKET , IT WOULD BE THE DUTY OF THE COMPETENT COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS TO ELIMINATE SUCH EFFECTS BY HARMONIZING THE PROVISIONS LAID DOWN IN MEMBER STATES BY LAW , REGULATION OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION .