EUROPEAN UNION LAW

EUROPEAN UNION LAW
TEXT AND MATERIALS

DAMIAN CHALMERS

CHRISTOS HADJIEMMANUIL

GIORGIO MONTI

ADAM TOMKINS

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo

Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York

www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521527415

© Damian Chalmers, Christos Hadjiemmanuil, Giorgio Monti and Adam Tomkins 2006

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without
the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2006

Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data

European Union law: text and materials / Damian Chalmers . . . [et al.].
p. cm.
ISBN-13: 978-0-521-82041-7(hardback)
ISBN-10: 0-521-82041-3 (hardback)
ISBN-13: 978-0-521-52741-5 (pbk.)
ISBN-10: 0-521-52741-4 (pbk.)
1. Law – European Union countries. 2. European Union. I. Chalmers, Damian. II. Title.
KJE947.E878 2006
341.242′2 – dc22 2006002818

ISBN-13 978-0-521-82041-7 hardback
ISBN-10 0-521-82041-3 hardback
ISBN-13 978-0-521-52741-5 paperback
ISBN-10 0-521-52741-4 paperback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

The European Union (2006)

PREFACE

The cover of this book portrays the ‘Myth of Europa’. The story has it that Europa, a Phoenician princess, was abducted by Zeus, the god of thunder, disguised as a bull. Zeus had been searching for a wife beautiful enough to become Queen of his native Crete. When he saw Europa he was smitten. Europa was gathering flowers by the seaside with her friends when she came upon the bull. Uncommonly gentle, the bull inspired no fear. Decking its horns with flowers, Europa climbed upon its back, whereupon the bull – Zeus – took off at a trot and dived into the sea. Europa was carried off to Crete, where she became the mother of Minos, the mythical King of Crete, who periodically demanded a tribute of young men and women of Athens to be sacrificed to the Minotaur.

   This myth has not died with the ancients. In 1956, the six countries which were to sign the EEC Treaty appropriated Europa’s name to issue a set of Europa stamps to symbolise a community of interests and objectives. And today, Zeus’s kidnap of Europa is depicted on the Greek two-euro coin. The myth has been understood in a variety of ways. On one level, it is a story of virtue, innocence and romance; on another, it is a warning of violence and exclusion. As with many of the ancient myths, misunderstanding and contestation lie at its very heart. The Roman depiction on our cover reminds us too that the myth has been repeatedly appropriated and reinvented. We have here a tale with its origins in modern Lebanon, which was told by the Ancient Greeks, and which then became a central fable of Ancient Rome. Europa’s myth is now seen as the origin of a territory whose cultural heartland lies somewhere in central Europe, Mitteleuropa, perhaps in the modern Czech Republic, perhaps in Vienna, but certainly somewhere in a nation that became a Member State of the European Union only very recently.

   In today’s Europe, misunderstanding, contestation, appropriation and reinvention permeate not only its founding myth, but also its most modern institution, the European Union, the law of which is this book’s subject. European Union law is often seen as embodying new ideals, new rights and new forms of welfare. Equally, however, it is portrayed as being intrusive, divisive and costly. On the one hand, EU law is said to bring an international comity and to provide a powerful counter to the narrow (and historically dangerous) parochialism that has marked so much of Europe’s bloody past. On the other hand, critics point to an overweening, inflexible, even pernicious European-ness, that is intolerant of national diversity and that stymies local democracy. It is exactly this anxious fragility that gives European Union law its peculiar vitality and interest. It brings both a sceptical eye to the analysis of EU law and a constant demand to revisit old assumptions. As such, debates about EU law have in recent years been central in reconsidering ideas of the state and of political community, of the market, and of tradition and society.

   This book owes a number of large debts. Its genesis owes much to Professor Erika Szyszczak and to Advocate General Luis Miguel Poiares Maduro. The efficiency, the friendliness and, most of all, the patience of our publishers at CUP have been integral to this book’s coming into being. We would particularly like to thank Liz Davey, Elizabeth Davison, Sinéad Moloney and Finola O’Sullivan. Above all, Nadine El-Enany has worked tirelessly and tremendously as our research assistant, our editor and our guide. With boundless energy and enthusiasm, she has helped improve the book in many ways. We are extremely grateful to her.

   The division of responsibility for the book is as follows. Damian Chalmers wrote about half the book. The other half was shared between Christos Hadjiemmanuil, Giorgio Monti and Adam Tomkins, all of whom owe Damian a debt of gratitude, first, for inviting us to take part in the project and secondly, for his help and guidance on the substance of our chapters. Damian Chalmers wrote chapters 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19. Christos Hadjiemmanuil wrote chapters 12 and 18. Giorgio Monti wrote chapters 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25. Adam Tomkins wrote chapters 2, 8, 9 and 10. Chapter 5 was co-written by Damian Chalmers and Adam Tomkins. Finally, there are a number of personal debts. Damian Chalmers would like to thank Juliana Cardinale for her wisdom, humour and support. Christos Hadjiemmanuil wishes to thank Jenny Giotaki, Mina Filippa and Panos Staikouras for their unflinching support and valuable suggestions. Giorgio Monti wishes to thank Ekaterina Rousseva and Nobuko Kawashima for helpful suggestions on some of his draft chapters and Ayako for encouragement and support. Adam Tomkins thanks Maria Fletcher for her generous collegiality at work and Lauren Apfel for her selflessness at home.

   We took a couple of initial editorial decisions. The Treaties were renumbered by the Treaty of Amsterdam in the late 1990s. Sufficient time has elapsed for individual provisions to be known exclusively by reference to their renumbered appellations. Where an EU institution has referred to the pre-Amsterdam number, we have used the post-Amsterdam number to secure continuity in the text, but have placed the number in square brackets. A Table of Equivalents is also included for reference. The other editorial decision revolved around how to handle the Constitutional Treaty. With its rejection in the Dutch and French referenda, we took the view that it will be some time, if at all, before any such Treaty is likely to enter into force, and its form and content may well be different from the Constitutional Treaty. The latter has value, however, both as a critique of the current law and as a possible indicator of where institutional practice might take EU law. We have referred to it in that context.

   We have aimed to state the law as at 30 September 2005.

DC, CH, GM, AT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS

AFSJ	Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
BER	Block Exemption Regulation
BSE	bovine spongiform encephalopathy
CAP	Common Agricultural Policy
CESR	Committee of European Securities Regulators
CFI	Court of First Instance
CFSP	Common Foreign and Security Policy
COR	Committee of the Regions
COREPER	Committee of Permanent Representatives
CT	Constitutional Treaty
DCT	Draft Constitutional Treaty
DG	Directorate-General
EC	European Communities
ECB	European Central Bank
ECHR	European Convention on Human Rights
ECN	European Competition Network
ECSC	European Coal and Steel Community
ECtHR	European Court of Human Rights
ECU	European currency unit
EDC	European Defence Community
EDP	excessive deficit procedure
EEC	European Economic Community
EFSA	European Food Safety Authority
EMI	European Monetary Institute
EMS	European Monetary System
EMU	economic and monetary union
EO	European Ombudsman
ERDF	European Regional Development Fund
ERM	exchange rate mechanism
ERT	European Round Table
ESC	Economic and Social Committee
ESCB	European System of Central Banks
ESecC	European Securities Committee
ESF	European Social Fund
EUCFR	European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights
EURATOM	European Atomic Energy Community
EUROPOL	European Police Office
FSA	Financial Services Authority
FSAP	Financial Services Action Plan
IGC	intergovernmental conference
ISO	International Standards Organisation
JHA	Justice and Home Affairs
MiFiD	Markets in Financial Instruments Directive
NCA	national competition authority
NCB	national central bank
NGO	non-governmental organization
OHIM	Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
OLAF	European Anti-Fraud Office
OMC	open method of coordination
PJCC	police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters
QMV	qualified majority voting
SEA	Single European Act
SGEI	services of general economic interest
SIA	Schengen Implementing Agreement
SIS	Schengen Information System
TEU	Treaty on European Union
WTO	World Trade Organisation

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Every attempt has been made to secure permission to reproduce copyright material in this title and grateful acknowledgment is made to the authors and publishers of all reproduced material. In particular, the publishers would like to acknowledge the following for granting permission to reproduce material from the sources set out below:

Monica Ariño, ‘Digital War and Peace: Regulation and Competition in European Digital Broadcasting’ 10 European Public Law © Kluwer Law International, ISSN 1345–3725. Reprinted with permission from Kluwer Law International; www.kluwerlaw.com.

A. Arnull, ‘Private Applicants and the Action for Annulment under Article 173 of the EC Treaty’ (1995) 40 Common Market Law Review 44–46 1995 Kluwer Law International. Reprinted with permission from Kluwer Law International; www.kluwerlaw.com.

E. Balibar, ‘Europe as Vanishing Mediator’ (2003) Constellations 312. Reprinted by permission of Blackwell Publishing.

A. Clapham, ‘A Human Rights Policy for the European Community’ (1990) Yearbook of European Law 309. Reprinted by permission of Oxford University Press.

M. Everson, ‘Adjudicating the Market’ (2002) 8 European Law Journal 152. Reprinted by permission of Blackwell Publishing.

H. Farrell and A. Héritier, ‘Interorganizational Negotiation and Intraorganizational Power in Shared Decision Making: Early Agreements under Codecision and their Impact on the European Parliament and the Council’ (2004) 37 Comparative Political Studies 1184. 2004 by Sage Publications, pp. 1198–1199. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications.

N. Fligstein and I. Mara-Drita, ‘How to Make a Market: Reflections on the Attempt to Create a Single Market in the European Union’ (1996) 102 American Journal of Sociology 1. Reprinted by permission of The University of Chicago Press.

Eleanor M. Fox, ‘What is Harm to Competition? Exclusionary Practices and Anticompetitive Effect’ (2002) 70 (No. 2) Antitrust Law Journal 2002 American Bar Association. Reprinted with permission from American Bar Association.

Damien Gerard, ‘Merger Control Policy: How to Give Meaningful Consideration to Efficiency Claims?’ (2003) 40 Common Market Law Review 1367–1412 2003 Kluwer Law International, ISSN 0165-0750. Reprinted with permission from Kluwer Law International; www.kluwerlaw.com.

David J. Gerber, Law and the Abuse of Economic Power in Europe originally published in 62 TUL. L. REV. 57–107 (1987). Reprinted with the permission of the Tulane Law Review Association, which holds the copyright.

P. De Grauwe, Economics of Monetary Union 6th Edition (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005). Reprinted by permission of Oxford University Press.

D. Grimm, ‘Does Europe Need a Constitution’ (1995) 1 European Law Journal 218. Reprinted by permission of Blackwell Publishing.

Luc Gyselen, ‘Vertical Restraints in the Distribution Process: Strength and Weakness of the Free Rider Rationale under EEC Competition Law’ 21 Common Market Law Review 647–668 Kluwer Law International, ISSN 0165-0750. Reprinted with permission from Kluwer Law International; www.kluwerlaw.com.

C. Harlow, ‘Public Law and Popular Justice’ (2002) 65 Modern Law Review 1. Reprinted by permission of Blackwell Publishing.

C. Harding and J. Joshua, Regulating Cartels in Europe: A Study of Legal Control of Corporate Delinquency (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003). Reprinted by permission of Oxford University Press.

H.-C. von Heydebrand u.d. Lasa, ‘Free Movement of Foodstuffs, Consumer Protection and Food Standards in the European Community: Has the Court of Justice Got It Wrong?’ (1991) 16 European Law Review 391. Reprinted by permission of Blackwell Publishing.

C. Joerges, ‘The Law’s Problems with the Governance of the Single European Market’ in C. Joerges and R. Dehousse (eds.), Good Governance in Europe’s Integrated Market (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002) 1, 18. Reprinted by permission of Oxford University Press.

D. Judge and D. Earnshaw, ‘Weak European Parliament Influence? A Study of the Environment Committee of the European Parliament’ (1994) Government and Opposition 262. Reprinted by permission of Blackwell Publishing.

M. Kumm, ‘The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict: Constitutional Supremacy in Europe before and after the Constitutional Treaty’ (2005) 11 European Law Journal 262. Reprinted by permission of Blackwell Publishing.

K. Lanno, ‘Financial Supervision in the EMU’ in Prof. J. Norton (ed.), 1998 Yearbook of International Financial and Economic Law 145 1998 Kluwer Law International, ISBN 9041197729. Reprinted with permission from Kluwer Law International; www.kluwerlaw.com.

N. MacCormick, ‘The Maastricht Urteil: Sovereignty Now’ (1995) 1 European Law Journal 259. Reprinted by permission of Blackwell Publishing.

M. de la Mano For the Customer’s Sake: The Competitive Effects of Efficiencies in European Merger Control Enterprise Papers No. 11 (2002 Enterprise Directorate-General). 2002 European Communities.

S. Mazey and J. Richardson, ‘Interest Groups and the Brussels Bureaucracy’ in J. Hayward and A. Menon (eds.), Governing Europe (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003). Reprinted by permission of Oxford University Press.

N. Moloney, EC Securities Regulation (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002). Reprinted by permission of Oxford University Press.

D. Obradovic, ‘Policy Legitimacy and the European Union’ (1996) 34 Journal of Common Market Studies 191. Reprinted by permission of Blackwell Publishing.

J. Pelkmans, ‘Making EU Network Markets Competitive’ (2001) 17(3) Oxford Review of Economic Policy 432. Reprinted by permission of Oxford University Press.

Harm Schepel, ‘Delegation of Regulatory Powers to Private Parties Under EC Competition Law: Towards a Procedural Public Interest Test’ (2002) 39 Common Market Law Review 31–51 2002 Kluwer Law International, ISSN 0165-0750. Reprinted with permission from Kluwer Law International; www.kluwerlaw.com.

T. Padoa-Schioppa, Regulating Finance: Balancing Freedom and Risk (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004). Reprinted by permission of Oxford University Press.

Richard Schmalensee, ‘Ease of Entry: Has the Concept been Applied too Readily?’ (1987) 56(4) Antitrust Law Journal 1987 American Bar Association. Reprinted with permission from the American Bar Association.

H.-P. Schwintowski, ‘The Common Good, Public Subsistence and the Functions of Public Undertakings in the European Internal Market’ (2003) 4 European Business Organization Law Review 353. Reprinted by permission of T. M. C. Asser Press.

M. Shapiro, ‘The Problems of Independent Agencies in the United States and the European Union’ (1997) 4(2) Journal of European Public Policy 276–277 (http://www.tandf.co.uk). Reprinted by permission of Taylor & Francis.

M. de la Torre, ‘The Law Beneath Rights’ Feet: Preliminary Investigation for a Study of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’ (2002) 8 European Law Journal 513. Reprinted by permission of Blackwell Publishing.

T. Tridimas, The General Principles of EC Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999). Reprinted by permission of Oxford University Press.

J. Weiler, ‘The Transformation of Europe’. Reprinted by permission of The Yale Law Journal Company and William S. Hein Company from The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 100, pages 2403–2483.

J. Weiler, ‘A Constitution for Europe? Some Hard Choices’ (2002) 40 Journal of Common Market Studies 563. Reprinted by permission of Blackwell Publishing.

E. White, ‘In Search of the Limits to Article 30 of the EEC Treaty’ (1995) 26 Common Market Law Review 245–247 1995 Kluwer Law International. Reprinted with permission from Kluwer Law International; www.kluwerlaw.com.

A. Williams, EU Human Rights Policies: A Study in Irony (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004). Reprinted by permission of Oxford University Press.

J. Zielonka, ‘How New Enlarged Borders will Reshape the European Union’ (2001) 39 Journal of Common Market Studies 507. Reprinted by permission of Blackwell Publishing.

Table of Cases

European Court of Justice and Court of First Instance: cases in case number order

9/56 Meroni v High Authority [1957–58] English Special Edition 133 439

1/58 Stork v High Authority [1959] ECR 17 233

36, 37, 38 and 40/59 Geitling v High Authority [1960] ECR 423 233

42 & 49/59 SNUPAT v High Authority [1961] ECR 109 454

7/61 Commission v Italy [1961] ECR 317 351

24/62 Germany v Commission [1963] ECR 63 317, 447

25/62 Plaumann & Co v Commission [1963] ECR 95 420–3, 457–8

26/62 Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen [1963] ECR 1 14, 44–51, 52, 53, 184, 233, 272–3, 348–68, 369, 371, 394, 421–2

28–30/62 Da Costa [1963] ECR 37 279–80

75/63 Hoekstra v Bedrijfsvereniging Detailhandel [1964] ECR 177 282

6/64 Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585 14, 184–5, 197, 233, 394

40/64 Sgarlata v Commission [1965] ECR 215 233

56 and 58/64 Consten and Grundig v Commission [1966] ECR 299 441, 981, 1003, 1014–15, 1019

48/65 Lütticke v Commission [1966] ECR 19 350–1, 413–14

56/65 Société Technique Minière (STM) v Maschinenbau Ulm (‘Maschinenbau Ulm’) [1966] ECR 235 980–1, 1000, 1003

61/65 Vaasen v Beambtenfonds voor het Mijnbedrijf [ 1966] ECR 272 294

35/67 Van Eick v Commission [1968] ECR 329 234

7/68 Commission v Italy [1968] ECR 428 659

13/68 Salgoil v Italian Ministry of Foreign Trade [1968] ECR 453 658

14/68 Walt Wilhelm v Bundeskartellamt [1969] ECR 1 957

5/69 Völk v Vervaecke [1969] ECR 295 981–2

7/69 Commission v Italy [1970] ECR 111 351

29/69 Stauder v City of Ulm [1969] ECR 419 234

41, 44 and 45/69 ACF Chemiefarmia v Commission [1970] ECR 661 948–9, 987

48/69 ICI v Commission (Dyestuffs) [1972] ECR 619 980, 987

77/69 Commission v Belgium [1970] ECR 237 357–8

9/70 Grad v Finanzamt Traustein [1970] ECR 838 133, 371

11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft v Einfuhr- und Vorratstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel (Solange I) [1970] ECR 1125 186, 234–5, 238–9, 282, 448

22/70 Commission v Council (‘ERTA’) [1971] ECR 263 412

25/70 Einfuhr- and Vorratstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel v Köster [1971] ECR 1161 809

41–44/70 International Fruit Company v Commission [1971] ECR 411 135, 418–19

5/71 Aktien-Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt v Council [1971] ECR 975 458

10/71 Ministère Public du Luxembourg v Muller [1971] ECR 723 1138

93/71 Leonesio v Italian Ministry of Agriculture [1972] ECR 293 371

96/71 Haegeman v Commission [1972] ECR 1005 463

6/72 Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can v Commission (‘Continental Can’) [1973] ECR 215 1024–35, 1046–8, 1065, 1070

21–24/72 International Fruit Company v Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit [1972] ECR 1226 282

39/72 Commission v Italy [1973] ECR 101 133, 371

4/73 Nold v Commission [1974] ECR 491 237

6 and 7/73 Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano SpA v Commission (‘Commercial Solvents’) [1974] ECR 223 1056–7, 1061

8/73 Haupzollamt Bremerhaven v Massey Ferguson [1973] ECR 897 213

34/73 Variola v Amministrazione delle Finanze [1973] ECR 981 133

39/73 Rewe-Zentralfinanz v Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer Westfalen-Lippe [1973] ECR 1039 390–1

40–48, 50, 54–56, 111, 113 & 114/73 Cooperatiëve Verenigning ‘Suiker Unie’ UA v Commission [1975] ECR 1663 987

127/73 BRT v SABAM [1974] ECR 51 958, 968

152/73 Sotgiu v Deutsche Bundespost [1974] ECR 153 577

155/73 Sacchi [1974] ECR 409 659, 1123–4, 1131

166/73 Rheinmühlen-Düsseldorf v Einfuhr- und Vorratstelle für Getreide [1974] ECR 33 281, 292–3

167/73 Commission v France (‘French Merchant Navy’) [1974] ECR 359 707

175/73 Union Syndicale [1974] ECR 917 238

2/74 Reyners v Belgium [1974] ECR 631 368, 702, 707

8/74 Dassonville [1974] ECR 837 661–2, 778

17/74 Transocean Marine Paint v Commission [1974] ECR 1063 238, 443

33/74 Van Binsbergen v Bestuur van de Bedrijsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid [1974] ECR 1299 744–5, 772, 834

36/74 Walrave & Koch v Association Union Cycliste Internationale [1974] ECR 1405 748

41/74 Van Duyn v Home Office [1974] ECR 1337 372–3

71/74 FRUBO v Commission [1975] ECR 563 983 n. 46

4/75 Rewe-Zentralfinanz GmbH v Landwirtschaftskammer Bonn [1975] ECR 843 838–9

32/75 Fiorini v SNCF [1975] ECR 1085 726–7

36/75 Rutili v Ministre de l’Intérieur [1975] ECR 1219 237, 263–4

43/75 Defrenne v Sabena (No. 2) [1976] ECR 455 238, 348–71, 876–7, 885–6

104/75 Officier van Justitie v De Peijper [1976] ECR 613 668–9, 844–6, 849

105/75 Giuffrida v Commission [1976] ECR 1395 410–56

118/75 Watson and Belmann [1976] ECR 1185 263–4

130/75 Prais [1976] ECR 1589 238

26/76 Metro SB-Gromärkte GmbH & Co KG v Commission (No 1) [1977] ECR 1875 425 n. 31, 985 n. 50, 1003, 1020–1

27/76 United Brands Company v Commission [1978] ECR 207 1027–30, 1036–7, 1041, 1042–3, 1045–6, 1048, 1049–50, 1056–7, 1061

41/76 Donckerwolcke v Procureur de la République [1976] ECR 1921 190

45/76 Comet BV v Produktschap voor Siergewassen [1976] ECR 2043 390–1

52/76 Benedetti v Munari [1977] ECR 163 279–80

64 and 113/76, 167 and 239/78, 27–28 and 45/79 Dumortier Frères v Council [1979] ECR 3091 458

71/76 Thieffry v Conseil de l’Ordre des Avocats a la Cour de Paris [1977] ECR 765 716, 834

74/76 Ianelli et al. v Meroni [1977] ECR 557 657 n. 2

85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v Commission [1979] ECR 461 443, 1024–43, 1051

90/76 Van Ameyde v UCI [1997] ECR 1091 749

13/77 GB-INNO-BM SA v Association des Détaillants en Tabac (ATAB) [1977] ECR 2115 1116 n. 5, 1122

30/77 R v Bouchereau [1979] ECR 1999 359

38/77 ENKA v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten [1977] ECR 2203 135

70/77 Simmenthal v Italian Finance Administration [1978] ECR 1453 190, 195

77/77 BP v Commission [1978] ECR 1513 1066

83 and 94/76, 4, 15 and 40/77 HNL v Council and Commission [1987] ECR 1209 458

106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal [1978] ECR 629 186–7, 195, 392, 394–5

149/77 Defrenne (No. 3) [1978] ECR 1365 237

22/78 Hugin Kassaregister AB v Commission [1979] ECR 1869 1037, 1045–6

32 and 36-82/78 BWM Belgium v Commission [1979] ECR 2435 996–7

120/78 Rewe-Zentral v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (‘Cassis de Dijon’) [1979] ECR 649 657–88, 695, 710, 788, 792, 832–3, 852

128/78 Commission v United Kingdom [1978] ECR 2429 133

141/78 France v United Kingdom [1979] ECR 2923 349

148/78 Ministero Pubblico v Ratti [1979] ECR 1629 369, 374, 475

207/78 Ministère Public v Even [1979] ECR 2019 726

230/78 Eridania [1979] ECR 2749 238

253/78 and 1-3/79 Procureur de la République v Giry and Guéralin [1980] ECR 2327 1002

258/78 Nungesser v Commission [1982] ECR 2015 1003

15/79 Groenveld [1979] ECR 3409 678–9

34/79 R v Henn & Darby [1979] ECR 3975 864

44/79 Hauer [1979] ECR 3727 238

62/79 Coditel [1980] ECR 881 833

104/79 Foglia v Novello (No. 1) [1980] ECR 745 280, 287

129/79 Macarthys Ltd v Smith [1980] ECR 1275 881, 882

136/79 National Panasonic [1980] ECR 2033 238

138/79 Roquette Frères v Council [1980] ECR 3333 146

149/79 Commission v Belgium (No. 2) [1982] ECR 1845 577

155/79 AM & S Europe Ltd v Commission [1982] ECR 1575 238, 943–4

789 and 790/79 Calpak v Commission [1980] ECR 1949 133, 424

804/79 Commission v United Kingdom (Conservation Measures) [1981] ECR 1045 190

66/80 International Chemical Corporation (ICC) v Amministrazione Finanze [1981] ECR 1191 295, 456

96/80 Jenkins v Kingsgate (ClothingProductions) Ltd [1981] ECR 911 900

100-103/80 Musique diffusion française and others v Commission [1983] ECR 1825 950