The Virtue of Cassis de Dijon 25 Years Later—It Is Not Dead, It Just Smells Funny

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation book series (SEELR, volume 3)

Abstract

This piece specifies how and where the Cassis de Dijon case influenced EU internal market regulation. For a start, I will place the case into the more general context of internal market integration. I will then highlight the different concepts that have been developed from the Cassis de Dijon case such as e.g. the theory of the information paradigm, the confident consumer, the principle of mutual recognition, and the “new approach”. I will show how each of these concepts has developed in the course of internal market law. Finally, I will conclude that albeit that these principles have come under attack from various sources, the lessons drawn from Cassis de Dijon still remain the yardstick for the evaluation of internal market law today. I have to apologize for the lack of modesty by relying occasionally on works that I have published earlier. I take this contribution also as an opportunity to react to criticism on previous publications of mine by putting them into the more general context of internal market regulation.

Keywords

Member State Internal Market Mutual Recognition Fundamental Freedom Party Autonomy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ackermann, T, ‘Buying Legitimacy? The Commission’s Proposal on Consumer Rights’ (2010) 21 European Business Law Review 589.Google Scholar
  2. Afilalo, A, Patterson, D, and Purnhagen, K, ‘Statecraft, the Market State and the Development of European Legal Culture’ in G Helleringer and K Purnhagen (eds), Towards a European Legal Culture (Munich, CH Beck, 2013, forthcoming).Google Scholar
  3. Akerlof, G, ‘The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism’ (1970) 84 Quarterly Journal of Economics 488.Google Scholar
  4. Alter, K, and Meunier-Aitsahalia, S, ‘Judicial Politics in the European Community: European Integration and the pathbreaking Cassis de Dijon decision’ (1994) 26 Comparative Political Studies 535.Google Scholar
  5. Armstrong, K, ‘Mutual Recognition’ in C Barnard and J Scott (eds), The Law of the Single European Market: Unpacking the Premises (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2002) 231.Google Scholar
  6. Barents, R, ‘New developments in measures having equivalent effects’ (1981) 18 Common Market Law Review 271.Google Scholar
  7. Barnard, C, The Substantive Law of the EU, 4th ed (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
  8. Bernard, N, ‘On the Art of Not Mixing One’s Drinks: Dassonville and Cassis de Dijon Revisited’ in M Maduro and L Azoulai (eds), The past and future of EU law (Oxford, Hart, 2010) 457.Google Scholar
  9. Botschaft zur Teilrevision des Bundesgesetzes über die technischen Handelshemmnisse vom 25. Juni 2008, 7275, available at http://www.admin.ch/opc/de/federal-gazette/2008/7275.pdf.
  10. Bradford, A, ‘The Brussels Effect’, (2012) 107 Northwestern University Law Review,1.Google Scholar
  11. Bremmers, H, van der Meulen, B and Purnhagen, K, ‘Multi-Stakeholder Responses to the European Union health claims Commission’ (2013) 13 Journal on Chain and Network Science 161.Google Scholar
  12. Chalmers, D, Davis, G and Monti, G, European Union Law, 2nd ed (Cambridge, CUP, 2010).Google Scholar
  13. Chamberlin, EH, ‘The Product as an Economic Variable’ (1953) 68 Quarterly Journal of Economics 1.Google Scholar
  14. Craig, P, and de Búrca, G, EU Law—Text, Cases and Materials, 5th ed (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011).Google Scholar
  15. Dauses, M and Brigola, A, ‘Grundregeln’ in M Dauses (ed), Handbuch des Europäischen Wirtschaftsrechts, 31st del (Munich, CH Beck, 2012).Google Scholar
  16. Egan, M, Constructing a European Market (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
  17. Franck, J-U, Europäisches Absatzrecht (Berlin, de Gruyter, 2006).Google Scholar
  18. Franck, J-U and Purnhagen, K, ‘Homo Economics, Behavioural Sciences and Economic Law: On the Concept of Man in Internal Market Regulation and its Normative Basis’ in K Mathis (ed), Law and Economics in Europe: Foundations and Applications (Dordrecht, Springer 2013) 329.Google Scholar
  19. Gormley, L, ‘Cassis de Dijon and the Communication from the Commission’ (1981) 6 European Law Review 454.Google Scholar
  20. Gormley, L, Prohibiting Restrictions on Trade within the EEC. The Theory and Application of Articles 30-36 of the EEC Treaty (Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1985).Google Scholar
  21. Grundmann, S, Kerber, W and Weatherill, S (eds), Party Autonomy and the Role of Information in the Internal Market (Berlin, de Gruyter, 2001).Google Scholar
  22. Hanson, D, CE Marking, Product Standards and World Trade (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2005) 37.Google Scholar
  23. Hesselink, M, ‘Are we Human Beings or Mere Consumers?’ (2006) 12 European Voice 38.Google Scholar
  24. Hesselink, M, ‘European Contract Law: A Matter of Consumer Protection, Citizenship, or Justice?’ (2007) 15 European Review of Private Law 323.Google Scholar
  25. Hey, C, Jacob, K and Volkery, A, ‘Better regulation by new governance hybrids? Governance models and the reform of European chemicals policy’ (2007) 15 Journal of Cleaner Production 1861.Google Scholar
  26. Hodges, C, European Regulation of Consumer Product Safety (Oxford, University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
  27. Irwin, DA, Against the Tide: An Intellectual History of Free Trade (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  28. Jesse, M, ‘What about Sunday Trading…? The Rise of Market Access as an Independent Criterion under Article 34 TFEU’ (2012) 3 European Journal of Risk Regulation 437.Google Scholar
  29. Joerges, C, ‘Law, Science and the Management of Risks to Health at the National, European and International Level—Stories on Baby Dummies, Mad Cows and Hormones in Beef’ (2001) 7 Columbia Journal of European Law 6.Google Scholar
  30. Joerges, C, Falke, J, Micklitz, H-W and Brüggemeier, G, Die Sicherheit von Konsumgütern und die Entwicklung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1988).Google Scholar
  31. Krapohl, S, ‘Thalidomide, BSE, and the single market: An historical-institutionalist approach to regulatory regimes in the European Union’ (2007) 46 European Journal of Political Research 38.Google Scholar
  32. Maduro, M, We the Court—The European Court of Justice and the European Economic Constitution (Oxford, Hart, 1998).Google Scholar
  33. McGee, A, and Weatherill, S, ‘The Evolution of the Single Market: Harmonisation or Liberalisation’ (1990) 53 The Modern Law Review 583Google Scholar
  34. Micklitz, H-W, ‘Legitime Erwartungen als Gerechtigkeitsprinzip des europäischen Privatrechts’ in L Krämer, H-W Micklitz and K Tonner (eds), Recht und diffuse Interessen in der Europäischen Rechtsordnung: Liber amicorum Norbert Reich (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1997) 245.Google Scholar
  35. Molle, W, The Economics of European Integration, 5th ed (Columbus, McGraw-Hill, 2006).Google Scholar
  36. Morris, A, Yandle, B and Dorchak, A, Regulation by Litigation (New Haven, Yale University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
  37. Oliver, P, Free Movement of Goods in the EEC under Articles 30 to 36 of the Rome Treaty, 1st (old) ed (London, European Law Centre, 1982).Google Scholar
  38. Purnhagen, K, ‘Anmerkung’ (2012) Juristenzeitung 742.Google Scholar
  39. Purnhagen, K, ‘Beyond Threats to Health: May Consumers’ Interest in Safety Trump Fundamental Freedoms in Information on Foodstuffs?’ (2013) 38 European Law Review 711.Google Scholar
  40. Purnhagen, K, ‘United We Stand, Divided We Fall? Collective Redress in the EU from the Perspective of Insurance Law’ (2013) 21 European Review of Private Law 493.Google Scholar
  41. Purnhagen, K, The Politics of Systematization in EU Product Safety Regulation (Dordrecht, Springer, 2013).Google Scholar
  42. Reich, N and Micklitz, H-W, Europäisches Verbraucherrecht, 4th ed (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2003).Google Scholar
  43. Reich, N, Understanding EU Law, 2nd ed (Antwerp, Intersentia, 2005).Google Scholar
  44. Ricardo, D, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (London, John Murray, 1817).Google Scholar
  45. Roth, W-H, ‘Europäischer Verbraucherschutz und BGB’ (2001) Juristenzeitung 479.Google Scholar
  46. Shears, P, Zollers, F and Hurd, S, ‘Food for Thought: What Mad Cows Have Wrought With Respect to Food Safety Regulation in The EU And UK’ (2001) 103 British Food Journal 63.Google Scholar
  47. Snell, J, ‘The notion of market access: a concept or a slogan?’ (2010) 47 Common Market Law Review 437.Google Scholar
  48. Spindler, G, ‘Behavioural Finance and Investor Protection Regulations’ (2011) 34 Journal of Consumer Policy 315.Google Scholar
  49. Steindorff, E, EG-Vertrag und Privatrecht (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1996).Google Scholar
  50. Tricker, R, CE Conformity Marking and New Approach Directives (Oxford MA, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000).Google Scholar
  51. Trubek, D and Trubek, L, ‘New Governance & Legal Regulation: Complementarity, Rivalry, and Transformation’ (2007) 13 Columbia Journal of European Law 539.Google Scholar
  52. Tuori, K, ‘European social constitution: between solidarity and access justice’, in this volume.Google Scholar
  53. Usher, JA, ‘Disclosure Rules (Information) as a Primary Tool in the Doctrine on Measures Having an Equivalent Effect’ in S Grundmann, W Kerber and S Weatherill (eds), Party Autonomy and the Role of Information in the Internal Market (Berlin, de Gruyter, 2001) 151.Google Scholar
  54. Viscusi, K (ed), Regulation through Litigation (Washington DC, Brookings Institution Press, 2002).Google Scholar
  55. Vogenauer, S, ‘An Empire of Light? II: Learning and Lawmaking in Germany Today’ (2006) 26 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 627.Google Scholar
  56. Wagner, W, ‘When All Else Fails: Regulating Risky Products Through Tort Litigation’ (2007) 95 Georgetown Law Journal 693.Google Scholar
  57. Weatherill, S, ‘The evolution of European consumer law: from well informed consumer to confident consumer’ in H-W Micklitz (ed), Rechtseinheit oder Rechtsvielfalt in Europa? (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1996) 423.Google Scholar
  58. Weatherill, S, ‘Pre-emption, harmonisation and the distribution of competence’ in C Bernarnd and J Scott (eds), The Law of the Single European Market: Unpacking the Premises (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2002) 49.Google Scholar
  59. Weatherill, S, ‘Why there is no ‘principle of mutual recognition’ in EU law (and why that matters to consumer lawyers)’, in this volume.Google Scholar
  60. Wilhelmsson, T, Social Contract Law and European Integration (Aldershot, Dartmouth, 1995).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law and Governance GroupUniversity of WageningenWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Erasmus University of Rotterdam Law SchoolRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations