Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Handbook of EEA Law pp 415–435Cite as

Free Movement of Goods

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1323 Accesses

Abstract

The free movement of goods plays an equivalently significant role for the basic objective of a ‘homogeneous European Economic Area’ in the EEA/EFTA States as it does in the internal market of the European Union. However, different from the EU, the EEA does not seek to establish a customs union. Therefore the free movement of goods applies in principle only to goods originating in the Contracting Parties. This chapter outlines in particular the product coverage as a specific EEA-law problem, the prohibited restrictions of the free movement of goods (customs duties, internal taxation, quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effects), the justification of restrictions, the treatment of state monopolies as well as the cooperation in customs related matters and trade facilitation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Otto (2012), p. 362 II.; Müller-Graff (2015), pp. 1291–1496, paragraph 1.

  2. 2.

    Füller (2000), pp. 21 et seq.

  3. 3.

    Müller-Graff (2015), pp. 1291–1496, paragraph 3.

  4. 4.

    See also Müller-Graff (1991), pp. 15 et seq.; Müller-Graff (1989), p. 33; Müller-Graff (2000), pp. 271–306 (280 et seq).

  5. 5.

    Case 7/68 Commission v. Italy [1968] ECR 423 (429).

  6. 6.

    World Customs Organization (2012).

  7. 7.

    See in this regard, Articles 21, 23, 65 (1) and (2) EEA.

  8. 8.

    Hummer (2013), paragraph 120.

  9. 9.

    See, e.g. Article 5 Protocol 3 FTA EEC-Switzerland 1972; Zimmermann (1997), pp. 2 and 3.

  10. 10.

    Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, OJ L 204, 21.07.1998, p. 37.

  11. 11.

    Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative practices of the Member States concerning product liability for defective products, OJ L 210, 7.8.1995, p. 29.

  12. 12.

    Council Directive 90/547/EEC of 29 October 1990 on the transit of electricity through transmission grids, OJ L 313, 13.11.1990, p. 3; Annex IV EEA, point 8.

  13. 13.

    Council Directive 91/926/EEC of 31 May 1991 on the transit of natural gas through grids, OJ L 147, 12.6.1991, p. 37; Annex IV EEA, point 9.

  14. 14.

    Case 26/62 NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen [1963] ECR 1 (13).

  15. 15.

    See Müller-Graff (2004), pp. 35–65 (58).

  16. 16.

    Case E-1/94 Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark [1994–1995] EFTA Ct. Rep. 15, paragraphs 77 and 80.

  17. 17.

    Joined cases 2/62 and 3/62 Commission v. Luxembourg and Belgium [1962] ECR 425 (431).

  18. 18.

    Joined cases 2/69 and 3/69 Sociaal Fonds voor de Diamantarbeiders v. SA Ch. Brachfeld & Sons and Chougol Diamond Co. [1969] ECR 211, paragraphs 15–18.

  19. 19.

    Joined cases 2/69 and 3/69 Sociaal Fonds voor de Diamantarbeiders v. SA Ch. Brachfeld & Sons and Chougol Diamond Co., cited above, paragraphs 11–14.

  20. 20.

    Case 132/82 Commission v. Belgium [1983] ECR 1649, paragraph 8.

  21. 21.

    Case 132/82 Commission v. Belgium, cited above, paragraph 10.

  22. 22.

    Case 46/76 W.G.H.Bauhuis v. Netherlands [1977] ECR 5, paragraph 31.

  23. 23.

    Case 87/75 Bresciani v. Amministrazione Italiana delle Finanze [1976] ECR 129, paragraph 5.

  24. 24.

    Case 24/68 Commission v. Italy [1969] ECR 193, paragraph 16.

  25. 25.

    Joined cases 36/80 and 71/80 Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association and others v. Ireland and others; Martin Doyle and others v. An Taoiseach and others [1981] ECR 735, paragraph 23.

  26. 26.

    See for a differentiated taxation scheme on books in Iceland Case E-1/01 Hördur Einarsson v. Iceland [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1; however the assessment of the taxation as discriminatory was doubtful; see Müller-Graff (2005), pp. 55–70 (68).

  27. 27.

    Case 57/65 Alfons Lütticke GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Saarlouis [1966] ECR 205 (211).

  28. 28.

    Joined cases 2/62 and 3/62 Commission v. Luxembourg and Belgium, cited above, 425 (431).

  29. 29.

    Case 86/78 SA des grandes distilleries Peureux v. directeur des Services fiscaux de la Haute-Saône et du territoire de Belfort [1979] ECR 987, paragraph 39.

  30. 30.

    Case 112/84 Michel Humblot v. Directeur des services fiscaux [1985] ECR 1367, paragraph 13.

  31. 31.

    Case 169/78 Commission v. Italy [1980] ECR 285, paragraph 34; Case 171/78 Commission v. Denmark [1980] ECR 447, paragraph 35.

  32. 32.

    Case 106/84 Commission v. Denmark [1986] ECR 833, paragraph 22.

  33. 33.

    Case 184/85 Commission v. Italy [1987] ECR 2013, paragraph 10 (however: partial competition, see paragraph 12).

  34. 34.

    For the corresponding Articles in the TFEU see Joined cases 2/69 and 3/69 Sociaal Fonds voor de Diamantarbeiders v. SA Ch. Brachfeld & Sons and Chougol Diamond Co., cited above, paragraphs 15–21.

  35. 35.

    See Case 45/75 Rewe-Zentrale des Lebensmittel-Grosshandels GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Landau/Pfalz [1976] ECR 181, paragraph 27; Case 127/75 Bobie Getränkevertrieb GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Aachen-Nord [1976] ECR 1079, paragraph 7; Case 78/76, Steinike und Weinlig v. Germany [1977] ECR 595, paragraph 30.

  36. 36.

    Case 15/81 Gaston Schul Douane Expediteur BV v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijinzen Roosendaal, [1982] ECR 1409, paragraph 48.

  37. 37.

    Case 28/67 Firma Molkerei-Zentrale Westfalen-Lippe GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Paderborn [1968] ECR 143 (155).

  38. 38.

    Ibid.

  39. 39.

    For the TFEU: Case 170/78, Commission v. UK [1980] ECR 417, paragraph 10.

  40. 40.

    Case 27/67 Firma Fink Frucht GmbH v. Hauptzollamt München-Landsbergerstrasse [1968] ECR 223 (232).

  41. 41.

    Case 170/78 Commission v. UK [1980] ECR 417, paragraph 6 et seq.

  42. 42.

    Case 74/76 Ianelli & Volpi SpA v. Ditta Paolo Meroni [1977] ECR 577, paragraph 9. However, see also Case 18/84 Commission v. France [1985] ECR 1339, paragraph 16 (tax advantages for newspaper publishers).

  43. 43.

    Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v. Benoît and Gustave Dassonville [1974] ECR 837, paragraph 5.

  44. 44.

    Case E-5/96 Ullensaker kommune and Others v. Nille AS [1997] EFTA Ct. Rep. 30, paragraph 22 (permission for the retail sale of videograms limited to specialised dealers); Case E-4/04 Pedicel AS v. Sosial- og helsedirektoratet [2005] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1, paragraph 45 (general prohibition against the advertising of alcoholic beverages); Case E-16/10 Philip Morris Norway AS v. Norway [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 330, paragraph 39 (visual display ban on tobacco products); Case C-265/06 Commission v. Portugal [2008] ECR I-2245, paragraph 30 (prohibition of the affixation of tinted film to the windscreens and the windows alongside the passenger seats in motor vehicles).

  45. 45.

    Case E-6/96 Tore Wilhelmsen AS v. Oslo kommune [1997] EFTA Ct. Rep. 53, paragraph 51 (refusal of a licence to sell beer containing more than 4.75 % alcohol by volume).

  46. 46.

    Case E-4/04 Pedicel AS v. Sosial- og helsedirektoratet, cited above, paragraph 45; E-16/10 Philip Morris Norway AS v. Norway, cited above, paragraph 39.

  47. 47.

    Case E-1/94 Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark, cited above, paragraph 47 (exclusive right if a statutory State monopoly for import of alcoholic beverages; authorisation requirements).

  48. 48.

    Case E-16/10 Philip Morris Norway AS v. Norway, cited above, paragraph 40.

  49. 49.

    Case E-16/10 Philip Morris Norway AS v. Norway, cited above, paragraph 41.

  50. 50.

    Baudenbacher (2008a), pp. 22–31 (23).

  51. 51.

    Joined cases C-267/91 and C-268/91 Bernhard Keck and Daniel Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097, paragraph 16.

  52. 52.

    Müller-Graff (2015), Art. 34 AEUV, paragraph 247 et seq.

  53. 53.

    See, e.g. Case C-110/05 Commission v. Italy [2009] ECR I-519, paragraphs 33 et seq., 49 et seq., 58; Case C-142/05 Åklagaren v. Percy Mickelsson and Joakim Roos [2009] ECR I-4273, paragraph 24; Sack (2011), pp. 265–280 (277).

  54. 54.

    Case E-5/96 Ullensaker kommune and Others v. Nille AS, cited above, paragraph 28.

  55. 55.

    Case E-5/96 Ullensaker kommune and Others v. Nille AS, cited above, paragraph 29.

  56. 56.

    Case E-6/96 Tore Wilhelmsen AS v. Oslo kommune, cited above, paragraph 51.

  57. 57.

    Case E-16/10 Philip Morris Norway AS v. Norway, cited above, paragraph 46 et seq.

  58. 58.

    Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein [1979] ECR 649, paragraph 8.

  59. 59.

    Case E-1/94 Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark, cited above, paragraph 51; Case E-5/96 Ullensaker kommune and Others v. Nille AS, cited above, paragraph 30; Case E-5/98 Fagtún ehf. V Byggingarnefnd Borgarholtsskóla, the Government of Iceland, the City of Reykjavík and the Municipality of Mosfellsbær [1999] EFTA Ct. Rep. 51, paragraph 38.

  60. 60.

    Case E-1/94 Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark, cited above, paragraph 51; Case E-5/96 Ullensaker kommune and Others v. Nille AS, cited above, paragraph 30.

  61. 61.

    Case 15/79 P.B. Groenvald BV v. Produktshap voor Vee en Vlees [1979] ECR 3409, paragraph 7.

  62. 62.

    Case 53/76 Procureur de la République de Besançon v. Les Sieurs Bouhelier and others [1977] ECR 197, paragraph 18.

  63. 63.

    According to Case E-16/10 Philip Morris Norway AS v. Norway, cited above, paragraph 77 the health and life of humans ranks foremost among the assets and interests protected by Article 13 EEA.

  64. 64.

    Case E-5/96 Ullensaker kommune and Others, cited above, paragraph 33.

  65. 65.

    For the TFEU see Case 95/81 Commission v. Italy [1982] ECR 2187, paragraph 27.

  66. 66.

    Case E-9/00 ESA v. Norway [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 72, paragraph 45 (import and marketing ban imposed on cornflakes with certain fortifiers). This is in line with the jurisprudence of the ECJ, see Case 7/68 Commission v. Italy [1968] ECR 423, paragraph 5.

  67. 67.

    E.g. Case E-3/00 ESA v. Norway [2000–2001] EFTA Ct. Rep. 73, paragraph 27; Case E-4/04 Pedicel AS v. Sosial- og helsedirektoratet, cited above, paragraph 61; Case E-16/10 Philip Morris Norway AS v. Norway, cited above, paragraph 80 et seq.

  68. 68.

    Case E-16/10 Philip Morris Norway AS v. Norway, cited above, paragraph 80 et seq.

  69. 69.

    Case E-3/00 ESA v. Norway, cited above, paragraphs 25 and 30.

  70. 70.

    Case T-13/99 Pfizer Animal Health SA v. Council [2002] ECR II-3305, paragraph 143; Case T-70/99 Alpharma v. Council [2002] ECR II-3495, paragraph 156.

  71. 71.

    Case C-192/01 Commission v. Denmark [2003] ECR I-9693, paragraph 95; Case C-41/02 Commission v. Netherlands [2004] ECR I-11375, paragraph 62.

  72. 72.

    Case E-1/94 Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark, cited above, paragraph 63 et seq.; Case E-6/96 Tore Wilhelmsen AS v. Oslo kommune, cited above, paragraph 96; Case E-4/05 HOB-vín Iceland and the State Alcohol and Tobacco Company of Iceland [2006] EFTA Ct. Rep. 4, paragraph 33 (requirement to deliver alcoholic beverages on specific pallets).

  73. 73.

    See also Case E-1/94 Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark, cited above, paragraph 72.

  74. 74.

    Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, cited above, paragraph 7.

  75. 75.

    Case E-6/96 Tore Wilhelmsen AS v. Oslo kommune, cited above, paragraph 63.

  76. 76.

    Case 271/81 Société coopérative d’amélioration de l’élevage et d’insémination artificielle du Béarn v. Lucien Mialocq and others [1983] ECR 91, paragraph 10.

  77. 77.

    Case 13/70 Francesco Cinzano & Cia GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Saarbrücken [1970] ECR 1089, paragraph 5.

  78. 78.

    Case 30/87 Corinne Bodson v. SA Pompes funèbres des régions libérées [1988] ECR 2479, paragraph 13.

  79. 79.

    See also Case E-1/94 Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark, cited above, paragraph 75 et seq.

  80. 80.

    Case 59/75 Pubblico Ministero v. Flavia Manghera and others [1976] ECR 91, paragraph 66.

  81. 81.

    See Case E-1/94 Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark, cited above, paragraph 71 et seq.

  82. 82.

    Case E-1/97 Fridtjof Frank Gundersen v. Oslo kommune [1997] EFTA Ct. Rep. 108, paragraph 31.

  83. 83.

    Case E-19/11 Vín Tríó ehf. v. Iceland [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 974, paragraphs 65 and 66.

  84. 84.

    Case 47/69 France v. Commission [1970] ECR 487, paragraph 13.

  85. 85.

    Case 74/76 Ianelli & Volpi SpA v. Ditta Paolo Meroni, cited above, paragraph 17.

  86. 86.

    Case 91/78 Hansen GmbH & Co v. Hauptzollamt Flensburg [1979] ECR 935, paragraph 9.

References

  • Baudenbacher C (1998) Vier Jahre EFTA-Gerichtshof. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW) 391–397

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C (1999) The EFTA Court and the Court of Justice of the EC. In: Müller-Graff P-C, Selvig E (eds) EEA-EU relations. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin, pp 69–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C (2005a) The EFTA Court ten years on. In: Baudenbacher C, Tresselt P, Örlygsson T (eds) The EFTA Court – ten years on. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, pp 13–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C (2005b) The implantation of decisions of the ECJ and of the EFTA Court in the Member States’ domestic legal orders. Tex Int Law J 40:383–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C (2008a) The goal of homogeneous interpretation in the law in the European Economic Area. The European Legal Forum (ELF) 22–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C (2008b) The EFTA Court. Legal framework and case law, 3rd edn. EFTA Court, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C (2010) The EFTA Court in action – five lectures. German Law Publishers, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronckers M (2005) Exceptions to liberal trade in foodstuffs: the precautionary approach and collective preferences. In: Baudenbacher C, Tresselt P, Örlygsson T (eds) The EFTA Court – ten years on. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, pp 105–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull H (2004a) European law and Norwegian legislation. In: Müller-Graff P-C, Selvig E (eds) The approach to European law in Germany and Norway. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin, pp 43–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull H (2004b) European law and Norwegian courts. In: Müller-Graff P-C, Selvig E (eds) The approach to European law in Germany and Norway. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin, pp 95–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Füller JT (2000) Grundlagen und inhaltliche Reichweite der Warenverkehrsfreiheiten nach dem EG-Vertrag. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Graver HP (1999) The EFTA Court and the Court of Justice if the EC: legal homogeneity at stake? In: Müller-Graff P-C, Selvig E (eds) EEA-EU relations. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin, pp 31–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Graver HP (2004a) The approach to European law in Norwegian legal doctrine. In: Müller-Graff P-C, Selvig E (eds) The approach to European law in Germany and Norway. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin, pp 11–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Graver HP (2004b) Mission impossible: supranationality and national legal autonomy in the EEA agreement. In: Graver HP (ed) National judicial reaction to supranationality in the EC and the EEA. Unversitetsforlaget Oslo, Oslo, pp 63–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Graver HP (2005) The effects of EFTA Court jurisprudence on the legal order of the EFTA states. In: Baudenbacher C, Tresselt P, Örlygsson T (eds) The EFTA Court – ten years on. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, pp 79–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Graver HP (2014) Der Europäische Wirtschaftsraum. In: Hatje A, Müller-Graff P-C (eds) Europäisches Organisations- und Verfassungsrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 921–936

    Google Scholar 

  • Hummer W (2013) Sonderbeziehung EG-EFTA. In: Dauses M (ed) Handbuch des EU-Wirtschaftsrechts. K. III. Beck, München, K III

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellerhals A (2015) Das Binnenmarktrecht der Warenverkehrs Organisationsfreiheit. In: Müller-Graff P-C (ed) Europäisches Wirtschaftsordnungsrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 357–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Graff P-C (1989) Binnenmarktziel und Rechtsordnung – Binnenmarktrecht. Eul, Bergisch Gladbach and Cologne

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Graff P-C (1991) Privatrecht und Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht – Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht, 2nd edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Graff P-C (1997) EEA-agreement and EC law: a comparison in scope and content – overview on the basic legal link between Norway and the European Union. In: Müller-Graff P-C, Selvig E (eds) The European Economic Area. Berlin Verlag and Tano Aschehoug, Berlin, pp 17–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Graff P-C (2000) Die Europäische Privatrechtsgesellschaft in der Verfassung der Europäischen Union. In: Müller-Graff P-C, Roth H (eds) Recht und Rechtswissenschaft – Signaturen und Herausforderungen zum Jahrtausendbeginn. C F Müller Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 271–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Graff P-C (2004) Supranationality and national legal autonomy: community law and EEA compared. In: Graver HP (ed) National judicial reaction to supranationality in the EC and EEA. Universitetsforlaget Oslo, Oslo, pp 35–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Graff P-C (2005) The impact of climate, geography and other non-legal factors on EC Law and EEA law. In: Baudenbacher C, Tresselt P, Örlygsson T (eds) The EFTA Court – ten years on. Hart Publishing, Oxford/Portland, pp 55–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Graff P-C (2015) Art. 34 bis 36 AEUV. In: von der Groeben H et al (eds) Europäisches Unionsrecht, Kommentar, 7th edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 1291–1496

    Google Scholar 

  • Norberg S (ed) (1994) EEA law: a commentary on the EEA Agreement. CE Fritzes, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto K-H (2012) Europäischer Wirtschaftsraum. In: Bergmann J (ed) Handlexikon der Europäischen Union, 4th ed. Omnia, Baden-Baden, p 362

    Google Scholar 

  • Sack R (2011) Die Warenverkehrsfreiheit nach Art. 34 AEUV und die Ungleichbehandlung von Inlands- und Importware. Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht (EWS) 2011:265–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Sejersted F (1997) Between sovereignty and supranationalism in the EEA context – on the legal dynamics of the EEA Agreement. In: Müller-Graff P-C, Selvig E (eds) The European Economic Area. Berlin Verlag and Tano Aschehoug, Berlin and Oslo, pp 43–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Sejersted F (2012) Norges rettslige integrasjon i EU. In: Müller-Graff P-C, Selvig E (eds) European Law in an era of crisis. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin, pp 103–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Skouris V (2005) The ECJ and the EFTA Court under the EEA agreement: a paradigm for international cooperation between judicial institutions. In: Baudenbacher C, Tresselt P, Örlygsson T (eds) The EFTA Court – ten years on. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, pp 123–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Pas NG (1992) The European Economic Area. Aspects concerning free movement of goods (Articles 8–25 of the EEA Agreement). In: Jacot-Guillarmod O (ed) Accord EEE: commentaires et réflexions. Schulthess, Zürich and Bern, pp 101–114

    Google Scholar 

  • World Customs Organization (2012) HS Nomenclature 2012 Edition. http://www.wcoomd.org/en/topics/nomenclature/instrument-and-tools/hs_nomenclature_2012/hs_nomenclature_table_2012.aspx. Accessed 10 Jul 2015

  • Zäch R, Heizmann RA (2012) Die Anwendung des Cassis de Dijon-Prinzips durch die Schweiz im Verhältnis zum EWR. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW) 2012:876–879

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann TA (1997) Die Reformen der Ursprungsregeln europäischer Freihandelsabkommen von 1994 und 1997: Errungenschaften und Defizite. http://www.zimmermann-thomas.de/publikationen/PDFursprung.pdf. Accessed 10 Jul 2015

Download references

Acknowledgement

The author expresses his gratitude to Sinziana Ianc for her assistance in drafting this text.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of German and European Corporate and Economic Law of Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany

    Peter-Christian Müller-Graff

Authors
  1. Peter-Christian Müller-Graff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter-Christian Müller-Graff .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. EFTA Court, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Carl Baudenbacher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Müller-Graff, PC. (2016). Free Movement of Goods. In: Baudenbacher, C. (eds) The Handbook of EEA Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24343-6_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24343-6_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24341-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24343-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation