The Court Of Justice Of The European Union ( Cjeu )

1473 WordsMar 8, 20166 Pages
This essay advances the position that the quotation under discussion is, with all due respect to the Author, entirely incorrect. It is the counter-argument of this essay that the Courts of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have ‘abused’ their interpretive jurisdiction, and, in places, have even done violence to the very wording of the Treaty itself. Art 34 is not worded in a complicated nor in an especially controversial way. It simply states: “Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States” This phrase—“measures having equivalent effect” (MEEs) (to Quantitative Restrictions on imports)—is the phrase in the article which has given rise to so much political controversy and debate, both within the CJEU and also amongst academics in the field of EU law. Even ‘quantitative restriction’ (QR), the scope of which concept the rest of the Article appears to hang on, is not explicitly (or, in fact, at all: not even with the standard ‘QRs include…[non exhaustive list]…) defined in the Treaty, but the CJEU has held that:_ “the prohibition on quantitative restrictions covers measures which amount to a total or partial restraint of, according to the circumstances, imports, exports, or goods in transit” It is, perhaps, noting that ‘goods’ had previously been defined by the CJEU as “anything capable of being valued in money and bought and sold”_, otherwise that in itself could form a contentious aspect of this

More about The Court Of Justice Of The European Union ( Cjeu )

Open Document