Inconsistencies and Misconceptions in the Free Movement of Goods

Gormley, L. W., Dec-2015, In : European Law Review. 40, 6, p. 925-939 15 p.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

  • Laurence W. Gormley
This article examines inconsistencies and misconceptions in the case-law and literature on the free movement of goods, in particular relating to the role of Dassonville and Keck after the Use cases; the question of whether there is or should be a de minimise threshold in Arts. 34-36 TFEU, and whether it is appropriate to assimilate the case-law-based justifications with those in the first sentence of Art. 36 TFEU. It concludes that Dassonville survives the Use cases, and that market access adds nothing to the basic principle in Dassonville; Keck too survives, albeit inelegantly and ignobly. This article further demonstrates the absence and inappropriateness of a de minimis threshold in this area, and concludes by arguing that assimilation is undesirable and unnecessary.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)925-939
Number of pages15
JournalEuropean Law Review
Issue number6
Publication statusPublished - Dec-2015


  • EU Law, EU Internal Market , Free Movement of Goods, Measures having equivalent effect

ID: 26524050