Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-558cb97cc8-6jfzc Total loading time: 0.334 Render date: 2022-10-06T07:50:37.579Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": true, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Voluntary “New Approach” Technical Standards are Subject to Judicial Scrutiny by the CJEU! – The Remarkable CJEU judgment “Elliott” On Private Standards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2017

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Commentary
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Associate Professor, Wageningen University; email: kai.purnhagen@wur.nl.

References

1 Case C-613/14 James Elliott Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd (CJEU, 27 October 2016), para 31.

2 James Elliott Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd, supra, note 1, para. 33.

3 Purnhagen, Kai, “Mapping Private Regulation – Classification, Market Access and Market Closure Policy and Law’s Response” (2015) Journal of World Trade 309 Google Scholar at 318.

4 Case C-192/89 Sevince v Staatssecretaris van Justitie [1990] ECR I-3461, para. 10.

5 Case C-188/91 Deutsche Shell AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Harburg [1993] I-363, para. 17.

6 James Elliott Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd, supra, note 1, para. 34.

7 Sevince v Staatssecretaris van Justitie, supra, note 4, para. 11.

8 James Elliott Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd, supra, note 1, para. 34.

9 James Elliott Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd, supra, note 1, para. 43.

10 Deutsche Shell AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Harburg, supra, note 5, para. 18.

11 James Elliott Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd, supra, note 1, para. 35.

12 James Elliott Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd, supra, note 1, para. 38.

13 James Elliott Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd, supra, note 1, para. 39.

14 Case C-100/13 European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany [1995] ECR I-1097, paras. 55, 56 and 63.

15 James Elliott Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd, supra, note 1, para. 42.

16 James Elliott Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd, supra, note 1, para. 47.

17 James Elliott Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd, supra, note 1, para. 51.

18 James Elliott Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd, supra, note 1, para. 53.

19 James Elliott Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd, supra, note 1, para. 56.

20 James Elliott Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd, supra, note 1, para. 58.

21 James Elliott Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd, supra, note 1, para. 59.

22 Case C-194/94 CIA Security International SA v Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL [1996] ECR I-2201, para. 54; Case C-443/98 Unilever Italia SpA v Central Food [2000] ECR I-7535, paras. 40–43, 48 and 49.

23 Volpato, Annalisa, “The Harmonized Standards before the ECJ: James Elliott Construction” [2017] 54 CMLRev 591596 attributes “several interesting issues” to the caseGoogle Scholar.

24 For more elaboration on this categorisation see Purnhagen, Kai, The Politics of Systematization in EU Product Safety Regulation: Market, State, Collectivity and Integration (Springer, 2013) 143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Purnhagen, supra, note 24, 24–43.

26 The following passage is an abridged and updated version of a passage in my book, Purnhagen, supra, note 24, 8–9.

27 See Tricker, Ray, CE Conformity Marking and New Approach Directives (Butterworth Heinemann, 2000) 1 Google Scholar; Hey, Christian, Jacob, Klaus and Volkery, Axel, “Better regulation by new governance hybrids? Governance models and the reform of European chemicals policy” (2007) 15 Journal of Cleaner Production 1861 .

28 See Tricker, supra, note 27, 1; Hey, Jacob and Volkery, supra, note 27.

29 For a comprehensive overview to this criticism see Joerges, Christian and others, Die Sicherheit von Konsumgütern und die Entwicklung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft (Nomos, 1988) 273 et sqq., who also provide a massive amount of data in order to substantiate the criticismGoogle Scholar.

30 McGee, Andrew and Weatherill, Stephen, “The Evolution of the Single Market: Harmonisation or Liberalisation” (1990) 53 The Modern Law Review 583 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 McGee and Weatherill, supra, note 30, 582.

32 Commission White Paper, “Completing the Internal Market” (COM (85) 310 Final); Commission Communication on the Development of European Standardization (“Green Paper”) of 16 October 1990 [1991] OJ C 20/1 and Commission Communication on Standardization in the European Economy [1992] OJ C 96/2.

33 For a full account of the regulatory design of the Low Voltage Directive, see Joerges and others, supra, note 29, 327 et sqq.

34 Council Resolution of 7 May 1985 on a new approach to technical harmonization and standards (Council Resolution (85/C 136/01) Official Journal C 136 of 4 June 1985).

35 Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v Dassonville [1974] ECR 837.

36 Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon) [1979] ECR 649.

37 See for a detailed analysis Maduro, Miguel, We the Court – The European Court of Justice and the European Economic Constitution (Hart, 1998) 68 Google Scholar et sqq.

38 This passage is a shortened and updated version of a passage I published in Purnhagen, Kai, “The Virtue of Cassis de Dijon 25 years later – It is not dead, it just smells funny” in Kai Purnhagen and Peter Rott (eds), Varieties of European Economic Law and Regulation (Springer, 2014) 323 Google Scholar.

39 See Case C-60/81 IBM v Commission [1981] ECR 2639, para. 9.

40 Deutsche Shell AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Harburg, supra, note 5, para. 18.

41 See to this end James Elliott Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd, supra, note 1, para. 43.

42 Case C-171/11 Fra.bo SpA v Deutsche Vereinigung des Gas- und Wasserfaches eV (DVGW) — Technisch-Wissenschaftlicher Verein (CJEU, 12 July 2012) para. 31. See, on the different legal qualifications of “new approach” standards in EU law, Carlo Columbo and Mariolina Eliantonio, “Harmonised technical standards as part of EU law: Juridification with a number of unresolved legitimacy concerns” (2017) 24(2) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 323 at 334–335.

43 See on the implications of this case Gormley, Laurence, “Private Parties and the free Movement of Goods: Responsible, Irresponsible, or a Lack of Principles?” (2017) 38 Fordham Journal of International Law 993 Google Scholar.

44 Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, “Summary of the Meeting Held on 29–30 June 2005”, G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, circulated 18 August 2005, paras. 17–20.

45 WTO Appellate Body Report, Australia-Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples from New Zealand (Australia–Apples), WT/DS367/AB/R, adopted 29 November 2010, para. 175.

46 Petros C Mavroidis and Robert Wolfe, “Private standards and the WTO. Reclusive no more”, (2017) 16 World Trade Review 1; Joost Pauwelyn, ‘Rule-Based Trade 2.0? The Rise of Informal Rules and International Standards and How They May Outcompete WTO Treaties” (2014); Purnhagen, supra, note 3, 309; Eva van der Zee, “Regulating private standards by the WTO. Effective regulation or an attempt to cram private standards in the WTO funnel?” (under review).

47 See as to this possibility Purnhagen, supra, note 3, 309. On different options to do so see Mavroidis and Wolfe, supra, note 46; advocating for a more market-based approach, see van der Zee, supra, note 46.

48 See e.g. Appellate Body Report 16 May 2012, WT/DS381/AB/R (United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Market and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products).

49 Snell, Jukka, “The notion of market access: a concept or a slogan?” (2010) 47 CMLRev 437 Google Scholar.

50 See Abbott, Kenneth W and Snidal, Duncan, “Strengthening International Regulation Through Transnational New Governance: Overcoming the Orchestration Deficit” (2009) 42 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 501578 Google Scholar; Appellate Body Report 16 May 2012, WT/DS381/AB/R (United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Market and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products); Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, “Second Report of the Co-stewards of the Private Standards E-working group on Action 1 (G/SPS/55)”, G/SPS/55, circulated 29 September 2014.

51 Abbott and Snidal, supra, note 50, 512–520.

52 See for a simplified model Purnhagen, supra, note 3, 314.

53 Appellate Body Report 16 May 2012, WT/DS381/AB/R (United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Market and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products).

54 Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, “Second Report of the Co-stewards of the Private Standards E-working group on Action 1 (G/SPS/55)”, G/SPS/55, circulated 29 September 2014.

55 Beyerlin, Ulrich and Marauhn, Thilo, International Environmental Law (Oxford, Hart, 2011) 303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Purnhagen, supra, note 3, 312.

56 Purnhagen, supra, note 3, 312.

57 Case C-470/03 AGM-COS MET Srl v Suomen valtio and Tarmo Lehtinen [2007] I-2749.

58 Reich, Norbert, “AGM-COS.MET or: who is protected by EC safety regulation?” (2008) 33(1) ELRev 85 Google Scholar.

59 James Elliott Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd, supra, note 1, para. 51.

60 Purnhagen, supra, note 38, 323; Schepel, Harm, The Constitution of Private Governance (Hart, 2007) 27 Google Scholar.

61 Rott, Peter and Glinski, Carola, ‘Die Haftung der Zertifizierungsstelle im Produktsicherheitsrecht’ (2015) Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 192 Google Scholar.

62 A.G.M.-COS.MET Srl v Suomen valtio and Tarmo Lehtinen, supra, note 57; Case C-219/15 Elisabeth Schmitt gegen TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH (CJEU, 16 February 2017); see also van Leeuwen, Barend, “PIP Breast Implants, the EU’s New Approach for Goods and Market Surveillance by Notified Bodies” (2014) European Journal of Risk Regulation 338 Google Scholar.

63 Joined cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci v Italian Republic [1991] I-5357.

64 Francovich and Bonifaci, supra, note 63, para. 40.

65 James Elliott Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd, supra, note 1, paras. 38–42.

2
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Voluntary “New Approach” Technical Standards are Subject to Judicial Scrutiny by the CJEU! – The Remarkable CJEU judgment “Elliott” On Private Standards
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Voluntary “New Approach” Technical Standards are Subject to Judicial Scrutiny by the CJEU! – The Remarkable CJEU judgment “Elliott” On Private Standards
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Voluntary “New Approach” Technical Standards are Subject to Judicial Scrutiny by the CJEU! – The Remarkable CJEU judgment “Elliott” On Private Standards
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *