EU상품의 자유이동에 있어서의 관세 및 수량제한과 동등한 효과를 갖는 조치의 금지

Abstract

The most obvious form of protectionism will occur through customs duties or charges which have an equivalent effect, with the object of rendering foreign goods more expensive than their domestic counterparts. This is dealt with by Articles 23-25 EC. Any Member State may also attempt to benefit domestic goods by taxes that discriminate against imports. This is dealt with by Articles 90-93 EC. The European Court of Justice has interpreted Articles 23-25 strictly in order to ensure that this fundamental aim is fulfilled. But simply prohibiting customs duties or charges which have an equivalent effect is not enough. Therefore it is necessary to understand the way in which Articles 28-31 EC fit into the more general strategy concerning the free movement of goods. Article 28 states that quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States. And Article 29 contains similar provisions relating to exports, while Article 30 provides an exception for specific cases such as public morality, public policy, public security, the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants in which a Member State is allowed to place restrictions on the free movement of goods. The European Court of Justice has given a broad interpretation to the phrase 'measures having equivalent effect' to a quantitative restriction and has construed the idea of discrimination broadly to capture both direct and indirect discrimination. The definition of 'all measures having equivalent effect' to a quantitative restriction in para. 5 in Dassonville case did not require a measure to be discriminatory. The seeds that were sown in Dassonville case came to fruition in the seminal Cassis de Dijon case. By the way rules concerning selling arrangements imposed an equal burden on all those seeking to market goods in a particular territory in Keck and Mithouard case. They did not impose extra costs on the importer, their purpose was not to regulate trade, and they did not prevent access to the common market. But reaction to the Keck and Mithouard decision was not generally favourable. It was argued that Keck and Mithouard placed too much emphasis on factual and legal equality at the expense of market access. The European Court of Justice has brought recently Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos AE case which impeded market access within Article 28 EC. Considering in this Article reviewed on the Common Market and its main cases in the European Union, Korea-EU FTA could be understood as a breakthrough in world economic crisis, while this is not simple. The EU experienced an Common Market which is high level economic integration rather than FTA. The EU has already established and operated the internal harmonious market system on the free movement of goods. Therefore, the opening standard of the EU may be higher than ours. In conclusion, if Korea-EU FTA conclude, Korea must give attention to breach the prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination on taxes, the prohibition of protective taxes, and the prohibition of all measures having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction. In other words, in that time, Korea must give careful consideration to carry out the national measure on goods trade with the EU. And Korea should be focused on the strengthening of the competitiveness in home industries. Rarely if ever, in exceptional permission for the purpose of public interest, it must elaborately protect the national interests.