Law

The European Union, although one of the most recently formed unions in the world, has been really asserting itself as a sovereign and unique regional grouping not only in matters of trade and politics but also in legal affairs. Over time, the European union has worked relentlessly in seeking to achieve this state where it could assert itself as a dominant force that was capable of governing itself and conducting most other affairs on its own. It has been in the quest for such prowess that the EU has been able to come up with its own constitution which now acts as the supreme authority over all matters of the bloc, and a guide in legal affairs. Matters of great concern and those arising out of failure to deal with emerging issues for whatever reasons there may be,  as long as it is a legal one, are usually referred to European court of justice which is charged with the responsibility of arbitrating over conflicts.

The court has the overall supreme authority in the EU jurisdiction to overrule any previous or earlier rulings in lower jurisdictions within the EU. Different aspects of the law have been dealt with in the new constitution as would be expected of any constitution, but critics have been highlighting different areas or aspects within the main law which they claim have been more or less reiterated and overemphasized. For instance, the renown law scholars Craig and De Burca (2007) in their book EU Law Text, Cases, and Materials assert that, the consistent theme in the ECJs jurisprudence is that once the property right owner has placed the goods on the EC market itself or has consented to such marketing, the goods can move freely throughout the EC. They cannot be opposed by the right of holder. This paper reviews this assertion and critically discuses it with respect to the rest of the EU law.

The EU Market Rules
The EU has been known to be  trading block whose laws are consistent throughout all member states and which have as far as possible emphasized the need to have the free flow of goods throughout the union without any undue restriction. To do that they have succeed very well. However, it is the issue of the right of holders ability or power to recall what has already been placed on the market for whatever reason in relation to the legal requirements of the EU law regarding such goods that is under scrutiny. If indeed this is a most reiterated theme as Craig asserts, then it means that trade in the EU has been given a great deal of importance. This is true when matters of an EU internal market are concerned. This market is expected under law to allow for the free movement of goods within member states and a failure will lead to legal confrontations.

Although it is clearly understandable that  the right of holder  the person to whom the rights to manage or own the property under question belongs are vested  ought to decide what is the eventual state of the goods, the EU law has in one way or another trampled on that aspect of the  law and instead given preeminence the section requiring that as long as consent has been given, in which case the goods are lawfully within the market, then that is the end of the powers of the rights of holder of the goods. All the rest is determined by EC market laws. The ideals of a single market have sought to exalt the EU over individual states desire or attempts to have measures that favor or discriminate imports. As will be found in Acts 90, 91, 92, and 93 of the EU trade Treaty, any country that attempts to use a tax system which discriminates against imports is liable to charges of contravening the Act. Although such law is likely to raise a lot of controversy as the court is required to rule on difficult matters, and a differential tax regime is such as matter that is deemed difficult, it is always unclear whether a country is therefore on the offense by having such taxes or not.

The Italy Case
As the EU is a market for nations and states as opposed to individuals per se, the cases often revolve around countries. A vivid case about this state of affairs involved the government of Italy. In a bid to preserve its unique and rich historical and cultural system most of which is centered on its past conquest of the world, the government of Italy taxed its exports of archeological, historical, and artistic goods and items. Citing article 169, the commission alleged that this was a breach of the law which required that all forms of duties and charges on exports be done away with. On her part, Italy held the argument that the purpose for which the said items were sold in the first place was not to raise any form of revenue or for any kind of monetary gain and as such they could not be regarded as goods. It instead argued that the items were only taxed in order to have the countrys rich cultural and artistic value systems protected. All these arguments were thrown out of the court as baseless.

The clear bone of contention here was the real meaning of the term goods. The complication was in the fact that under the Italian law, there was a clear demarcation between what constituted goods and what were not to be considered goods. As such, anything of national heritage, whether it was a commodity or any other asset was not a good in Italy. On the converse, according to the EU law, specifically Article 9 which the court quoted repeatedly during the case, the customs union covered all kinds of goods and these goods included all items or products which could be transacted commercially. This was a clear illustration that indeed the ECJ reiterates the need for free movement of goods within the market, and by addition, the need to have individual governments adhering to the EUs trading requirements more than its own. In a way, EU law is superior to country law.

Frances banning of British Beef 
This was another case which called for firm action on the part of the court, and like the others, proved that assertion that the ECJ lives by the doctrine that once goods pass from the right of holder, they cannot be opposed again but ought to move freely. In this case, France had banned the British imports even though they were well labeled. France cited logistical issues such as poor testing equipment to ensure quality and the failure for the exact date for lifting of the ban to be clearly communicated as some of its reasons for failing to let in the beef stocks. The court ruled that as the actions of France were illegal, it was to foot part of the losses incurred by the UK government while the commission, for failing to accurately communicate the matters of great importance well to France, was to foot the remaining costs.

Waste Disposal 
The other point that supports the assertion that the ECJ is so much filled with issues requiring free movement of goods, and that the powers of the right of holder are usurped by the court once the goods pass on to the market is that involving waste disposal. In an endeavor to have a cleaner environment, every country is trying its best to clean up and dispose of its waste in the safest manner. As a result, every country in the EU has in place laws that govern waste disposal. However, the EU Treaty requires that its own laws be followed when such waste has passed from the right of holder into the market. A case in question has been that of one country having to dispose of waste into another, legally. The law, in a nutshell, requires that the disposer of the waste can never expect the laws applying in the country of origin to apply even in the destination country.

In the Disclaimer Chrysler AG v. Land Baden, there was the dispute regarding one side incurring a lot of losses because of added costs owing to the fact that the waste had to be transported to another country over a very long distance just because only there could be found the right equipment for its disposal. One side, the defendant, argued that the costs could never be reimbursed because the law provided for the transportation under such circumstances, while the plaintiffs maintained that it was not right and that the defendant acted wrongly to have the waste transported over such a long distance. In its ruling, the court maintained that although there might be national laws that provide for local disposal of such waste, it was imperative that Community procedure was given preeminence over any other of the available national laws over which most of the plaintiffs arguments were based.

The Doctrine of Similar Effect
The ECJ has recognized, wisely so, that there is a great risk of having some countries or member states adhering to the customs union but possibly exploiting a loophole in the legislation and resorting to implementing a system where charges are identical or have a similar effect. To overcome this, there are provisions in the 25th article forbidding any such charges. Again, Italy became a victim of this provision when it imposed a charge on the goods bound for other states within the EU. This time around, it was for the purpose of having statistical material that the country needed in order to collect information regarding the order and pattern of trade in the region.

In the case, the court, just as it was expected, ruled that first and foremost its mandate included upholding the EU constitution whose laws required that customs union be upheld by all member  states, then added that the charging for anything was illegal regardless of the purpose for the levy and the likely beneficiary of the proceeds from such charges. As such, the court faulted Italy for hiding under the guise of gathering information to trample on the laws of the land. This case sparked off other concerns about how the court actually interpreted the law with respect to the doctrine of precedence. There has been a seeking to understand whether the individual countries ought not to repeal their own national laws as entrenched in their constitutions so that they would only use EU law, or if it makes any sense that one has a right of exercising control over what one has.

Conclusion
It has been noted that the application of the law in the EU has so much been skewed to favor those statutes that emphasize the need to have a common market system with a customs union where there is no form of restriction, tax, or charge. The ECJ has been noted for working hard to resolve conflicts to this effect and in most of its ruling, it has indeed reiterated the fact that once goods pass from one country, the one that has the right over the goods, then that country has no further say in how the goods will move throughout the region. As such, there is no way such free movement can be affected or opposed by the right of holder. Cases to that effect have involved Italy, France, and Germany, all which have had different encounters in the ECJ either with the European Commission or with other opponents. To this end, EU law has managed to override national laws. The result has been a total adherence to the EU constitution.