This Essay begins by rejecting the reasoning of the joined cases Keck & Mithouard. After discussing what passes for reasoning in this case, this Essay examines the case law before and after Keck in order to attempt to draw some conclusions about the consequences of Keck for the earlier case law and about the application of Article 30 since Keck. In part through a comparison with recent case law on EC Treaty Article 59, the conclusion is that the case law on Article 30 has developed in an extremely unfortunate and unsystematic direction, but also that the unity of the internal market within the Community has at the end of the day not been unduly endangered.
Laurence W. Gormley,
Two Years After Keck,
19 Fordham Int'l L.J. 866
Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol19/iss3/3