Crown Court and European Court of Justice
| Date | 01 August 1991 |
| Published date | 01 August 1991 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201839105500301 |
| Subject Matter | Crown Court and European Court of Justice |
CROWN
COURT
AND
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF
JUSTICE
IMPACT ON CRIMINAL LAW OF
NEED
FOR
FREE
COMPETITION
Quietlynn VSouthend
BC
The
Southend BC resolved that Sched 3 to the Local Government
Act 1982 should be applied to its area, with the result that any
premises used for the sale of 'sex articles' as defined in the Schedule
are required to be licensed. An application for a licence having
been refused, the appellants in Quietlynn vSouthend
BC
[1991] 2
WLR
611, having continued to trade without a licence, were
convicted by the magistrates of using the premises without the
required licence. On appeal, the Crown Court found as a fact that
the operation of the Act resulted indirectly in reducing in absolute
terms the quantity of sex articles imported into the UK for the
defendants to be able to sell.
It
referred to the European Court
of Justice the question whether, on proofthat the 1982 Act resulted
in the defendants selling fewer products imported from the member
states, the 1982 Act entailed aquantitative restriction on imports
and, as such, was in contravention of art 30 of the
EEC
Treaty,
unless it could be justified as coming within one of the exceptions
set out in art 36. The court was also asked whether, if the Act
contravened art 30 and could not be justified under art 36, it was
totally unenforceable against a
trader
in a member state or
unenforceable only to the extent that it prohibited transactions
involving goods manufactured in, or imported from, member
states. In the result, however, the court did not find it necessary
to answer any question
other
than whether the Act was in breach
of art 30. Thus, no clarification is available upon the question
whether and when public morality or consumer protection may
suffice to justify arestriction on the free market in goods.
The traders argued that they had already reduced their stock of
goods in an effort to stay within the law and that the Act now
prevented them from dealing in the goods, which in itself meant a
restriction on the importation and availability of goods from
other
257
To continue reading
Request your trial