国际商法英文版课件

InternationalBusinessLawTextbook

RayAugust,DonMayer,MichaelBixby.“InternationalBusinessLaw——Text,CasesandReadings”6thEditionPearson国际商法英文版课件InternationalBusinessLaw(2Credits)Purpose:Thiscourseaimstogivestudentsfrommanyculturesandtraditionsagoodlookattheoverallstructureoftheglobal“legalenvironment”inwhichbusinessoperatestoday.Thefocuswillbeongloballegalissuesconcerningstateresponsibilityandenvironmentalregulation,disputesettlement,tradeinGoods,servicesandlabour,intellectualproperty,sales,andtransportation,whichshowsboththediversityandsimilarityofbusinessandofthelaw.本课程从多种文化、传统入手，培养学生审视当今企业经营所处的全球“法律环境”的整体结构，重点放在全球性法律问题，涉及国家责任和环境规制、争端解决、货物贸易、服务与劳务、知识产权、销售、运输等业务，揭示商务和法律的多样性与相似性。

InternationalBusinessLaw(2TheoreticalStudyIntroductiontoInternationalandComparativeLaw国际法与比较法入门StateResponsibilityandEnvironmentalRegulation

国家责任和环境规制DisputeSettlement争端解决TradeinGoods货物贸易ServicesandLabour服务与劳务IntellectualProperty知识产权Sales销售Transportation运输TheoreticalStudyCaseStudy:1.CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.FederalRepublicofGermany

欧共体委员会诉联邦德国案2.China’srefusaltoacceptthedoctrineofrestrictivesovereignimmunity

中国拒绝接受国家主权有限豁免原则案3.SouthernBluefinTunaCases:ProvisionalMeasures南方蓝鳍金枪鱼案：临时措施4.Japan---TaxesonAlcoholicBeverages

日本—酒精饮料税收案5.UnitedStates---ImportProhibitionofCertainShrimpandShrimpProducts美国—虾及虾产品进口限制案CaseStudy:CaseStudy:6.EuropeanCommunities---RegimefortheImportation,SaleandDistributionofBananas

欧共体—香蕉进口、销售、分销制度案7.L’Orealv.eBay欧莱雅诉eBay案8.TheNaturalGasCase天然气案9.GreatChinaMetalIndustriesCo.Ltd.V.MalaysianInternationalShippingCorp.中国金属工业有限公司诉马来西亚国际航运公司案CaseStudy:1-1Chapter1INTRODUCTIONTOINTERNATIONALANDCOMPARATIVELAW1-1Chapter1INTRODUCTIONTOIN1-2CHAPTER1DefiningInternationalLawMakingInternationalLawSourcesofInternationallawScopeofInternationalLawinPracticeInternationalPersonsIndividualRightsUnderInternationalLawComparisonofMunicipalLegalSystems1-2CHAPTER1DefiningInternati1-3InternationalLawHistorically,dealtwiththerulesandnormsregulatingtherelationshipsbetweenstates(countries)ThislawbetweennationsiscalledpublicinternationallawWithgrowthofrelationshipsbetweenpersonsandcorporationsindifferentstates,privateinternationallawdevelopedtogoverntheirconduct1-3InternationalLawHistoricalwhatisinternational

businesslaw?

Internationalbusinesslawisthebodyofrulesandnormsthatregulatesbusinessactivitiescarriedoutsidethelegalboundariesofstates.Inparticular,itregulatesthebusinesstransactionsofprivatepersonsinternationally,andtherelationshipofinternationalcommercialorganizations.

国际商法是调整跨国商事活动的法律规范的总称。它调整的是国际私人商事交易关系和国际商事组织间的关系.

whatisinternational

businesWhatisinternationallaw?Internationallawdealswith3kindsofinternationalrelationships:——thosebetweenstatesandstates,——thosebetweenstatesandpersons,——thosebetweenpersonsandpersons.Traditionally,internationallawwasallabouttherelationshipsbetweenstates.Thatis,thelawofnationsresolvedissuesbetweentwoormorestates,andthelegalrelationshipsbetweenandamongstatesiswhatisgenerallycalledpublicinternationallaw.Astransactionsamongprivateentitiesgrew,thephraseprivateinternationallawwasappliedtothelawsgoverningconductbetweenpeople(andcorporations)fromdifferentstates.Whatisinternationallaw?Formany,internationallawremainsacontradictioninterms.Thereisnosingleworldgovernmenttomakeandenforcelaws,andnogloballyrecognizedforuminwhichtobringdisputesbetweencitizensofdifferentnations-states.Tothosewhoseelawas“thecommandofasovereign”,themoreconsensualnature(诺成性，契约性)ofinternationallawmakesit“soft”lawornolawatall.Moreover,thedeclineinthepowerofstatesrelativetotheprivatesectorposesnewchallengestocontemporaryinternationallaw.Today,theterminternationallawappliestoanyconductoutsidetheboundariesofstates,whetherofapublicoraprivatenature.Formany,internationallawreThereareatleast3waysoflookingatinternationallaw.Cosmopolitans

（世界主义者）claimthatinternationallawisbasedonuniversalhumanrights.Thus,internationallawshouldrestrainstatesfromviolatingnormsbasedonuniversalhumanrights,andtheconsentofastateisirrelevant.Bycontrast,Positivists(实证主义者)focusonthesovereigntyofstatesandtheirconsenttolimitsonthatsovereignty.ThusPositivistsclaimthatinternationallawisbasedon(1)thesovereignequalityofallstatesintheinternationalsystemand(2)stateconsenttoindividualinternationallaws,eitherthroughtreatiesorcustoms.Thereareatleast3waysoflPositivistsinternationallawcanbeseenasaseriesofcontractsbetweenstates;internationallawbecomesbindingonlythroughsuchexplicitorimplicitcontracts.IncontrasttoeitherCosmopolitansorPositivists,Hobbesians(霍布斯主义“Leviathan”利维坦)aremorecynical,believingthatstateswillmakeagreementsandabidebyinternationallawonlywhenitsuitstheirself-interests.PositivistsinternationallawScholars,jurists,andpoliticianswillrarelyadoptoneschoolofanotherwithconsistency,andcombinationsoftheseviewscancoexistamongprincipalactorsinthesamenation-state.Ataminimum,however,internationallawisunderstoodtobemorethanjustgoodmannersormutualrespectbetweenoramongsovereignnation-states.Comity,forexample,isthepracticebetweenstatesoftreatingeachotherwithgoodwillandcivility.Itisnotlaw,however,becausestatesdonotregarditassomethingtheyarerequiredtorespect.Forexample,untilitbecameamatteroflegalobligationunderArt.36ofthe1961ViennaConventiononDiplomaticRelations,itwaslongconsideredtobeacustomarycourtesytoallowScholars,jurists,andpolforeigndiplomatstheprivilegeofimportinggoodstheyintendedfortheirprivateusefreeofcustomsduties.Thisprivilegewasnotalegalrightguaranteedbyinternationallaw,however,becausestatesdidnotfeelcompelledtogranttheprivilegeexceptasacourtesy.Suchcourtesycanbeseenasakindofanticipatoryreciprocityinwhichstatesdountootherstatesastheywouldhopetobetreatedinturn.Comityisthusunderstoodasaninformalprinciplethatnationswillextendcertaincourtesiestoothernations,particularlybyrecognizingthevalidityandeffectoftheirexecutive,legislative,,andjudicialacts.Thisprincipleismostfrequentlyinvokedbycourts,whichwillnotactinawaythatdemeansthejurisdiction,laws,orjudicialdecisionsofanothercountry.foreigndiplomatstheprivileg1-4SchoolsofThoughtDefiningTheBasisofInternationalLaw(IL)CosmopolitansarguethatILisbaseduponuniversalhumanrights.PositivistssaythatILisbasedonthesovereignequalityofallstatesandstateconsenttoILthroughtreatiesorcustom.HobbesiansclaimthatstateswillmakeagreementsandabidebyILonlywhenitsuitstheirself-interests.1-4SchoolsofThoughtDefining1-5ExamplesofPublicand

PrivateInternationalLaw1-5ExamplesofPublicand

PrivCase1-1

IgnacioSequihuav.TexacoInc.etal.

UnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofTexas,

HoustonDivision,

847F.Supp.61(1994)Case1-1

IgnacioSequihuav.OpinionofJudgeBlackPlaintiffs,residentsofEcuador,filedthisactioninTexasstatecourtassertingavarietyofcausesofactionarisingoutoftheallegedcontaminationoftheair,ground,andwaterinEcuador.Inadditiontomonetaryrelief,PlaintiffsaskedforaninjunctionrequiringDefendantstoreturnthelandtoitsformerconditionandfora“trustfund”tobeadministeredbytheCourt.Thecasewasremovedtofederalcourt,andtheCourtfindsthattheremovalwasprocedurallyproper.Inconsideringthedefendants’motionstodismiss,theCourtused“comity”torulefordefendants.OpinionofJudgeBlackUnderthedoctrineknownascomityofnations,acourtshoulddeclinetoexercisejurisdictionundercertaincircumstancesindeferencetothelawsandinterestsofanotherforeigncountry.Section403(3)oftheRestatement(Third)oftheForeignRelationsLawoftheUnitedStatessetsforthanumberoffactorstobeconsideredindeterminingwhetherthecomityofnationsdeferenceshouldbeapplied.TheNinthCircuitappliedsimilarfactorsinTimberlaneLumberCo.v.BankofAmericaNationalTrustandSavingsAssn.,749F.2d1378(9thCir.1984),toaffirmaDistrictCourt’sdecisionnottoexercisejurisdiction.ConsiderationofthesefactorsleadstotheinescapableconclusionthattheCourtshoulddeclinetoexercisejurisdictionoverthiscase.UnderthedoctrineknownascoThechallengedactivityandtheallegedharmoccurredentirelyinEcuador;PlaintiffsareallresidentsofEcuador;DefendantsarenotresidentsofTexas;enforcementinEcuadorofanyjudgmentissuedbythisCourtisquestionableatbest;thechallengedconductisregulatedbytheRepublicofEcuadorandexerciseofjurisdictionbythisCourtwouldinterferewithEcuador’ssovereignrighttocontrolitsownenvironmentandresources;andtheRepublicofEcuadorhasexpresseditsstrenuousobjectiontotheexerciseofjurisdictionbythisCourt.Indeed,noneofthefactorsfavortheexerciseofjurisdiction.Accordingly,thecaseshouldbedismissedunderthedoctrineofcomityofnations.CasepointUnderthedoctrineknownascomity,acourtshoulddeclinetoexercisejurisdictionundercertaincircumstancesindeferencetothelawsandinterestsofanothercountry.Thechallengedactivityandth1-7Case1-1

IgnacioSequihuav.TexacoInc.Comityappliedtoprivatedispute.CourtinTexasdeclinedtoexercisejurisdictionoveractivityandharmthatoccurredinEcuador.TakingjurisdictioninU.S.wouldhaveinterferedwithEcuador’ssovereignrighttocontrolitsownenvironment.Casedismissedunderthedoctrineofcomityofnations.1-7Case1-1

IgnacioSequihuav1-6GoodwillandCivility

BetweenStates:ComityRepublicofthePhilippinesv.WestinghouseElec.Corp.

43

F3d65(3rdCir,1994)U.S.trialcourtorderedthePhilippinegovernmenttonotharasswitnessesinvolvedinthecase.CourtofAppealsoverturnedtheorder.Heldthatacourtcouldrequestcompliancebyaforeignsovereignasamatterofcomity,butcouldnotordercompliance.Comityrequiresthatwerespectothercountries’sovereigntyandlawsothattheywillrespectours.1-6GoodwillandCivility

Betw1-8U.S.CourtsApplyComityandRefusetoTakeJurisdictionWhen:ThedefendantisasovereignstateDefendanthasinsufficientcontactswiththeU.S.AnotherjudicialforumismoreconvenientCongressdidnotintendU.S.statutetoapplyextraterritoriallyCaseconcernsactofsovereignstateonitsownterritory

1-8U.S.CourtsApplyComityan1-9TheMakingofInternationalLawGenerally,ILcomesintoeffectonlywhenstatesconsenttoit.Generalconsentfoundinstatepractice–theconductandpracticesofstatesintheirdealingswitheachother.Evidenceofgeneralconsent:DecisionsoftheInternationalCourtofJusticeResolutionspassedbytheUNGeneralAssemblyMultilateraltreaties,conclusionsofinternationalconferences,andprovisionsrepeatedoverandoveragaininbilateraltreaties

1-9TheMakingofInternational1-10SourcesofInternationalLawTreatiesorconventionsInternationalcustomGeneralprinciplesoflawrecognizedbycivilizednationsJudicialdecisionsandteachingsofhighlyqualifiedlegalwriters

Thislist,ascontainedinArticle38(1)oftheStatuteoftheInternationalCourtofJustice,impliesahierarchy,ororder,inwhichthesesourcesaretobereliedon.1-10SourcesofInternationalL1-11TreatiesandConventionsEquivalentsoflegislationinILare:Treaties–legallybindingagreementbetweentwoormorestates.Conventions–legallybindingagreementbetweenstatessponsoredbyaninternationalorganization.CustomaryrulesthatgoverntreatiesarecontainedintheViennaConventionontheLawofTreaties,ratifiedby108countries.1-11TreatiesandConventionsEq1-12CustomAsSourceofInternationalLawCustom–along-establishedtraditionorusagethatbecomescustomarylawifitis:Consistentlyandregularlyobserved,and(Evidenceofthisfoundinofficialstatementsofgovernments,opinionsoflegaladvisors,executivedecrees,orderstomilitaryforces,andcourtdecisions.)Recognizedbythosestatesobservingitasapracticethattheymustobligatorilyfollow.

1-12CustomAsSourceofIntern1-13GeneralPrinciplesofLawandJusCogensCourtswilloftenrelyupongeneralprinciplesoflawthatarecommontothelegalsystemsoftheworldtosolveinternationaldisputes.Juscogens(强制性法规)isaperemptorynormofgeneralinternationallaw,recognizedbytheinternationalcommunityasanormfromwhichnoderogationispermitted.Juscogens-statesmustrespectcertainfundamentalprinciples.Treatiesarevoidiftheyconflictwithjuscogens.Ex:Treatybytwonationstouseviolenceagainstathirdnationviolateshigherstandardofjuscogens.

1-13GeneralPrinciplesofLaw1-14ScopeofInternationalLawinActualPracticeInternationaltribunalsregardmunicipallawassubservienttointernationallaw.Stateshaveobligationtobringtheirmunicipallawintocompliancewithinternationalnorms.Municipalcourtsoftenbalkatthisobligationbaseduponstrongfeelingsofnationalismandbeliefinpriorityforthesovereignstate’sownlaw.1-14ScopeofInternationalLaw1-15PracticeinMunicipalCourtsInmunicipalcourts,internationallawgenerallytreatedascorrelative.Iftheinternationallawisbasedoncustomarypractice,itisreceivedinaccordancewiththedoctrineofincorporation（纳入原则）.CustomaryILispartofdomesticlawtotheextentthatitisnotinconsistent.Minorityofcourts-doctrineoftransformationCustomaryILisapplicabledomesticallyonlyafteradoptedbylegislation,courtdecision,orlocalusage.

1-15PracticeinMunicipalCour1-16MunicipalCourtReceptionRulesFoundinTreaties–TwoFactorsNatureofthetreaty:Self-executing

（自动执行条约）–containsaprovisionstatingthatthetreatywillapplytothepartieswithouthavingtoadoptdomesticenablinglegislation.自行生效的，无需立法手续即可生效的Non-Self-Executing（非自动执行条约）–requiresenablinglegislationbeforeeffectivedomestically.Constitutionalstructureoftheratifyingstate:InU.S.,PresidentnegotiatesconstitutionaltreatiesthatarethenratifiedbytheSenate.Executiveagreements-treatiesenteredintobythePresident,notratified,noteffectivedomestically.1-16MunicipalCourtReception1-17Case1-2SeiFujiiv.State

pp.10-12ExamineswhetherprovisionsofUNCharterpromotingfundamentalfreedomswithoutdistinctionastoraceareself-executingornot.CaliforniaappellatecourtruledthatlandpurchasedbyFujii,aJapanesealien,violatedalienlandlawandescheatedtostate.CASupremeCourtaffirmedthatUNCharterwasnotself-executingbecauselanguagewasnotmandatoryandrequiredadditionalimplementinglegislation.However,lawviolated14thAmend.,Fujii’smoneyreturned.1-17Case1-2SeiFujiiv.St1-18InternationalPersonspp.12-42StatesIndependentstatesDependentstatesInchoatestatesp.12InternationalOrganizationsIntergovernmentalorganizations(IGO)Nongovernmentalorganizations(NGO)1-18InternationalPersonspp.1-19InternationalPersons-StatesState-politicalentitycomprisingaterritory,apopulation,agovernmentcapableofenteringintointernationalrelations,andagovernmentcapableofcontrollingitsterritoryandpeoples.Anindependentstateissovereignandoperatesindependentlyinternationally.Adependentstate(PuertoRico)hasformallysurrenderedsomeaspectoftheirpoliticalandgovernmentalfunctionstoanotherstate.Aninchoatestatelacksattributesofindependentstate,suchasterritoryorpopulation.1-19InternationalPersons-St1-20Case

MatimakTradingCo.v.KhalilyandD.A.Y.KidsSportswearInc.Matimak,aHongKongcorporation,suedinfederalcourtinNYunderdiversityjurisdictionasacitizenofforeignstate.Thoughnotformallyrecognizedbyexecutivebranch,MatimakargueddefactorecognitionofHongKong.Ruling:HongKongnotanindependentstate.MatimaknotacitizenorsubjectofUnitedKingdomoranyforeignstate.Suitdismissedforlackofjurisdiction.

1-20Case

MatimakTradingCo.1-21Case1-4pp.31~33

CourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanCommunitiesCase274/87

CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.FederalRepublicofGermany

欧共体委员会诉联邦德国案

1-21Case1-4pp.31~1-21JudgmentCase1-4examinesboththeobligationofmemberstatestobringtheirlawsintoaccordwiththeEUtreaties(inparticulartheEuropeanCommunityTreaty—thenknownastheEECTreaty)andthedirecteffectofthosetreaties.1-21Judg1-21JudgmentByapplicationlodgedattheCourtRegistryon16September1987,theCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesbroughtanactionbeforetheCourtunderthesecondparagraphofArticle169oftheEECTreatyforadeclarationthatbyprohibitingtheimportationandmarketinginitsterritoryofmeatproductsfromotherMemberStateswhichdonotcomplywith1-21Judg1-21Paragraphs4and5oftheFleisch-Verordnung(MeatRegulation)of21January1982theFederalRepublicofGermanyhasfailedtofulfillitsobligationsunderArticle30oftheEECTreaty.Theregulationinquestionprohibitsthemarketingofmeatproductswhichcontainingredientsotherthanmeat,subjecttoexceptionsinrespectof1-211-21specifiedproductsthecompositionofwhichisdefined,witharequirement,incertaincases,forspecificinformationtobeshownonthepackagingordisplayedonsigns.ThebanonmarketingthoseproductsissupplementedbyParagraph47,subparagraph1,oftheLebensmittelundBedarfsgegenstaendegesetz(Lawonfoodstuffsandnecessities)of15August1974,whichprohibitstheimportationoffoodstuffswhichdonot1-21specifiedproductsthec1-21complywithGermanstandards.Compliancewiththoserulesisensuredbymeansofcriminaloradministrativepenalties.ItshouldbenotedattheoutsetthatitisundisputedthatthecontestedruleshavearestrictiveeffectonimportsofmeatproductslegallymanufacturedandmarketedinotherMemberStates.Theissuebetweenthepartiesiswhetherornotthemeasuresinquestionare1-21complywithGermanstan1-21justifiedonthegroundsputforwardbytheGermanGovernment,thatistosaytheprotectionofhealthandmandatoryrequirementsrelatingtoconsumerprotection,fairtradingandthecommonagriculturalpolicy.ItshouldalsobenotedattheoutsetthatthecontestedrulesprohibitthemarketingoftheproductsconcernedinGermanterritoryregardlessofwhethertheyarenationalorforeignproducts.1-21justifiedonthegrounds1-21JustificationBasedontheProtectionofHealthWithintheMeaningofArticle36oftheTreatyBeforeconsideringtheargumentsputforwardbythedefendantGovernmentinthisregard,itmustbepointedoutthattheCourthasconsistentlyheldthat,whilsthumanlifeandhealthareamongthemattersprotectedbyArticle36anditisthereforefortheMemberStatestodecidewithinthelimitssetbytheTreatythe1-21JustificationBasedon1-21degreeofprotectionwhichtheywishtoensure,nationalrulesrestrictingimportsarecompatiblewiththeTreatyonlyinsofarastheyarenecessaryfortheeffectiveprotectionofhumanlifeandhealthandonlyifthatobjectivecannotbeachievedbymeasureslessrestrictiveofintra-Communitytrade(judgmentsof20May1976inCase104/75,DePeijper(1976)ECR613andof4February1988inCase261/85,Commissionv.UnitedKingdom(1988)ECR547).1-21degreeofprotectionwh1-21TheGermanGovernmentmaintainsthatthecontestedprohibitionofimportationisjustifiedongroundsrelatingtotheprotectionofhealthwithinthemeaningofArticle36oftheTreatybecauseitisnecessarytoensureasufficientintakeofcertainessentialnutrientscontainedinmeat,especiallyproteins.Itmustbepointedoutatoncethatthatargumentiscontradictedbyinformationwhichappearsinreportsonnutrition1-21TheGermanGovernmentmain1-21publishedin1980and1984bytheGermanGovernmentitself.ThosereportsshowthatproteinintakelevelsinGermanyareingeneralmorethanadequateandthateveninthecaseofcertaingroupsofthepopulation,particularlyyoungpeople,whoseproteinintakeislowerthantherecommendedlevel,thelowerintakeposesnothreattohealthinviewofthesafetymarginsincorporatedintherelevantrecommendations.1-21publishedin1980and11-21Itisalsoclearfromthosereportsthatsomemeatingredientscontainharmfulsubstancessuchaspurine(嘌呤),cholesterol(胆固醇)andsaturatedfattyacids(饱和脂肪酸);thereportsthereforeexpresssomeconcernaboutanyfutureincreaseintheconsumptionofmeatandmeatproducts.Finally,withregardtotheGermanGovernment’sargumentthatvegetableproteinshavealowernutritionalvalue1-21Itisalsoclearfrom1-21thananimalproteins,itmustbestressedthat,astheCourthasalreadystatedinitsjudgmentof23February1988inCase216/84,Commissionv.France(1988)ECR793,aMemberStatemaynotinvokepublichealthgroundsinordertoprohibittheimportationofaproductbyarguingthatitsnutritionalvalueislowerthananotherproductalreadyavailableonthemarketinquestion,sinceitisplainthatthechoiceoffoodstuffsavailableto1-21thananimalproteins,i1-21consumersintheCommunityissuchthatthemerefactthatanimportedproducthasalowernutritionalvaluedoesnotposearealthreattohumanhealth.ItfollowsfromtheforegoingthatthecontestedprohibitionofimportationmaynotbejustifiedongroundsrelatingtotheprotectionofhealthwithinthemeaningofArticle36oftheTreaty.1-21consumersintheCommun1-21

JustificationBasedonImperativeRequirementsRelatingtoConsumerProtectionTheGermanGovernmentmaintainsthatthecontestedprohibitionofimportationisnecessaryfortheeffectiveprotectionofGermanconsumerswho,asaresultofeatinghabitswhichdatebackseveraldecades,haveaclearideaaboutwhattheyexpectfrommeatproducts,thatistosaythattheymustbecomposed1-21JustificationBasedon1-21exclusivelyoressentiallyofmeatandcomplywiththequalitystandardslaiddowninParagraphs4and5oftheFleisch-Verordnung.Inthatregard,itmustbeborneinmindthat,astheCourthasrepeatedlystressed(inparticularinitsjudgmentsof12March1987inCase178/84Commissionv.Germany(1987)ECR1227andof14July1988inCase407/85DreiGlockenGmbHandAnotherv.Unitàsanitaria1-21exclusivelyoressentia1-21localeCentro-SudandAnother(1988)(ECR4233)),althoughitisadmittedlylegitimatetoseektoenableconsumerswhoattributespecificqualitiestocertainproductstomaketheirchoiceinthelightofthecriteriatheyconsideressential,thatpossibilitymaybeensuredbymeanswhichdonotpreventtheimportationofproductswhichhavebeenlawfullymanufacturedandmarketedinotherMemberStatesand,inparticular,bythecompulsoryaffixingofsuitablelabels1-21localeCentro-Sudand1-21givingthenatureoftheproductsold.Itistruethat,wheremeatproductsareconcerned,theindicationofalltheingredientsmaycausedifficultieswhentheproductsaresoldinbulkorlistedonrestaurantmenus.ItmustneverthelessbeobservedthatitisclearfromCouncilDirective79/112onthelabellingandpresentationoffoodstuffs,andparticularlyArticle12thereof,thatMemberStatesmaylaydowndetailedrulesforthe1-21givingthenatureofth1-21labellingoffoodstuffsofferedforsaletotheultimateconsumerwithoutpre-packaging,inordertoprovidetheconsumerwiththeinformationwhichisessentialfortheexerciseofhischoiceandtoavoidconfusinghimwithtoodetailedinformation.Moreover,astheCommissionhasrightlypointedout,theproblemoflabellinginsuchsituationshasalreadybeendealtwithintheFleisch-Verordnung,in1-21labellingoffoodstuffs1-21particularinParagraph5(2)thereof,whichlaysdownspeciallabellingrulesforproductsexemptfromthemarketingbanwhensoldinbulk,particularlyinrestaurantsormass-cateringestablishments.Itfollowsthatthecontestedbanonimportationmaynotbejustifiedonthegroundofmandatoryrequirementsrelatingtoconsumerprotection.1-21particularinParagraph1-21

JustificationBasedonMandatoryRequirementsRelatingtoFairTradingTheGermanGovernmentfurtherarguesthatthecontestedbanonimportationconstitutesameasurewhichisnecessaryinordertoprotectproducersanddistributorsofpuremeatproductsagainstunfaircompetition.Suchcompetitionmightarisefromthefactthatsometradersorproducerscouldacquireacompetitiveadvantagebyusinglessexpensive1-21JustificationBasedon1-21ingredientsofpoorerqualitywithoutthedifferencesinmanufacturebeingapparenttoconsumers.Itissufficienttopointoutthatthatargument,basedontheconsumer’slackofinformation,hasalreadybeendismissedabove.Itfollowsthatthecontestedbanonimportationmaynotbejustifiedonthegroundofmandatoryrequirementsrelatingtofairtrading.1-21ingredientsofpoorer1-21JustificationBasedonMandatoryRequirementsRelatingtotheCommonAgriculturalPolicyTheGermanGovernmentmaintains,finally,thatthecontestedbanonimportationisnecessaryinordertomeetcertainmandatoryrequirementsrelatingtothecommonagriculturalpolicy,andinparticulartotheaimofstabilizingthemarketpursuedbythecommonorganizationsofthemarketsinbeefand1-21JustificationBasedonMan1-21vealandpigmeat.Thatargumentcannotbeacceptedeit