Commission v Ireland "Buy Irish" Case

keano007

Anybody familiar with this case?

I'm trying to get my head around it. Would I be correct in saying that Ireland lost the case because the Government funded the Irish Goods Council therefore breaching their obligations under the treaty but now 'Guaranteed Irish' operate because they are an independent body not funded by the Government?

Tom Young

This case concerned what [w]as the Irish Government’s attempt to get Irish people to purchase domestic products, using the Irish Goods Council.

It encouraged the use of a Guaranteed Irish symbol, there was also an advertising campaign. The Council consisted of Government appointees, and was financed out of state funds.

It was a private company and therefore was not affected by Article 28, quantitative restrictions between member states, the Government said [that this only applied] to member states, this is a private company.

The ECJ said that the Irish Goods Council was clearly carrying out Government policy. The Irish Government also argued that it was not a measure equivalent to a quantitative restriction.

The ECJ said that it rejected this, the Court said that it was a national practice which was prosecuted/executed with the assistance of the Government. It said that the activities had the potential effect on imports from other states, and that potential effect was comparable to the effect that might result from any binding measure taken by the Government.

The court mentioned “potential effect”.

The facts seemed to show that [t]he campaign had little effect. The court also said that it was not relevant that the measures were not binding on companies to put the guaranteed Irish symbol on their goods, the court said t was capable of influencing traders and consumers. Ireland was held to be in breach of the treaty in organising the campaign. Note the emphasis on substance rather than on the form of the measure. (campaign ineffective)

keano007

Tom Young wrote: »

This case concerned what [w]as the Irish Government’s attempt to get Irish people to purchase domestic products, using the Irish Goods Council.

It encouraged the use of a Guaranteed Irish symbol, there was also an advertising campaign. The Council consisted of Government appointees, and was financed out of state funds.

It was a private company and therefore was not affected by Article 28, quantitative restrictions between member states, the Government said [that this only applied] to member states, this is a private company.

The ECJ said that the Irish Goods Council was clearly carrying out Government policy. The Irish Government also argued that it was not a measure equivalent to a quantitative restriction.

The ECJ said that it rejected this, the Court said that it was a national practice which was prosecuted/executed with the assistance of the Government. It said that the activities had the potential effect on imports from other states, and that potential effect was comparable to the effect that might result from any binding measure taken by the Government.

The court mentioned “potential effect”.

The facts seemed to show that [t]he campaign had little effect. The court also said that it was not relevant that the measures were not binding on companies to put the guaranteed Irish symbol on their goods, the court said t was capable of influencing traders and consumers. Ireland was held to be in breach of the treaty in organising the campaign. Note the emphasis on substance rather than on the form of the measure. (campaign ineffective)

Thanks for that. I assume then because the 'Guaranteed Irish' symbol is still used along with much advertisement for the brand that they are not funded by the Governement anymore and thus not in breach of the treaty? Seems like a sneaky way around the restriction.

BornToKill

That seems pretty much it though. From the Guaranteed Irish website:

"The Guaranteed Irish program was established by the Irish Goods Council in 1975. Since then, this symbol has become one of the most recognized brands in the country appearing on everything from popcorn to bags of sugar and even t-shirts!

In 1982 the European Court ruled against the operation of the scheme by a state funded agency. To continue with this valuable service to industry and the community, in 1984 Guaranteed Irish Limited was formed as an independent non-profit company. To this day Guaranteed Irish continues to promote the ethos of the original program."

Peregrinus

keano007 wrote: »

Thanks for that. I assume then because the 'Guaranteed Irish' symbol is still used along with much advertisement for the brand that they are not funded by the Governement anymore and thus not in breach of the treaty? Seems like a sneaky way around the restriction.

How is this a "sneaky way around the decision"? The objection to the original campaign was that it was an improper state aid to Irish manufacturers, so the state aid was withdrawn. The campaign is not now state aided, which is what the decision requires.