Die Sozialpartner – allen voran die Wirtschaftskammer – liefern anlässlich der aktuellen Coronavirus-Krise ein Lehrbuchbeispiel für eine mögliche Verletzung des EU-Rechts. Klage wird es angesichts der aktuellen Ausnahmesituation allerdings wohl keine geben.
Konkret geht es darum, ob man Konsument*innen dazu aufrufen darf, heimische/regionale (steirische und salzburgische) Produkte zu kaufen beziehungsweise gegenüber Produkten aus anderen (EU-)Ländern zu bevorzugen.
Grundsätzlich beinhaltet das EU-Recht nämlich eine Regel, die innerhalb der EU „mengenmäßige Einfuhrbeschränkungen sowie alle Maßnahmen gleicher Wirkung“ verbietet (Artikel 34 AEUV). Vor allem die „sonstigen Maßnahmen“ wurden vom EuGH weit ausgelegt. Es gibt auch einen mit der aktuellen WKO-Kampagne vergleichbaren Fall, nämlich das Buy Irish Urteil aus dem Jahr 1982. Damals ging es, wie der Name schon sagt, um eine irische Kampagne mit dem Ziel, den Konsum heimischer Produkte zu stärken. Dahinter stand der „Irish goods council“, dessen Mitglieder wiederum vom irischen Wirtschaftsminister ernannt wurden. Damit handelte es sich also um eine Regierungsinstitution. Sofern man die Sozialpartner gleichermaßen als (quasi-)staatliche Institution einstuft, wäre eine derartige Kampagne möglicherweise ebenfalls europarechtswidrig. Angesichts der aktuellen Lage ist eine Klage aber freilich unwahrscheinlich. Ein schönes Lehrbuchbeispiel ist sie allemal – ich werde sie jedenfalls in meiner nächsten Einheit zum europäischen Binnenmarkt diskutieren. Die wesentlichen Schlussfolgerungen der Entscheidung sind hier zitiert:
THE IRISH GOVERNMENT APPOINTS THE MEMBERS OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF THE IRISH GOODS COUNCIL , GRANTS IT PUBLIC SUBSIDIES WHICH COVER THE GREATER PART OF ITS EXPENSES AND , FINALLY , DEFINES THE AIMS AND THE BROAD OUTLINE OF THE CAMPAIGN CONDUCTED BY THAT INSTITUTION TO PROMOTE THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF IRISH PRODUCTS . IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE IRISH GOVERNMENT CANNOT RELY ON THE FACT THAT THE CAMPAIGN WAS CONDUCTED BY A PRIVATE COMPANY IN ORDER TO ESCAPE ANY LIABILITY IT MAY HAVE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY …
25 WHILST IT MAY BE TRUE THAT THE TWO ELEMENTS OF THE PROGRAMME WHICH HAVE CONTINUED IN EFFECT , NAMELY THE ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN AND THE USE OF THE ‚ ‚ GUARANTEED IRISH ‚ ‚ SYMBOL , HAVE NOT HAD ANY SIGNIFICANT SUCCESS IN WINNING OVER THE IRISH MARKET TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTS , IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT , REGARDLESS OF THEIR EFFICACITY , THOSE TWO ACTIVITIES FORM PART OF A GOVERNMENT PROGRAMME WHICH IS DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE THE SUBSTITUTION OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTS FOR IMPORTED PRODUCTS AND IS LIABLE TO AFFECT THE VOLUME OF TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES .
26 THE ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN TO ENCOURAGE THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF IRISH PRODUCTS CANNOT BE DIVORCED FROM ITS ORIGIN AS PART OF THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMME , OR FROM ITS CONNECTION WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF THE ‚ ‚ GUARANTEED IRISH ‚ ‚ SYMBOL AND WITH THE ORGANIZATION OF A SPECIAL SYSTEM FOR INVESTIGATING COMPLAINTS ABOUT PRODUCTS BEARING THAT SYMBOL . THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SYSTEM FOR INVESTIGATING COMPLAINTS ABOUT IRISH PRODUCTS PROVIDES ADEQUATE CONFIRMATION OF THE DEGREE OF ORGANIZATION SURROUNDING THE ‚ ‚ BUY IRISH ‚ ‚ CAMPAIGN AND OF THE DISCRIMINATORY NATURE OF THE CAMPAIGN .
27 IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE TWO ACTIVITIES IN QUESTION AMOUNT TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL PRACTICE , INTRODUCED BY THE IRISH GOVERNMENT AND PROSECUTED WITH ITS ASSISTANCE , THE POTENTIAL EFFECT OF WHICH ON IMPORTS FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES IS COMPARABLE TO THAT RESULTING FROM GOVERNMENT MEASURES OF A BINDING NATURE .
28 SUCH A PRACTICE CANNOT ESCAPE THE PROHIBITION LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 30 OF THE TREATY SOLELY BECAUSE IT IS NOT BASED ON DECISIONS WHICH ARE BINDING UPON UNDERTAKINGS . EVEN MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF A MEMBER STATE WHICH DO NOT HAVE BINDING EFFECT MAY BE CAPABLE OF INFLUENCING THE CONDUCT OF TRADERS AND CONSUMERS IN THAT STATE AND THUS OF FRUSTRATING THE AIMS OF THE COMMUNITY AS SET OUT IN ARTICLE 2 AND ENLARGED UPON IN ARTICLE 3 OF THE TREATY .
29 THAT IS THE CASE WHERE , AS IN THIS INSTANCE , SUCH A RESTRICTIVE PRACTICE REPRESENTS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A PROGRAMME DEFINED BY THE GOVERNMENT WHICH AFFECTS THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AS A WHOLE AND WHICH IS INTENDED TO CHECK THE FLOW OF TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES BY ENCOURAGING THE PURCHASE OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTS , BY MEANS OF AN ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN ON A NATIONAL SCALE AND THE ORGANIZATION OF SPECIAL PROCEDURES APPLICABLE SOLELY TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTS , AND WHERE THOSE ACTIVITIES ARE ATTRIBUTABLE AS A WHOLE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND ARE PURSUED IN AN ORGANIZED FASHION THROUGHOUT THE NATIONAL TERRITORY .
30 IRELAND HAS THEREFORE FAILED TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TREATY BY ORGANIZING A CAMPAIGN TO PROMOTE THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF IRISH GOODS WITHIN ITS TERRITORY .
Ralph Janik 