What if Cassis de Dijon were Cassis de Quebec? The assimilation of goods of third country origin in the internal market
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper attempts to reconcile the principle of assimilation with the principle of mutual recognition with respect to third country goods entering the EU. It argues that third country goods in free circulation should benefit from the principle of mutual recognition when imported into other Member States if those goods are marketable in any one of the Member States. Following the principle of assimilation, such goods should be able to rely on Article 34 TFEU "without distinction" between goods of EU origin and third country origin. Mutual recognition, on the other hand, allows traders to challenge indistinctly applicable product rules if goods are "lawfully produced and marketed in another Member State". This article assesses four different ways of reconciling these two principles. The article argues that the preferred option is to allow goods in free circulation that are "lawfully marketable" in another Member State to benefit from the presumption of equivalence that follows from mutual recognition when those goods are imported into another Member State. This is the least trade restrictive way to achieve the fundamental purpose of mutual recognition: subjecting goods within the EU internal market, as much as possible, to only one set of technical regulations, not two or zero. If goods of third country origin can be marketed in one Member State according its technical rules, those goods should be presumed to meet equivalent standards set by the Member State of importation. The burden of proof should be on the Member State seeking to apply its technical rules to the imported products in question to demonstrate their necessityin light of public interest requirements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it