## Facts

- United Kingdom authorities prosecuted Ernest George Thompson, Brian Albert Johnson, and Colin Alex Norman Woodiwiss for transactions involving gold and silver coins conducted without required licenses.
- The charges concerned (1) importing South African Krugerrand gold coins into the United Kingdom from Germany and (2) exporting certain silver coins from the United Kingdom to Germany.
- Under UK exchange and export controls, importation of specified gold coins and exportation of specified pre-1947 silver coins (meeting age and quantity conditions) were restricted absent a license.
- UK law also prohibited melting down or destroying certain silver-alloy coins on UK territory; related export restrictions aimed to prevent melting or destruction abroad.
- Some silver coins implicated were still legal tender in certain Member States; Krugerrands, though produced outside the Community, circulated freely in at least one Member State and were treated as a means of payment.
- The Court of Appeal (England and Wales), Criminal Division, referred questions for a preliminary ruling on whether the national restrictions implicated EEC Treaty rules on free movement of goods (Arts. 30–37) or capital and payments (Arts. 67–73), and whether an export ban could be justified under the public-policy derogation (Art. 36).

## Issues

1. Whether coins functioning as means of payment—(a) silver-alloy coins that are legal tender in a Member State and (b) gold coins such as Krugerrands circulating freely as a means of payment—are “goods” subject to EEC Treaty provisions on the free movement of goods (Arts. 30–37).
2. Whether a Member State may, consistent with the Treaty, prohibit export of silver-alloy coins that were but are no longer legal tender, where domestic law forbids their melting down or destruction and the export ban is intended to prevent such melting or destruction in another Member State.
3. How the Treaty’s separate framework for capital movements and payments (Arts. 67–73) affects the classification of cross-border movement of coins used as money.

## Decision

- The Court ruled that, within the Treaty system, means of payment are not “goods” for purposes of Arts. 30–37.
- Articles 30–37 therefore do not apply to (a) silver-alloy coins that are legal tender in a Member State or (b) gold coins such as Krugerrands produced in a non-member country but circulating freely within a Member State as a means of payment.
- The Court held that a ban on exporting silver-alloy coins that were but are no longer legal tender, where their melting down or destruction is prohibited domestically and the export ban aims to prevent such conduct abroad, is justified on grounds of public policy under Art. 36.
- The interpretation was provided to the referring court to resolve the pending criminal proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- The Treaty distinguishes between the free movement of goods and the regime governing capital and payments; instruments functioning as means of payment fall outside the “goods” category for Arts. 30–37.
- Coins that are legal tender, and coins circulating freely as a means of payment, are treated as means of payment rather than goods for purposes of the free-movement-of-goods provisions.
- A Member State’s interest in protecting its prerogatives over coinage, including safeguarding policies preventing destruction of certain coinage, may constitute “public policy” permitting restrictions under the Treaty’s derogation clause (Art. 36) where the measure targets circumvention of domestic rules through export.

## Conclusion

The Court held that coins operating as means of payment are not “goods” under the Treaty’s free-movement-of-goods rules, and it accepted that an export ban on certain former legal-tender silver coins could be justified as a public-policy measure protecting the state’s coinage prerogatives.


Regina v. Thompson (Case 7/78), 1978 E.C.R. 2247 (C.J.E.C. 1978)