EU - Free Movement of Goods Flashcards
This flashcard deck was created using Flashcardlet's card creator
Art. 3(3) TEU
The aim of the Union is the establishment of an internal market
Art. 26(2) TFEU
Internal market comprises an area in which there is freedom of movement for:
- goods
- services
- people
- capital
Barriers to achieving the internal market
- customs duties (Arts. 28-32 TFEU)
- quantitative restrictions on imports/exports (Arts. 34-36 TFEU)
- taxation differences (Art. 110 TFEU)
Staatsecretaris van Financiën v B. F. Joustra
VAT is a Community issue, but excise duties on fuel, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. remain under MS control
Art. 34 TFEU
QRs on imports and measures having equivalent effect (MEQRs) are prohibited between MS
Commission v Italy (Art Treasures)
Goods are anything that are capable of valuation and forming the subject of a commercial transaction
SIOT
Imports include goods in transit through one MS to another
Commission v Ireland (Buy Irish Campaign)
Promotional campaigns to encourage domestic consumption may amount to MEQR, particularly if they are state-financed
Commission v France (Transport Strikes)
MS is under a positive duty to ensure FMoG, i.e. must actively remove obstacles
Geddo
QRs are measures amounting to a total/partial restraint on imports, exports or goods in transit
Distinctly Applicable Measures
DAMs apply to imports only, and hinder importation/make it more difficult
Rewe- Zentralfinanz
- Import inspections on apples to check for San Jose’s Scale are DAMs
- Risk to health must be a genuine one supported by evidence, and measure necessary to control spread of infection
Commission v UK (Poultry)
Import licences for turkeys are DAMs
Procurer du Roi v Dassonville
- Certificates of origin for whisky are DAMs
- All trading rules enacted by MS that are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade are MEQRs
Art. 36 TFEU
Certain derogations may be used to justify MEQRs on the following grounds (exhaustive list):
- public morality
- public policy
- public security
- protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants
- protection of national treasures
- protection of intellectual property rights
Schwarz
Justified derogations may only be relied upon to the extent they are necessary and proportionate to achieve the desired result
R v Henn and Darby
Ban on importation of pornography to UK on the grounds of public morality was proportionate, as there was no UK pornography industry at the time
Conegate v Customs and Excise
Ban on import of products was not justified because products were not banned in the UK
Schmidberger
Restrictions on. Imports are justifiable for reasons of public policy if there is a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society, e.g. freedom of speech
Deutscher Apothekerverband v 0800 Doc Morris
- Ban on imports for public health reasons are justified, and the MS has discretion in deciding what level of protection is required - explains discrepancies between MS
- Ban on mail order pharmaceutical products will not be equal in fact, as it discriminates against imports to a greater extent (cannot enter market at all; domestic retailers rare still able to sell their products, just not via mail order)
Commission v UK (UHT Milk)
Restrictions will not be justified where measures taken in country of export are sufficient
Commission v Germany (Beer Purity)
- Generalised risks to health, e.g. fear of additives, will not be sufficient grounds to justify a derogation
- Consumer protection is a justifiable mandatory requirement for IAMs
Campus Oil v Ireland’s Minister for Industry and Energy
DAM may be justified for public security reasons, e.g. to preserve refinery expertise
Hedley Lomas
Derogations under Art. 36 TFEU may NOT be used where a harmonising directive is already in place
Indistinctly Applicable Measures
Measures that apply equally to imports and domestic goods
Cassis de Dijon
Sets out two rules that are used to determine if an IAM is justifiable:
- rule of reason (differences between MS in relation to IAM regulations will be permitted if there are mandatory requirements on products within the MS for environmental protection, public health, etc.)
- mutual recognition (measure will only be allowed if the product is also banned/restricted in exporting MS)
Commission v Denmark (Beer Cans)
IAM restricting the sale of beer in disposable cans was justifiable on the grounds of environmental protection, even though there was no such restriction in the country of export
Criminal Proceedings against Prantl
IAM restrictions on import of wine in Bocksbeutelflaschen from Italy was not justified as the wine could lawfully be sold in Italy
Keck v Mithouard
- Companies were using Cassis rules to overcome different domestic selling arrangements, e.g. Sunday trading in UK (Stoke-on-Trent CC v B&Q Plc)
- Where IAMs failed to satisfy rule of reason in Cassis, they would constitute selling arrangements and be exempt from Art. 34 TFEU, provided:
- they apply equally to imports and domestic goods
- they apply to all traders
Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke
IAMs are justifiable if they are proportionate; restriction on sale of margarine in square tubs to protect consumers fro confusion was too severe, as it could have been achieved by less costly means, e.g. labelling
Capena
Shop opening hours are presumed to be selling arrangements
Commission v Greece (Baby Food)
IAM restrictions on place of sale are presumed to be selling arrangements
Hünermund
IAM restrictions on location of advertising are presumed to be selling arrangements
Swedish Consumer Ombudsman v de Agostini
IAM restrictions onn selling arrangements must operate equally in law (all traders/imports and domestic products) AND in fact
Swedish Consumer Ombudsmen v Gourmet International Products
A ban on advertising will discriminate to a greater degree against importers, as it will be difficult for foreign companies to raise awareness of their products (N.B. It does not matter that domestic producers may/may not be affected as well)
Mars
Labelling on packaging does not constitute a selling arrangement, i.e. restrictions on packaging are MEQRs
Estée Lauder/Clinique
The name of the product is an inherent characteristic, and restrictions on names are MEQRs
Art. 35 TFEU
- QRs and MEQRs on exports are prohibited
2. Principles operate in the same way as Art. 34 TFEU, although there are no IAMs
Groenveld
There are no IAMs in relation to exports