EU law

Question 1

Do citizens have rights under EU law?

Answer 1

Yes. This was staded in VAN GEND LOOS, which said that the citizens are given the rights of the EU-regulations even before the national legislator have implemented the rules in national law.

Question 2

Art 34 TFEU:

Restrictions on import prohobitet: What are the exeptions?

Answer 2

Some of them:
- Public morals.
- Public Health
- Public security
- Protection of domestic industrial and commercial products

However, these exceptions are only allowed when they do not constitute a disguise restriction or a discriminatory treatment.

Question 3

Dassonville

Answer 3

Belgium had a rule that french stotch could be sold in Belgium only if it had a spisific cerficate of origin. This restrictions was said to protect people from drinking fake alcohol.

The court found that the restrictions gave the french scotch a big disadvantage in the Belgium market, and did not have solid grounds.

Question 4

Cassis de Dijon

Answer 4

Germany stopped the import of french alcohol, due to a rule that forbid alcohol with a higher than 20% alcohol, to protect german citizens. The EU court said that this was not solid grounds, and implied that the restrictions were put there to protect the german market, protectionism.

Question 5

commision vs. germany

Answer 5

Germany had this old and fampus set of rules on how to brew beer. This was still there in the 80s. This rules resulted in that only german producers could sell beer in the German market. Germany tried to justify this restrictions with the protection of consumers. As there are common standards in EU for beer, the argument was not heard, and Germany lost.

Question 6

Case c-160/18 Frozen poultry meat from Brazil

Answer 6

The European Commission imposed these additional duties following an anti-dumping investigation, alleging that Brazilian producers were selling poultry meat in the EU market at prices lower than the normal value, thus causing injury to the EU poultry industry.

Appellants’ Position:
The appellants, representing Brazilian poultry producers, contested the imposition of additional import duties, arguing that the European Commission’s decision was based on flawed methodology and insufficient evidence.
They asserted that the anti-dumping investigation failed to accurately assess the actual production costs and market conditions in Brazil, leading to an unfair determination of dumping practices.

Respondents’ Position:
The European Commission defended its decision to impose additional import duties, emphasizing the need to protect the EU poultry industry from unfair competition and ensure a level playing field for European producers.
They argued that the anti-dumping investigation followed established procedures and methodologies in accordance with EU law, and the imposition of duties was justified based on the evidence of dumping practices by Brazilian producers

European commission won

Question 7

C-471/17 fried noodles.

Answer 7

The central issue in this case is the classification of fried instant noodles for customs purposes under the Combined Nomenclature (CN), which is used to determine the customs duties and other trade measures applicable to imported goods within the European Union.

2. Appellants’ Position:

The appellants, representing the importer or producer of the fried instant noodles, argued for a specific classification under the CN that would result in lower customs duties or other favorable trade measures.
They likely presented arguments based on the characteristics, ingredients, and intended use of the fried instant noodles to support their proposed classification.

3. Respondents’ Position:

The respondents, typically customs authorities or other relevant regulatory bodies within the EU, defended their classification of the fried instant noodles under a different CN heading, which may have led to higher customs duties or different trade measures.
They likely provided reasoning based on their interpretation of the CN, previous case law, and the specific characteristics of the product in question to justify their classification.

. Judgment:

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) reviewed the arguments presented by both parties and examined the relevant provisions of the CN and any applicable case law.
After thorough consideration, the CJEU delivered a judgment determining the correct classification of fried instant noodles for customs purposes under the CN.
The judgment provided clarity on the classification criteria and may have implications for similar products imported into the EU, affecting customs duties, trade regulations, and compliance requirements.

Question 8

T-246/19

Answer 8

1. 1970s: EU granted trade preferences to developing countries (such as Cambodia) under its Scheme of Generalized Tariffs Preferences (GSP), according to recital 7 of Regulation 978/2012
2. Art 17 of GSP Regulation: it identifies the Everything But Arms (EBA), a regime adopted for the least developed countries (clear direct representation of EU cooperation policy)
3. Art 18 (1): guarantee of a full suspension of Common Custom Tariffs duties to those countries
4. In 2018, Italian Republic submitted an application to the Commission under Art 22(1) and 24(2) of GSP Regulation asking to apply safeguard measures on imports because there were grounds to believe that volumes and prices of Indica rice were negatively affecting likely or directly EU competing producers.

EU commission lost

Question 9

C-688/2: about GMO directive exemptions

Answer 9

The text concerns the interpretation of EU Directive 2001/18 regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the exceptions from the scope of the directive. The question revolves around whether organisms produced using certain mutagenesis techniques should be exempt from the requirements of the directive.

The EU Court of Justice states that the exemption only applies to techniques that have traditionally been used and proven safe, as long as they do not result in new and potentially dangerous genetic modifications.

Question 10

C-526/19: Whole insects as novel food?

Answer 10

Need for autorization for puting novel food on EU market.

Novel food is defined as food that was not used for human consumption to a significant degree before 1997.

Court said whole insects were not novel food, and did not need authorization to be placed on eu market.

This was because whole insects are not “food ingredients isolated form animals” under NFR 1997
This term applies to processed or refined substances derived from animals
This category excludes whole animals intended for direct consumption, like whole insects
Whole insects don’t undergo significant processing before consumption

Question 11

C-745/22: Specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin. Substance intended to remove surface contamination from products of animal origin

Answer 11

Veldig komplisert: men

CONCLUSION: Having regard to all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 3(2) of Regulation No 853/2004 must be interpreted as requiring the Commission to approve the use of a product, such as ListexTM P100, intended to prevent the presence of the pathogenic bacterium Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat food of animal origin.

Question 12

C-785/18

Answer 12

Article53(2) of Regulation No1151/2012:
- if the proposed amendments are minor, the Commission shall approve or reject the application. In the event of the approval of amendments implying a modification of the elements referred to in Article 50(2), the Commission shall publish those elements in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.

There is a difference if there is “a minor” change or a “not minor” change as the procedure for the application for a “not minor” change is a lot longer

The question was if the change was minor or not.