EU law - Week 3B Flashcards
Mr. Nikolescu imports alcoholic drinks from Hungary into Romania. He is requested by the Romanian authorities to produce a certificate of origin of the beverages he imports from Hungary in order to be able to market these beverages in Romania. His lawyer is of the opinion that this requirement to show a certificate of origin violates the rules of the internal market. What do you think?
Sine without the certificate, one cannot import and market in a member State, the requirement to produce the certificate hinders entry of the drinks into Romania and is thus a MEEQR (Dassonville, para 5).
The Italian customs authorities have heard rumors about the very bad quality of Polish vodka; it seems that in Poland several drinkers of this liquor fainted after just one drink. Italy therefore decides to inspect all bottles of vodka imported from Poland at the Italian borders. The Polish exporters of vodka have to bear the costs of these inspections. Do you think that these inspections and/or the obligation for the importers to pay for the inspections are breaching EU internal market law?
The inspection is apparently MEE and product requirement under art 34 TFEU as it can “actually or potentially” (Dassonville) limit Polish vodka import into Italy. It breaches EU law if there are no justifications. The justifications also have to be proportionate in order not to breach the law. The fact only Polish vodka is inspected strengthens the discriminatory nature of the inspection that already targets only imports. Since discriminatory, Art 36 justifications apply (instead of mandatory requirements justifications). Public health is a possible justification for the measure
In the case Reinheitsgebot (Case 178/84, Commission v. Germany) from 1987 the Court of Justice ruled that the German rules on ingredients in beer – only barley, hops, yeast and water were allowed for the manufacturing of beers in Germany – violated the rules on the free movement of goods (now Article 34 TFEU). This judgment of the Court was, however, delivered before the Keck and the Italian Trailers judgments (which were handed down by the Court in 1993 and 2009, respectively). Do you think that the Court now, in 2022 and therefore after the Keck and Italian Trailers judgments, would rule differently in a case similar to that of Reinheitsgebot?
This question aims to check whether you understand the rules that apply to the different kinds of measures:
product requirements, selling arrangements and consumer use requirements (Reinheitsgebot dealt with product
requirements). Keck obviously makes no difference since it is only selling arrangements it removed from scope of
Art 34 - when they are non- discriminatory). Italian trailers confirms in para 35 that product reqs are still
MEEQRs
Per Linquist is a Swedish national who buys a nice water scooter in the UK. Back in Sweden he however discovers that he can hardly use his water scooter in any meaningful way because Swedish legislation prohibits the use of water scooters, wherever produced, on almost all Swedish waterways. Per believes that this Swedish legislation is clearly violating the TFEU provisions on the free movement of goods. Do you agree with him?
A reminder of Italian Trailers case where a prohibition of trailers behind motorcycles was seen as an MEE (define
MEE) that would lead to reduction of interest in buying trailers and thus market access for trailers from other
member States. Also a reminder of justifications - Since an MEE, Sweden can attempt to justify probably on basis
of health and safety of water scooters owners as well as swimmers – you can use your imagination here in
referring to relevant provisions of Art 36 (as well as mandatory req list) but nothing too outlandish)
