ws4

Question 1

Commission v Italy (Art Treasures) [1968]

Answer 1

Goods defined as that which is ‘valued in money’ and ‘capable of forming the basis of commercial transactions’

Question 2

Luigi Geddo [1973]

Answer 2

Defined QRs as ‘measures which amount to a total or partial restraint or, according to circumstances, imports, exports of goods in transit’. Essentially:

• Outright bans imposed on imports of another Member State
• A quote system.

Question 3

Dassonville [1974]

Answer 3

• Whisky sellers in Belgium required to get a certificate of origin
• Found that this was prejudiced against traders importing whisky from France - harder to get certificate
• ‘All trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community [now intra-EU] trade’.

Question 4

Commission v Ireland (“Buy Irish” Campaign) [1982]

Answer 4

Deemed there was sufficient State involvement in the ‘Irish Goods Council’ - which was set up to promote Irish trade.

Example of how Article 34 TFEU does not require actual hindrance to trade, but only the potential to effect trade and also that it was a non-binding measure, but still caught by the prohibition.

Question 5

UHT Milk [1983]

Answer 5

• Requirement of a license to import, even if a mere formality, was held to be an MEQR as it could cause delay.
• Requirement to repack non-UK UHT milk in a UK dairy an MEQR as it led to extra expense and delay which in practice, amounted to a total prohibition on imports.

Question 6

Origin Marking [1985]

Answer 6

A requirement for certain retail goods to be marked with country of origin was deemed an MEQR as the ECJ believed it would encourage UK consumers to by according to national origin, and they are more likely to buy UK products than any others.

Question 7

Commission v France (Angry Farmers) [1997]

Answer 7

The failure of the French Government to take action against the violent campaign of protestors against imported goods was deemed an MEQR as it allowed the campaign to continue, serious impacting imports to France.

Unsuccessful in defence of Public Policy

Question 8

Irish Souvenirs [1981]

Answer 8

As there was no rule requiring indication of country of origin or the word ‘foreign’ for souvenirs produced in Ireland, it was a rule targeted at non-Irish products and compliance would result in extra expense for producers/importers.

Question 9

Commission v UK (“Newcastle Disease”) [1982]

Answer 9

the UK Government prohibited the import of French poultry into the UK, ostensibly to avoid the spread of Newcastle Disease. The evidence put forward
indicated that the prohibition was unnecessarily restrictive (immunisation
would have had the desired effect) and was, in reality, intended to protect
the UK poultry industry

Article 36 TFEU: ‘Such measures shall not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade.’

Question 10

Schmidberger [2003]

Answer 10

Free movement of goods is a fundamental freedom and must be ensured by Member States.

But, when there are other interests for Member States to protect - in this case, freedom of expression - provided the Member State does so in a way which is least restrictive of the free movement of goods, Article 34 TFEU will not be breached.

Question 11

Campus Oil Ltd [1984]

Answer 11

Irish law that required importers of petrol to buy a certain percentage
of their requirements from a State-owned refinery was challenged.

ECJ stated that petroleum products of such exceptional importance as an energy in the modern economy, that the law in question, which sought to guarantee the uninterrupted supply of such products, was justified - transcended purely economic considerations.

Question 12

Cassis de Dijon [1979]

Answer 12

ECJ stated that Member States may be able to justify measures that were necessary to satisfy the mandatory requirements of the State. These mandatory requirements are:

• The effectiveness of fiscal supervision;
• The protection of public health;
• The fairness of commercial transactions;
• The defence of the consumer

AND principle of Mutual Recognition:
The idea that products lawfully produced and sold in one Member State should generally be able to move freely throughout the Community - can be rebutted by Article 36 TFEU/Cassis.

Question 13

Cinetheque [1986]

Answer 13

Added a general interest reason - the protection of culture - to the Cassis list.
Protection of French cinema.

Question 14

Walter Rau (Margerine) [1982]

Answer 14

• Belgian law which required all margarine to be packed in cubes so consumers could easily tell the difference with butter
• Belgium justified under consumer protection
• Was found to be disproportionate - could just clearly label packaging

Question 15

Keck [1993]

Answer 15

Ruled in response to increasingly high number of uses of Article 34 TFEU to challenge any law which limited commercial freedom, regardless of whether or not it impacted imports - Sunday trading cases.

Distinguishes between Cassis by stating that ‘selling arrangements’ are not normally MEQRs within the definition in Dassonville, therefore, wont wall within Article 34 TFEU.

Decides that the Article will not apply to national laws on purely selling arrangements as long as:

• The laws apply to all traders operating in the national territory; and
• The laws affect the marketing of domestic products and imports from other Member States in the same way.

Question 16

Punto Casa [1994]

Answer 16

Article 34 TFEU has no application relating to shop opening hours and days. These laws are relating to ‘selling arrangements’.

Question 17

Commission v Greece [1995]

Answer 17

A law that provided baby milk could only be sold in pharmacies was held to be a law relating to a selling arrangement - restriction on where goods can be sold.

Question 18

Leclerc [1995]

Answer 18

Advertising rules applied to all traders of fuel within France, and impacted French produced fuel in the same manner, therefore, selling arrangement.

Question 19

Gourmet International [2001]

Answer 19

Although advertising law applied to all sellers of alcohol in Sweden, it impacted importers adversely as it restricted their ability to break into the market. Therefore, an MEQR.

Question 20

Clinique Laboratories [1994]

Answer 20

Keck indicates that certain types of law definitely relate to the goods themselves - ‘presentation, labelling and packaging’ - and will never be selling arrangements under Keck.

In this case, Clinique had to re-package and rebrand their product - deemed to hinder imports, so not a selling arrangement.

Question 21

R v SoS for Health, ex p Gallaher Ltd [1993]

Answer 21

UK tobacco companies challenged UK Regulations implementing the Tobacco Labelling Directive as it placed harsher restrictions than necessary on UK-produced tobacco products.

ECJ held that such a national rule was permissible. Nothing to prevent States imposing stricter rules on their own products.

Question 22

Henn and Darby [1979]

Answer 22

For defence of public morality:

ECJ found that since there was no lawful trade in such articles - pornographic materials - within the UK, it was acceptable for the UK government to restrict the import of these goods.

Question 23

Conegate [1986]

Answer 23

For defence of public morality:

ECJ held that as the items - ‘love dolls’ - were of a type which could be legally produced and sold within the UK, the UK could not argued that the items contravened its code of public morality.