Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Article 36 TFEU Justifications - Coggle Diagram

- - - - The ECJ will also closely examine the arguments concerning public health to determine whether they make sense on the facts. - Case 124/81 Commission v United Kingdom [1983] ECR 203
    - - The UK banned poultry meat imports from most other Member States, on the ground that it was necessary to protect public health by preventing the spread of Newcastle disease that affected poultry. The ECJ held that the import ban was motivated more by commercial reasons, to block French poultry, than by public health.
  - - - The ECJ’s approach in Sandoz is finely tuned. It will decide whether the public-health claim is sustainable in principle. If there is uncertainty about the medical implications of some substance it will, (However, see Case 178/84 Commission v Germany [1987] ECR 1227) in the absence of harmonization, be for the Member State to decide on the appropriate degree of protection for its citizens, subject to proportionality - Case 53/80 Officier van Justitie v Koniklijke Kaasfabriek Eyssen BV [1981] ECR 409
        
        When assessing proportionality the EU Courts will pay special attention to the factual basis of the defence. It is not enough for a Member State simply to assert that a measure is warranted on grounds of public health. The ECJ has demanded evidence to substantiate this claim,(Case C–270/02 Commission v Italy [2004] ECR I–1559.) even where there may be some scientific uncertainty about the matter. - Case C–41/02 Commission v Netherlands [2004] ECR I–11375; Case C–192/01 Commission v Denmark (n 114); Case C–24/00 Commission v France (n 114); Case C–333/08 Commission v France [2010] ECR I–757, [83]–[110].
  - - - The Court’s later case law exhibits a healthy scepticism regarding whether a second set of controls is required, as exemplified by Commission v United Kingdom120 concerning UHT milk. The ECJ held that the UK’s concerns about the product could be met by less restrictive means than the import ban and marketing system it had instituted. The UK could lay down requirements that imported milk had to meet, and could demand certificates from the authorities of the exporting state. - Case 124/81 Commission v United Kingdom [1983] ECR 203 at [27]-[28]