Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Free movement of goods - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Between member states!! --> If something is completely domestic, art 34 does not apply
- - - - The Court: “All trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade are to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions”
        
        Gave the possibility to wide interpretation → problem: almost any national law can be argued to hinder import
        
        How do we narrow down the area of this Dassonville case but still catch all true restrictions on import?
  - - - Cassis de Dijon is a French alcoholic drink --> Germany had a rule that made it impossible to import and sell this drink in Germany, since it required fruit liquor to be at least 25% alcohol
        
        Does this break the rules of the common market, since the same rule applies to domestic drinks too?
      - The court starts by stating that there is no restriction regarding this and it's for every country to decide → HOWEVER → if countries adopt different rules that cause obstacles in trade those national restrictions must be struck down (they are only justified if there is a important reasoning, such as consumer protection) → In this case there was none → Germany loses
        
        This is very radical → if something is lawfully produced and sold somewhere in the EU, you can take it and start selling it in other EU member states too → principle of mutual recognition
        
        Justified reasonings can be e.g. public health, tax supervisions efficacy or consumer protection
        
        Problem: A lot of EU member states are very highly regulated which has caused collisions → this is a problem that EU lawmaker couldn’t really tackle which caused so radical
        
        Exceptions: e.g. cannabis → is not goods and it’s not protected under these regulations → it was not legal anywhere (even in the Netherlands, there was just tolerance policy) → will this change in the future?
        
        Exception: Snus → Sweden negotiated an exception to be able to sell etc. Snus
        
        Imported goods have to fulfill origin- and import member state’s regulations → double burden
  - - - They had sold beer and coffee with very low prices to attract consumers
      - France had a rule saying that “you are not allowed to sell products below cost” → it was illegal
      - The court says: this regulation is not designed to restrict and regulate import to France
      - Art 34 TFEU is applicable to selling arrangements only if the arrangement discriminates goods due to their origin either legally or actually
      - People just bring cases on all national laws that they dislike
      - The court changes its mind on selling arrangements: kuva😊
        
        Some of the old case law is not valid anymore --> When it comes to national rules, restrictions concerning selling arrangements don’t hinder import as long as the law is same to everyone
      - A difference was made between restrictions regarding the goods and the selling arrangements
  - - - Italian law says that you are not allowed to hitch a trailer to motorbikes etc. Trailers were only allowed on vehicles defined as cars. This restricted and made difficult the use and selling of trailers made for motorbikes
      - Commission sues this as a restriction of free movement of goods (especially trailers) → its against Art 34 TFEU
      - The court says there is three principles regarding free movement of goods
        
        Mutual recognition of rules
        
        Principle of no discrimination (selling arrangements)
        
        Principle of market access
      - Important: normal trailers are not discriminated BUT trailers that specifically designed to be used on motorbikes are discriminated and therefore hinder the importation and market access (why would Italians by something they can’t use) → HEAVY IMPACT which specifies hinderance
- - - - Between member states!!
      - Those national rules must be JUSTIFIED, and it must be shown clearly, and the country must convince the court of justice (Purely economic reason is never an acceptable justification + Restrictions cannot be a way to arbitrary discrimination or international market’s covered restriction)
      - Principle of proportionality has to be fulfilled too
      - Burden of proof is on the member state who uses this
      - Possible only if the are in question isn’t harmonized (directive regarding it doesn’t exist)
  - - - Regulations are the same to domestic and foreign products
      - Can’t be used to justificate discriminatory regulations