A directive had been passed that banned advertising of foods containing certain minerals/chemicals, made pursuant to Article 95.
ECJ held that the directive was valid.
Said that failure to produce such a directive would:
Perpetuate the uncoordinated development of national rules and, consequently, obstacles to trade between Member States and distortions of competition so far as those products are concerned.
Thus the directive complied with Article 95, and nor did it breach the subsidiarity principle, since it would be inadequate to leave the issue to be determined by individual member states.
It is true that freedom to pursue economic activity was part of EU law, but that given the public interest in improving public health, the directive was not disproportionate, i.e. did not contradict principle of proportionality.
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an O...
European Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
GDL EU Law | Free Movement Of Goods Notes (31 pages) |
European Law | Free Movement Of Goods And Services Notes (30 pages) |
European Human Rights Law | Legal Limits On European Law Making Notes (18 pages) |