This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

GDL Law Notes GDL EU Law Notes

Free Movement Of Goods Ii Notes

Updated Free Movement Of Goods Ii Notes

GDL EU Law Notes

GDL EU Law

Approximately 409 pages

A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through applications from top students and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of GDL notes available in the UK this year. This collection of GDL notes is fully updated for recent exams, also making them the most up-to-date GDL study materials ...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL EU Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

  • MS are bound by A34 – but also MS will be held liable where they have failed to stop individuals from breaching rules Commission v France – ‘Spanish Strawberries’ – French farmers sabotaged Spanish strawberries

  • Wide definition of A34 – public or quasi-public bodies – e.g. R v Royal Pharmaceutical Society of GB, Apple and Pear Development Council v Lewis, Commission v Ireland

A34:quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited’ (QRs) and (MEQRs)

QRs: defined in Geddo v Ente Nationale Risi – ‘measures which amount to a total or partial restraint’

  • Ban: as in R v Henn and Darby (UK ban on importation of porn) - most extreme form of QR

  • Imposed quotas: International Fruit Co (No 2) v Produktschap voor Groenten - licensing system

  • The only way a QR can be saved is through derogations in Article 36

MEQRS: e.g. national rules which regulate physical requirements for products

Secondary legislation – D 70/50

  • Transitional measure no longer in force – but indicates commission’s understanding of MEQRs: divided MEQRs into 2 groups: distinctly applicable (do not apply equally to domestic/imported goods) and indistinctly applicable (appear to be equally applicable, but the effect disadvantages imported goods)

  • Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerks v de Smedt PvbA – Belgian statute required all margarine to be sold in cubic packages – effect of protecting domestic producers: Belgian defence was avoidance of consumer confusion – seen as legitimate justification but failed proportionality requirement

CJ’s definition in Dassonville

All trading rules enacted by MS which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, inta-Community trade’: rule must be capable of hindering trade – very wide ambit

  • Commission v Ireland (‘Buy Irish’) - didn’t achieve expected results but still enough

  • Concepts of direct or indirect discrimination broadly equivalent to the concepts of distinctly/indistinctly

  • Distinction important because the defences differ – indistinctly applicable defendable with reference to ‘mandatory requirements’

Case law on distinctly applicable MEQRs

  1. Imposing additional requirements on imported goods: Firma Denkavit Futtermittel v Minister fur Ernahrung - requirement that imported goods should be inspected = breach because of the delays + transport costs

  2. National rules giving preference to domestic goods: Buy Irish campaign to promote Irish goods = MEQR because imports likely to be effected – Commission v Ireland (Irish Souvenirs) imported jewellery branded with the word ‘foreign’ – CJ held that buyers didn’t need to know where it came from

  3. Restricting channels of distribution for imported goods: Dassonville requirement for certificate of origin was onerous - favoured direct importers from UK over indirect – so hindered free trade

Case law on indistinctly applicable MEQRs

  • Most of the cases are to do with packaging and presentation

  • List of product requirements which might constitute MEQRs is provided in Criminal Proceedings Against Keck and Mithouard - ‘designation, form, size, weight, consumption, presentation, labelling (and) packaging’

  • Walter Rau – Belgian law required margarine to be cube shaped – indistinctly applicable

  • Public procurement contracts which indirectly favour domestic goods – Commission v Ireland (Re Dundalk Water Supply) - contractors tendering for contract to supply water to Dundalk – requirements for pipes – but only one manufacturer (Irish one) made such pipes

Defences I: Article 36 TFEU derogations

  1. Public Morality: must be irrespective of origin

  • Henn and Darby – A36 could be relied upon – in accordance with its own values and not arbitrarily vs. imported

  • Conegate – derogation was not available: tried to prevent import of life-size inflatable dolls – but the same goods could be lawfully manufactured in the UK

  1. Public Policy

  • Extremely narrow – only invoked once in R v Thompson: UK banned export of silver coins – stop destruction

  • Rejected in Cullett v Centre Leclerc Toulouse: threat of unrestricted competition was not sufficient

  1. Public Security

  • Campus Oil Ltd v Minister for Industry and Energy: essential importance of petroleum so restriction necessary – interruption could risk public security – allowed Ireland to maintain own oil refining capacity and was proportional – contrast with Commission v Greece - state’s exclusive oil marketing not proportionate

  1. The protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants;

  • Most frequently invoked – only applies where EU hasn’t adopted harmonising measures

  • Objective evidence must be provided – Commission v Germany (‘Beer Purity’) – German govt banned marketing of beer containing all additives: CJ examined scientific evidence and found little risk to health

  • If scientific evidence is inconclusive – CJ will allow MS to decide the degree of protection required – Santoz (dearth of scientific evidence about vitamins)

  • Arbitrary measure won’t be tolerated – Commission v UK (‘The Imports of Poultry Meat’) – hastily introduced at Xmas – concern about imports from France – no genuine health reason

  • Protection of animals/plants – Criminal Proceedings Against Bluhme – bee keeping – biodiversity

  • PreussenElektra AG v Schhleswag AG: legislative policy protecting renewable energy sources justified

  1. The protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; or

  • No case has yet been decided – but raise in Commission v Italy (‘Italian Art’) – but financial measure not A36

  1. The protection of industrial and commercial property: Specialised area – IP etc.

ALL SUBJECT TO THE PROPORTIONALITY PRINCIPLE – e.g. C v Netherlandsblanket ban on fortified foods disproportionate – also Campus Oil and Commission v Greece

Defences II: the rule of reason for indistinctly applicable MEQRs

Rewe-Zentral v Bundesmonopolverwaltung (‘Cassis de Dijon’): German law – specified min. alcohol level (25%) for certain spirits...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL EU Law Notes.