Eu Ws4 Free Movement Of Goods

Front 1

Prohibition on all quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect

Back 1

TFEU 34

Front 2

Goods = anything that can be valued in money and can be the basis of a commercial transaction

Back 2

Commission v Italy (art treasures)

Front 3

ECJ defines quantitative restrictions as “measures which amount to a total or partial restraint of … imports, exports or goods in transit

Back 3

Riseria Luigi Geddo

Front 4

MEQR Definition: “all trading rules enacted by MS which can hinder, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-community trade”

Back 4

Dassonville

Front 5

“Buy Irish” campaign was MEQR:
- Measure was simply a campaign set up by the government
- Didn't even succeed
- wasn't even binding

Back 5

Commission v Ireland

Front 6

UHT Milk case:
- requiring importers of UHT milk to have a licence was a MEQR
- requiring re-packing in UK was MEQR because effectively a total ban

Back 6

Commission v UK (Re UHT Milk)

Front 7

Irish souvenirs:
- Restriction requiring Irish-looking souvenirs from abroad to be labelled as of foreign origin was MEQR (not applied to Irish tat)

Back 7

Commission v Ireland

Front 8

Origin marking:
- Certain retail goods only to be sold marked with country of origin held to be MEQ

Back 8

Commission v UK (Re Origin Marking)

Front 9

- Violent disruption of imports by protesters; government failed to crack down on them
- Inaction found to be MEQR

Back 9

Commission v France (Angry Farmers)

Front 10

Article 34 will not apply to laws on pure selling arrangements as long as:
- the laws apply to all traders operating in a national territory
- the laws affect the marketing of domestic products and imports in the same way

Back 10

Keck

Front 11

Shop opening hours presumed to be selling arrangment

Back 11

Capena

Front 12

Where a product can be sold (baby milk in pharmacies) presumed to be selling arrangment

Back 12

Commission v Greece

Front 13

Professional body restricitons on advertising outside pharmacies presumed to be selling arrangment

Back 13

Hunermund

Front 14

Ban on fuels adverts on TV held not to be a MEQR

Back 14

Leclerc

Front 15

Swedish ban on alcoholic drinks ads (prejudical due to local products being familiar, so MEQR)

Back 15

Gourmet international

Front 16

Law requiring mobile shops to also have permanent local base also a MEQR – barrier to entry

Back 16

Schutzverbrand

Front 17

Making Mars repackage misleading wrappers held to be an MEQR

Back 17

Mars

Front 18

Making "Clinique" repackage to "Linique" was also a MEQR

Back 18

Clinique

Front 19

Treaty exceptions to articles 34/35

Back 19

TFEU 36
- public morality, policy, security
- protection of health and life of humans/animals/plants
- national treasures
- industrial/commercial property

Front 20

Public morality – banning porno films was OK because there was no licit trade

Back 20

R v Henn and Darby

Front 21

life-size sex dolls could not be stopped because there was a legal trade

Back 21

Conegate

Front 22

Public policy – very strictly applied; state has an interest in preventing the destruction of its own mint coinage

Back 22

R v Thompson

Front 23

Public policy – very strictly applied; unsuccessfully argued re inaction at protests

Back 23

Angry Farmers

Front 24

Public policy - balance struck with freedom of expression (OK if restriction of movement minimal)

Back 24

Eugen Schmidberger

Front 25

Public security – hard to argue, but keeping oil refinery viable was of sufficient importance to energy security

Back 25

Campus Oil

Front 26

Protection of health of humans, animals or plants – public health – UK failed in this argument, there was no need to re-package the milk

Back 26

Re UHT Milk

Front 27

protection of industrial and commercial property (ip)
Distinction between distinguishing existence of IPR and its exercise – protect the existence but don't allow IPR to be used to restrict trade (Deutsche Grammophon)

Back 27

Deutsche Grammophon

Front 28

ECJ allowed restriction to be upheld on environmental grounds

Back 28

Preussenelektra AG

Front 29

Principle of mutual recognition

Back 29

Product lawfully sold in one MS should be free to more to another (Cassis)

Front 30

Rule of Reason

Back 30

an indistinctly applicable restriction will be acceptable if necessary for a mandatory requirement of the state (Cassis)

Front 31

Exceptions for indistinctly applicable measures

Back 31

Cassis de Dijon
- fiscal supervision
- public health
- Fairness of commercial transactions
- defence of consumer

Front 32

Additional exceptions for indistinctly applicable measures

Back 32

- protection of culture (Cinetique SA)
- Protection of the environment (Commission v Denmark)

Front 33

Cube shaped containers to show it was margarine!

Back 33

Walter Rau v de Smedt