Fundamental Freedoms Cases

Front 1

8/47 Dassonville (Restriction)

Back 1

a. Imported scotch case (already in circulation in France). i. Requiring certificate of approval, which is less easily obtainable, for importers, for a product already in free circulation in another member state, than the original, would constitute a quantitative restriction as prohibited by the treaty.

Front 2

120/78 Cassis

Back 2

a.Germany restricts the sale of alcohol below a certain amount per beverage class, discriminating against a certain French wine.

b.Germany argues on grounds of public health and cooperate protection (less alcohol is cheaper).

c.Court: the fixing of an alcohol content for alcoholic beverages intended for human consumption by the legislation of a Member State also falls within the prohibition laid down in that provision where the importation of alcoholic beverages lawfully produced and marketed in another Member State is concerned.

d.(principle of origin, if something is legally marketed as something in France, it must be marketed in other member states, and all rules against it must be proved necessary and reasonable.)

Front 3

261/81 Lebensmittelwerke v Smedt

Back 3

a.German Margarine export to Belgium. Was denied due to packaging not complying with Belgian standards of margarine packaging. Belgium argued consumer protection, and not an infringement of Art. 30 because suppliers can simply adapt the packaging.

b. Court: the prohibition of margarine, lawfully produced and marketed in another member state, due to legislation prohibiting the marketing of certain packaging, in circumstances where the consumer may be protected and informed with means that constitute a lesser hindrance of the free movement of goods, is considered to have an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article 30 of the treaty.

Front 4

126/91 Yves Rocher

Back 4

a.Member state B tried to advertise using price comparisons, which were illegal in Member State A.

b.Court: Article 30 of the EEC Treaty is to be interpreted as precluding the application of a rule of law of Member State A, which prohibits state B’s undertaking from carrying out advertisements relating to price comparisons in an eye-catching manner.

Front 5

106/91 Claus Ramrath v Ministre etc.

Back 5

a.The Treaty provisions on the right of establishment preclude a Member State from prohibiting a person from becoming established on its territory and practicing as an auditor there on the grounds that that person is established and authorized to practice in another Member State.

b.Articles 48 and 59 of the Treaty do not preclude a Member State from making practice as an auditor within its territory by a person who is already authorized to practice as an auditor in another Member State subject to conditions which are objectively necessary for ensuring compliance with the rules of professional practice and which relate to a permanent infrastructure for carrying out the work, actual presence in that Member State and supervision of compliance with the rules of professional conduct, unless compliance with such rules and conditions is already ensured through an auditor, whether a natural or legal person, who is established and authorized in that State's territory and in whose service the person who intends to practice as an auditor is employed for the duration of the work.

Front 6

33/97 Colim NV (Discrimination)

Back 6

a. The obligation to have instructions for use and guarantee certificates for products be of the same language as the area in which it is being sold does not constitute a 'technical regulation' within the meaning of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988.

b.In the absence of full harmonization of language requirements applicable to information appearing on imported products, the Member States may adopt national measures requiring such information to be given in the language of the area in which the products are sold or in another language which may be readily understood by consumers in that area, provided that those national measures apply without distinction to all national and imported products and are proportionate to the objective of consumer protection which they pursue. They must, in particular, be restricted to information which the Member State makes mandatory and which cannot be appropriately conveyed to consumers by means other than translation.

Front 7

33/74 Binsbergen (Restriction)

Back 7

a. Court: The first paragraph of Article 59 and the third paragraph of Article 60 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that the national law of a Member State cannot, by imposing a requirement as to habitual residence within that State, deny persons established in another Member State the right to provide services, where the provision of services is not subject to any special condition under the national law applicable;

b. The first paragraph of Article 59 and the third paragraph of Article 60 have direct effect and may therefore be relied on before national courts, at least in so far as they seek to abolish any discrimination against a person providing a service by reason of his nationality or of the fact that he resides in a Member State other than that in which the service is to be provided.

Front 8

267/91 &268/91 Keck

Back 8

a. restricted the notion of restrictions, took it back from Dassonville. French rule in which cooperation’s were not allowed to sell goods below the price they got it for. Foreign product entered the French market, and that was a method to enter the market, ECJ decided to stop this, to stop being flooded by domestic cases. Difference between product relating rules and sales relating rules. Only if it’s discriminatory sales cases, and regulatory restrictions on products only.

b. Court: Article 30 of the EEC Treaty is to be interpreted as not applying to legislation of a Member State imposing a general prohibition on resale at a loss.

Front 9

415/93 Bosman

Back 9

a. Footballer who tries to change club

b. 1. Article 48 of the EEC Treaty precludes the application of rules laid down by sporting associations, under which a professional footballer who is a national of one Member State may not, on the expiry of his contract with a club, be employed by a club of another Member State unless the latter club has paid to the former club a transfer, training or development fee.

c. 2. Article 48 of the EEC Treaty precludes the application of rules laid down by sporting associations under which, in matches in competitions which they organize, football clubs may field only a limited number of professional players who are nationals of other Member States.

d. 3. The direct effect of Article 48 of the EEC Treaty cannot be relied upon in support of claims relating to a fee in respect of transfer, training or development which has already been paid on, or is still payable under an obligation which arose before, the date of this judgment, except by those who have brought court proceedings or raised an equivalent claim under the applicable national law before that date.

Front 10

19/92 Kraus

Back 10

a. Court: Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from prohibiting one of its own nationals, who holds a postgraduate academic title awarded in another Member State, from using that title on its territory without having obtained an administrative authorization for that purpose, provided that the authorization procedure is intended solely to verify whether the postgraduate academic title was properly awarded, that the procedure is easily accessible and does not call for the payment of excessive administrative fees, that any refusal of authorization is capable of being subject to judicial proceedings, that the person concerned is able to ascertain the reasons for the decision and that the penalties prescribed for noncompliance with the authorization procedure are not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.

Front 11

55/94 Reinhard (Restriction)

Back 11

a. The temporary nature of the provision of services, envisaged in the third paragraph of Article 60 of the EC Treaty, is to be determined in the light of its duration, regularity, periodicity and continuity.

b. The provider of services, within the meaning of the Treaty, may equip himself in the host Member State with the infrastructure necessary for the purposes of performing the services in question. c. A national of a Member State who pursues a professional activity on a stable and continuous basis in another Member State where he holds himself out from an established professional base to, amongst others, nationals of that State comes under the provisions of the chapter relating to the right of establishment and not those of the chapter relating to services.

d. The possibility for a national of a Member State to exercise his right of establishment, and the conditions for the exercise of that right, must be determined in the light of the activities which he intends to pursue on the territory of the host Member State.

e. Where the taking-up of a specific activity is not subject to any rules in the host State, a national of any other Member State will be entitled to establish himself on the territory of the first State and pursue that activity there. On the other hand, where the taking-up or the pursuit of a specific activity is subject to certain conditions in the host Member State, a national of another Member State intending to pursue that activity must in principle comply with them.

f. National measures liable to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty must fulfil four conditions: they must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner; they must be justified by imperative requirements in the general interest; they must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue; and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it.

g. Member States must take account of the equivalence of diplomas and, if necessary, proceed to a comparison of the knowledge and qualifications required by their national rules and those of the person concerned.

Front 12

265/95 commission v france 1995 positive obligation

Back 12

a.French trucks blocking the border case. French authorities did nothing about it.

b.Declares that, by failing to adopt all necessary and proportionate measures in order to prevent the free movement of fruit and vegetables from being obstructed by actions by private individuals, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with Article 5 of that Treaty, and under the common organizations of the markets in agricultural products;

c.Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;

d.Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

Front 13

340/89 Vlassopoulou (procedural aspect)

Back 13

a. Article 52 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as requiring the national authorities of a Memher State to which an application for admission to the profession of lawyer is made by a Community subject who is already admitted to practise as a lawyer in his country of origin and who practises as a legal adviser in the first mentioned Member State to examine to what extent the knowledge and qualifications attested by the diploma obtained by the person concerned in his country of origin correspond to those required by the rules of the host State; if those diplomas correspond only partially, the national authorities in question are entitled to require the person concerned to prove that he has acquired the knowledge and qualifications which are lacking.

Front 14

101/94 commission v Italy 1996

Back 14

a. Declares that, by restricting the activity of dealing in transferable securities (apart from by banks) to companies or firms whose registered office is in Italy, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty;

b. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Front 15

222/89 Unectef v Georges 1987

Back 15

a. Where in a Member State access to an occupation as an employed person is dependent upon the possession of a national diploma or a foreign diploma recognized as equivalent thereto, the principle of the free movement of workers laid down in Article 48 of the Treaty requires that it must be possible for a decision refusing to recognize the equivalence of a diploma granted to a worker who is a national of another Member State by the Member State to be made the subject of judicial proceedings in which its legality under Community law can be reviewed, and for the person concerned to ascertain the reasons for the decision.

Front 16

213/89 Factortame (procedural aspects)

Back 16

a. Community law must be interpreted as meaning that a national court which, in a case before it concerning Community law, considers that the sole obstacle which precludes it from granting interim relief is a rule of national law must set aside that rule.

Front 17

Dassonville cast a ridiculously wide test in determining what could potentially be an unlawful Restriction on trade

Back 17

Chalmers, European Union Law, 2006, 662

Front 18

Commission v Ireland 1998

Back 18

Fundamental freedoms apply to quasi governments as well, in this case buy Irish had government appointees.

Front 19

Schmidberger v Austria 2003

Back 19

ECJ held that failing to ban protestors that blocked heavy traffic on a main trade rout did not constitute an article 34 tfeu infringement, even though many companies where hindered in their trade.

The ECJ reasoned that freedom of association, was a fundamental pillar of our democratic society and a fundamental right and thus had to be balanced against the fundamental freedom of goods.

Front 20

Oebel 1997

Back 20

Case which expanded discrimination to encompass increasing labour standards

Front 21

Mickelsson and Roos 2009

Back 21

Case which expanded discrimination to encompass environmental protection

Front 22

Familienpresse v Bauer 1997

Back 22

Case expanding discrimination to encompass press diversity.

Front 23

Swedish Agostin Case

Back 23

Banned advertisement for children under 12.

Court: such bans have remained justifiable under art. 36, or as a mandatory requirement, but it would be disproportionate if advertisement were the only effective way to penetrating the market.

Front 24

Gourmet AB

Back 24

Court reinstated that a total ban of alcohol on radio, TV and magazines could fall under art 34 if those where the only methods available of reaching consumers.