1. INTERNAL MARKET

2. INTERNAL MARKET
Freedom of movement of goods
Freedom of movement of persons
Freedom of movement of services
Freedom of movement of capital
and
Free competition

3. STAGES OF INTEGRATION
Free trade area
=>
Customs union
Single market
Economic community
Economic and Monetary Union

4. FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT OF GOODS

5. PROHIBITED RESTRICTIONS
Art 25:
CUSTOMS DUTIES
MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT
Charges impeding import
Taxes, unless part of an overall system of taxation
(Art. 90: ”… no Member State shall impose on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products..”

6. RESTRICTIONS OF IMPORTS QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS
Art 28:
RESTRICTIONS OF IMPORTS
QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS
Direct restrictions:
Bans
Quotas
MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT TO QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS MEQR
Indirect :
Supportive measures to domestic production
Licensing system
Requirements that make importation uneconomic

7. CASE DASSONVILLE
The ECJ ruled:
“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.”
=> The crucial element in proving the existence of a MEQR is the potential effect of the measure, a discriminatory intent is not a prerequisite.

8. Effect might be discriminatory
OBSTACLES TO FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS
DISTINCTLY
APPLICABLE
MEASURES
INDISTINCTLY
APPLICABLE
MEASURES
Discriminate
against
imported
goods
Non-discriminatory
Apply to imported
goods only
Apply to domestic
goods
Apply to imported
goods
Effect might be discriminatory

9. PROHIBITED RESTRICTIONS ON EXPORTS
Art 29:
Quantitative restrictions on exports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States
Prohibits only distinctly applicable measures
Licensing system
Requirements on inspection documents for exports

10. EXCEPTIONS
Art 30:
The provisions of Articles 28 and 29 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified…

11. … on grounds of
Public morality
Public policy
Public security
The protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants
The protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic of archaeological value or
The protection of industrial and commercial
property

12. Prohibitions or restrictions shall not constitute
A means of arbitrary discrimination or
Disguised restriction on trade between Member States
They are subject to the general principle of proportionality

13. The Court in case Cassis de Dijon:
1. MUTUAL RECOGNITION
Once goods have been lawfully marketed in one Member State, they should be admitted into any other state without restriction.

14. 2. RULE OF REASON There are areas which are lacking EC rules =>
Until harmonizing legislation is introduced, it is for the Member States to regulate matters relating to these issues
Therefore it is unavoidable to have disparities between national laws
These disparities may cause obstacles to free movement of goods
but the obstacles are acceptable if they are necessary to meet the mandatory requirements

15. MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS
=> In the absence of harmonization, if necessary in order to meet the
MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS
Fiscal supervision
Protection of public health
Fairness of commercial transactions
Defence of the consumer
Protection of environment
Socio-cultural characteristics
Social policy
Press diversity
the Member States may apply their own laws even if impediments to free trade

16. Conditions on mandatory requirements
If a Member State wishes to justify its restrictive measures on basis of mandatory requirements, it has to prove its grounds,
The provision must be necessary, and
The provisions always must be applied to domestic and imported goods equally (be indistinctive)

17. ECJ in Case Cassis…
Protection of public health?
There is a wide range of weakly or moderately alcoholic products on the German market anyway => not decisive matter
Fairness of commercial transactions?
Fixing of minimum alcohol contents is not the correct means although it may lead to greater transparency => ensuring that suitable information to the consumer is conveyed is more appropriate
Defence of the consumer?
The necessary information to the purchaser is conveyed by simply requiring the display of an indication of origin and of the alcohol content on the packaging of products => banning the imports entirely is not proportionate

18. Case Cassis de Dijon Who was the claimant in the case?
Who was the defendant?
What plans did Rewe Zentrale AG have?
What was the reason the German authorities’ gave when refusing to allow the importation of Cassis de Dijon?
What did the ECJ say about rules relating to the production and marketing of alcohol?
What are ”mandatory requirements”?
Regarding the protection of public health, what did the German government state?
What was the argument of the ECJ to this?
Regarding the unfair business practices, what did the German government state?
How was the principle of proportionality related to the case?
What was the general principle of restrictions on goods produced and marketed in the EU the ECJ introduced as a conclusion of this case?