Summary: Cases For The Law Of The Internal Market

Read the summary and the most important questions on Cases for The Law of the Internal Market

• 1 Commission v Italy (Statistical Levy), 1969 (TUTO 2, FMG 1)

  This is a preview. There are 2 more flashcards available for chapter 1
  Show more cards here

• What is the purpose of Art. 30 TFEU?

  Avoid the imposition of any pecuniary charge on goods circulating within the Union by virtue of the fact that they cross a national border.

• What definition to CEE did the ECJ give in its judgement?

  (9) : "Any pecuniary charge, however small and whatever its designation and mode of application, which is imposed unilaterally on domestic or foreign goodsby reason of the fact that they cross a frontier, and which is not a customs duty in the strict sense, constitutes a charge having equivalent effect"

• Does CEE allow exceptions to this ban?

  CEE ARE NEVER ALLOWED. Even if:
  •is not imposed for the benefit of the State
  •is not discriminatory
  •is not protective in effect (the taxed product is not in competition with any domestic product)

• 2 Dassonville, 1974 (TUTO 2, FMG 1)

  This is a preview. There are 2 more flashcards available for chapter 2
  Show more cards here

• What did Dassonville argue in defense?

  Dassonville argued by way of defense that the Belgian rule constituted a Measure having an Equivalent Effect to Quantitative Restrictions (MEQR)

• What is the relevant article for MEQR?

  Art 34 TFEU : Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States.

• What is the focus of the ECJ in that case: discriminatory intent or effect?

  It is clear from P-5 that the crucial element in proving a MEQR is its effect.

• 3 Cassis de Dijon, 1979 (TUTO 2, FMG 1)

  This is a preview. There are 6 more flashcards available for chapter 3
  Show more cards here

• What did the applicant argue?

  Applicant argued that the German rule was a MEQR.

• What is the first argument of the defense and how did the ECJ reply?

  Protection of public health (low level of alcohol content may induce tolerance towards alcohol) -> in fact, hard liquor is often consumed diluted

• What it the second main argument of the defense and how did the ECJ reply?

  Protection of consumer -> should only require proper labeling

• What is the link with Dassonville?

  ECj affirmed that Art. 34 could apply to national rules that did not discriminate but inhibited trade