Non-Fiscal Barrier to Trade - Measures Having Equivalent Effect to Quantitative Restrictions

9 important questions on Non-Fiscal Barrier to Trade - Measures Having Equivalent Effect to Quantitative Restrictions

Landmark Cases in Development of Article 34 TFEU

  • Dassonville
  • Cassis de Dijon
  • Keck

Extending Article 34 to Equal Burden Rules

This concerns measures that are not directly or indirectly discriminatory; they have no impact on imports, but on trade.
Cinetheque: Prohibition on hire/sale of videos of films within first year of release = MEEQR but can be justified
Torfaen: UK ban on Sunday trading held to be a MEEQR because, by reducing volume of sales, it reduced volume of imports.

Conflicting Objectives and The Scope of Article 34

Purpose of Article 34: To remove obstacles to trade, not merely those which discriminate or are protectionist, is the very essence of a common single market.

On the other hand, can it really remove all obstacles? There is immense pressure facing by the Courts. CJEU has an unnecessary and almost impossible task to evaluate national policy choices in areas which have very little to do with Intra-Union trade or with Union law in general.
  • Higher grades + faster learning
  • Never study anything twice
  • 100% sure, 100% understanding
Discover Study Smart

Distinction between A Selling Arrangement and A Product Requirement

PR requires physical alteration to the imported product (Familiapress).

SA is presumed to be outside of the scope of Article 34 but such presumption can be rebutted (does the national selling arrangement measure prevent access to the market or impede access any more than it impedes the access of domestic products?)

Volker Graf, Advocate General suggested

The view that selling arrangements are harmless as a rebuttable presumption rather than as a rule is a more appropriate way to view Keck.

Commission v Greece

Requirement for processed milk for infants to be sold only in pharmacies.

Commission v Italy, AG Bott considered "Product Use Rules" but extended it to "Market Access" test

He suggested, in addition to distinctly applicable measures and product requirements, Article 34 should cover any other measure which hinders access of products originating in other MS to the market of the MS (such as, any rules which prohibit the use of products).

A Mixed Market Access and Discrimination Test in Gourmet Internationl

Measures will be caught by Article 34 if they 'prevent access to the market by products from another state, or impede any more than they impede access of imported products'.

Impediment to Market Access Test: AG Jacobs in Leclerc Siplec argued

  • Article 34 should only catch measures which directly and substantially impede access to the market
  • The discrimination test is inappropriate
  • The central concern of FMG provisions is to prevent unjustified obstacles to trade between MS not to eradicate any obstacles
  • Restrictions on trade should not be tested against local conditions which happen to prevail in each MS, but against the aim of access to the entire Community market.

The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:

  • A unique study and practice tool
  • Never study anything twice again
  • Get the grades you hope for
  • 100% sure, 100% understanding
Remember faster, study better. Scientifically proven.
Trustpilot Logo