Year 2 Case Law
WEEK 1 WEEK
- Case 26/62 Van Gend & Loos
• Case C-379/87 Groener (on Cassis in workers)
- Case 6/64 Costa v. ENEL
- Case 8/74 Dassonville • Case C-66/85 Deborah Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-
- Case 106/77 Simmenthal Württemberg (for a concise de nition)
- Case 120/78 Rewe Zentral AG v • Case C-369/90 Micheletti and others v. Delegación del
Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein (Cassis de Gobierno en Cantabria (the extent of the fundamental
Dijon freedom)
- Joined Cases 56 and 58/64 Consten and Grundig • Case C-370/90 Singh (with Grzelcyk, moving towards
- Case C-376/98 Germany v. European Parliament and citizenship rather than purely workers)
Council (Tobacco Advertising 1
- Scotch Whisky Case • Case C-184/99 Grzelcyk
• Case C-200/02 Chen (scope of rights for citizens)
WEEK • Case 135/08 Rottman (are there limits to the rights of
- Case 8/74 Dassonvill Member States to award or revoke citizenship?)
- Case 120/78 Cassis de Dijon (non-treaty justi cations are • Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Of ce national de
allowed) l’emploi (ONEM) (scope of protection offered by
- Joined Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91 Keck and Mithouard citizenship)
(the existence of selling-arrangements
- Case 368/95 Familiapress (what are product-requirements? • Case C-333/13 Dano (remaining importance of economic
- Case 18/87 Commission v Germany (veterinary activity
inspections)
WEEK 5
- Case C-405/98 Gourmet International
Competition law
- Case C-142/05 Mickelson and Roos
• Case 54/64 Consten and Grundig
- Case C-110/05 Commission v Italy (Italian trailers)
• Case C-67/13 P Cartes bancaires (focus on para’s 50-58)
• Case C-234/89 Delimitis
Proportionality?
• Case C-439/09 Pierre Fabre
- Case C-302/86 Commission v Denmark (Danish Bottles)
• Case 56/65 Société Technique Minière
(beginning of the three step test)
State aid
WEEK 3
• Case C-482/99 Stardust Marine
In general on de nitions
• C-106 and 107/09 P Gibraltar Tax Reforms
- Case 33/74 Van Binsbergen
• Cases T-778/16 and T-892/16 Apple (Ireland
- Joined Cases 286/82 and 26/83 Luisi & Carbone
Is there a ‘Keck’ exception in Services?
WEEK 6
- Case C-384/93 Alpine Investments - Case C-284/16, Achmea, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158 (Press
- Joined Cases C-544/03 & C-545/03 Mobistar
release)
- Opinion 1/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:341 (Press release)
Are there Cassis justi cations in Services/Establishment?
- Case C-55/94 Gebhard
- Case C-76/90 Säger
WEEK 7
- Case C-340/89 Vlassopoulou - Case 26/69 Stauder v City of Ulm
- Case C-212/97 Centros - Case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft (watch
lecture rst)
General rules on the free movement of capital - Case 4/73 J.Nold, Kohlen-und Baustoffgroßhandlung v
- Case C-302/97 Konle
Commission (watch lecture rst)
- Joined Cases C-282/04 & C-283/04 Commission v - Case C-36/02 Omega Spielhallen v Oberbürgermeisterin
Netherlands
der Bundesstadt Bonn
- Case C-144/04 Mangold v Helm
Overlap services or capital? - Case C-617/10 Åkerberg Fransson (case is not that
- Case C-452/04 Fidium Finan
interesting, focus on paras 18-22)
- Case C-414/16 Egenberge
1
)
fi)
4
2
fi
e
fi
r
fiz
fi
)
)
fi)
fi
)
,PECUNIARY BARRIERS
Van Gend en Loos
Negative obligation in regard to custom charges
• Negative obligation of the State → obligation not to interfere : the State must not create borders/boundary
them and other countries (concerned pharmaceutical products)
• Customs charges / border must not be put up between MS, thus, Dutch government was found liable
Countries attempted to get around the negative obligation; rather than calling them custom duties, they
would refer to them as “custom charges” — to close this loophole = charges having equivalent effect were
also prohibite
Case 18/87 Commission v Germany
Concerning the free movement of goods - criteria for charges equivalent to a customs dut
German regional authorities charged fees on live animals imported into the country - this was done in order
to cover the cost of veterinary inspections required by Directive 81/369
• any pecuniary charge imposed as a result of goods crossing a frontier is caught by the Treaty, either as a
customs duty or as a charge having an equivalent e ect (this case provided an exception)
• the contested fee was charged in connection with inspections carried out pursuant to a Union provision
—ie. those fees may be classi ed as charges having an equivalent to a customs duty
• Criteria for charges equivalent to customs duty
the fees do not exceed the actual costs of the inspection in connection with which they are charged
the inspections in question are obligatory and uniform for all products concerned in the Community
they are prescribed by Community law in the general interest of the Community
they promote the free movement of goods, in particular by neutralising obstacles, which could arise
from unilateral measures of inspection adopted in accordance with art 36 TFEU
Remember : (in regard to art 110 as well as art 30) look at the effect and not the reason/purpose of the charge
2
d
fi ff
y
, NON-PECUNIARY BARRIERS : QR AND MEEQR
Dassonville
Provided a de nition of ‘measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions’ (MEEQRs)
✴ MEEQRs = ‘all trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly,
actually or potentially, intra-Community trade..’
• ie. measures (extra) other rules/requirements that have an e ect on the sale of goods (eg. stamps of
authenticity, labelling requirements, certi cates for sellers, etc.) are unacceptable restrictions
• interpreting art 34 TFEU broadly, bringing both discriminatory as well as "apparently” neutral
measures within its scope
• not necessary to show an actual e ect on trade between Member States — su cient to show that
the measure is capable of such an e ect
๏ Art 34 TFEU and Dassonville want the full functioning of the internal market
Cassis de Dijon
Principle of mutual recognition + mandatory requirement justi catio
Recognised Mutual Recognition / Rule of Reason
- the sale of goods lawfully produced and marketed in one Member State may not be restricted in
another Member State without good cause (eg. a mandatory requirement)
- this principle is in contrast to Dassonville (which was more broad
A rmed Mandatory Requirements : In the absence of EU harmonisation legislation - where the measure in
question is indistinctly applicable - it may be justi ed provided the measure is:
> a ‘mandatory requirement’ : an overriding reason in the general interest [Decker Case
Rule of Reason: a restriction is only acceptable if it is necessary to ful l a mandatory requirement of the
state, for example:
• the effectiveness of scal supervision
• the protection of public health
• the fairness of commercial transactions
• consumer protection; etc.
✴ This list is not exhaustive
eg. environmental protection (Danish Bottles Case); improvement of working conditions;
fundamental rights; etc
Conditions for a measure to escape art 34 TFEU
a) they are applied in a non-discriminatory manner;
b) they must be justi ed by imperative requirements in the general interest;
c) they must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue;
d) must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it
3
ffi
fi fi fi .
;
ff ff;
;
fi fi ff )
fi fi
n
ffi ]
WEEK 1 WEEK
- Case 26/62 Van Gend & Loos
• Case C-379/87 Groener (on Cassis in workers)
- Case 6/64 Costa v. ENEL
- Case 8/74 Dassonville • Case C-66/85 Deborah Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-
- Case 106/77 Simmenthal Württemberg (for a concise de nition)
- Case 120/78 Rewe Zentral AG v • Case C-369/90 Micheletti and others v. Delegación del
Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein (Cassis de Gobierno en Cantabria (the extent of the fundamental
Dijon freedom)
- Joined Cases 56 and 58/64 Consten and Grundig • Case C-370/90 Singh (with Grzelcyk, moving towards
- Case C-376/98 Germany v. European Parliament and citizenship rather than purely workers)
Council (Tobacco Advertising 1
- Scotch Whisky Case • Case C-184/99 Grzelcyk
• Case C-200/02 Chen (scope of rights for citizens)
WEEK • Case 135/08 Rottman (are there limits to the rights of
- Case 8/74 Dassonvill Member States to award or revoke citizenship?)
- Case 120/78 Cassis de Dijon (non-treaty justi cations are • Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Of ce national de
allowed) l’emploi (ONEM) (scope of protection offered by
- Joined Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91 Keck and Mithouard citizenship)
(the existence of selling-arrangements
- Case 368/95 Familiapress (what are product-requirements? • Case C-333/13 Dano (remaining importance of economic
- Case 18/87 Commission v Germany (veterinary activity
inspections)
WEEK 5
- Case C-405/98 Gourmet International
Competition law
- Case C-142/05 Mickelson and Roos
• Case 54/64 Consten and Grundig
- Case C-110/05 Commission v Italy (Italian trailers)
• Case C-67/13 P Cartes bancaires (focus on para’s 50-58)
• Case C-234/89 Delimitis
Proportionality?
• Case C-439/09 Pierre Fabre
- Case C-302/86 Commission v Denmark (Danish Bottles)
• Case 56/65 Société Technique Minière
(beginning of the three step test)
State aid
WEEK 3
• Case C-482/99 Stardust Marine
In general on de nitions
• C-106 and 107/09 P Gibraltar Tax Reforms
- Case 33/74 Van Binsbergen
• Cases T-778/16 and T-892/16 Apple (Ireland
- Joined Cases 286/82 and 26/83 Luisi & Carbone
Is there a ‘Keck’ exception in Services?
WEEK 6
- Case C-384/93 Alpine Investments - Case C-284/16, Achmea, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158 (Press
- Joined Cases C-544/03 & C-545/03 Mobistar
release)
- Opinion 1/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:341 (Press release)
Are there Cassis justi cations in Services/Establishment?
- Case C-55/94 Gebhard
- Case C-76/90 Säger
WEEK 7
- Case C-340/89 Vlassopoulou - Case 26/69 Stauder v City of Ulm
- Case C-212/97 Centros - Case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft (watch
lecture rst)
General rules on the free movement of capital - Case 4/73 J.Nold, Kohlen-und Baustoffgroßhandlung v
- Case C-302/97 Konle
Commission (watch lecture rst)
- Joined Cases C-282/04 & C-283/04 Commission v - Case C-36/02 Omega Spielhallen v Oberbürgermeisterin
Netherlands
der Bundesstadt Bonn
- Case C-144/04 Mangold v Helm
Overlap services or capital? - Case C-617/10 Åkerberg Fransson (case is not that
- Case C-452/04 Fidium Finan
interesting, focus on paras 18-22)
- Case C-414/16 Egenberge
1
)
fi)
4
2
fi
e
fi
r
fiz
fi
)
)
fi)
fi
)
,PECUNIARY BARRIERS
Van Gend en Loos
Negative obligation in regard to custom charges
• Negative obligation of the State → obligation not to interfere : the State must not create borders/boundary
them and other countries (concerned pharmaceutical products)
• Customs charges / border must not be put up between MS, thus, Dutch government was found liable
Countries attempted to get around the negative obligation; rather than calling them custom duties, they
would refer to them as “custom charges” — to close this loophole = charges having equivalent effect were
also prohibite
Case 18/87 Commission v Germany
Concerning the free movement of goods - criteria for charges equivalent to a customs dut
German regional authorities charged fees on live animals imported into the country - this was done in order
to cover the cost of veterinary inspections required by Directive 81/369
• any pecuniary charge imposed as a result of goods crossing a frontier is caught by the Treaty, either as a
customs duty or as a charge having an equivalent e ect (this case provided an exception)
• the contested fee was charged in connection with inspections carried out pursuant to a Union provision
—ie. those fees may be classi ed as charges having an equivalent to a customs duty
• Criteria for charges equivalent to customs duty
the fees do not exceed the actual costs of the inspection in connection with which they are charged
the inspections in question are obligatory and uniform for all products concerned in the Community
they are prescribed by Community law in the general interest of the Community
they promote the free movement of goods, in particular by neutralising obstacles, which could arise
from unilateral measures of inspection adopted in accordance with art 36 TFEU
Remember : (in regard to art 110 as well as art 30) look at the effect and not the reason/purpose of the charge
2
d
fi ff
y
, NON-PECUNIARY BARRIERS : QR AND MEEQR
Dassonville
Provided a de nition of ‘measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions’ (MEEQRs)
✴ MEEQRs = ‘all trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly,
actually or potentially, intra-Community trade..’
• ie. measures (extra) other rules/requirements that have an e ect on the sale of goods (eg. stamps of
authenticity, labelling requirements, certi cates for sellers, etc.) are unacceptable restrictions
• interpreting art 34 TFEU broadly, bringing both discriminatory as well as "apparently” neutral
measures within its scope
• not necessary to show an actual e ect on trade between Member States — su cient to show that
the measure is capable of such an e ect
๏ Art 34 TFEU and Dassonville want the full functioning of the internal market
Cassis de Dijon
Principle of mutual recognition + mandatory requirement justi catio
Recognised Mutual Recognition / Rule of Reason
- the sale of goods lawfully produced and marketed in one Member State may not be restricted in
another Member State without good cause (eg. a mandatory requirement)
- this principle is in contrast to Dassonville (which was more broad
A rmed Mandatory Requirements : In the absence of EU harmonisation legislation - where the measure in
question is indistinctly applicable - it may be justi ed provided the measure is:
> a ‘mandatory requirement’ : an overriding reason in the general interest [Decker Case
Rule of Reason: a restriction is only acceptable if it is necessary to ful l a mandatory requirement of the
state, for example:
• the effectiveness of scal supervision
• the protection of public health
• the fairness of commercial transactions
• consumer protection; etc.
✴ This list is not exhaustive
eg. environmental protection (Danish Bottles Case); improvement of working conditions;
fundamental rights; etc
Conditions for a measure to escape art 34 TFEU
a) they are applied in a non-discriminatory manner;
b) they must be justi ed by imperative requirements in the general interest;
c) they must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue;
d) must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it
3
ffi
fi fi fi .
;
ff ff;
;
fi fi ff )
fi fi
n
ffi ]
