Case Theme Facts Reasoning/Judgement
Cassis de Dijon Art. 34 TFEU The question is whether Germany's ban on In certain cases, a Member State may adopt rules that
Free movement imports of the liqueur Cassis de Dijon impede free trade within the European Union.
of goods from France is a measure having
equivalent effect and therefore contrary to Such a situation may arise if the rule is related to the
Article 30 of the EEC Treaty (now Article effectiveness of fiscal supervision, is intended to
34 TFEU). protect public health or protect consumers
(summarized: overriding public interests).
In the present case, the Court found that none of
these circumstances were present, which means that
Germany's ban on imports is contrary to Article 30
of the EEC Treaty.
Laval Art. 49 TFEU A foreign company sought to post Under Directive 96/71, Member States may only
Freedom to workers in a host Member State, where impose the minimum employment conditions
provide services trade unions attempted, through collective specified in the directive on posted workers. Trade
action, to force the company to negotiate unions cannot take collective action to force wage
wages and sign a collective agreement. negotiations if there are no clear and accessible
The host state did not have a clearly national rules. Such action constitutes an unjustified
defined statutory minimum wage. restriction on the freedom to provide services
(Article 49 TFEU).
Bosman Art. 45 TFEU By asking for this high transfer fee, his The Court ruled that Bosman and all other EU
Free movement transfer was prevented, Bosman argued. footballers were given the right to a free transfer at
of workers He sued the Belgian Football the expiration of their contracts, provided that they
, Association , claiming that the transfer transfer from a club within one EU association to a
rules and nationality rules in football were club within another EU association.
contrary to the Treaty of Rome on
Competition and the Free Movement of
Workers . The Belgian court suspended
the proceedings and asked the Court of
Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Schmidberger Art. 34 TFEU Schmidberger, a transport company, sued Whether a Member State infringes the free
Free movement Austria for damages, arguing that the movement of goods and subsequently whether it is
of goods blockade unlawfully restricted EU free responsible for this depends on the circumstances
movement of goods. of the case.
The Austrian court dismissed the claim, The Court of Justice holds that the authorisation of
leading to an appeal where the European that meeting [on the Brenner Pass] respected a fair
Court of Justice was asked to balance free balance between the protection of the
movement of goods against fundamental fundamental rights of demonstrators and the
rights like freedom of expression and requirements of the free movement of goods.
assembly. Consequently, the Austrian authorities cannot be
accused of having committed a breach of
Community law for which the Member State
concerned is liable.
Omega Art. 49 TFEU A Member State imposed a national ban EU law allows restrictions on the freedom to provide
Freedom to on commercially exploiting games that services if justified by public policy, such as
provide services simulate acts of homicide, arguing that protecting human dignity.
such activities violate human dignity. The
restriction was challenged as an Member States can adopt different levels of
, infringement on the EU freedom to protection, and a prohibition on violent games is not
provide services. an unjustified restriction if it
1) aligns with constitutional values and
2) is necessary to achieve its objective.
Carbonati Art. 34 TFEU A municipality in a Member State Such a tax constitutes a charge having equivalent
⇒ Art. 30 imposed a tax based on the weight of effect to a customs duty under Article 23 EC, as it
TFEU goods transported beyond its territorial restricts the free movement of goods within the EU
boundaries. The tax applied to a specific customs union.
Charges having
class of goods, regardless of whether their
equivalent effect
final destination was within the same The customs union principle requires the
Member State or another EU country. elimination of internal barriers/frontiers, meaning
that charges affecting cross-border trade—even
within a single Member State—are incompatible
with EU law.
Charges having equivalent effect are prohibited
under EU law, unless they are justified.
Josemans Art. 49 TFEU A Dutch municipality restricted access to EU law does not protect trade in illegal goods like
Freedom to coffee shops selling cannabis to residents cannabis, meaning restrictions on its sale do not fall
provide services only, excluding non-residents. Josemans, under the free movement of services. The resident-
a coffee shop owner, challenged this rule, only policy can be justified on public order
arguing that it violated EU law on the free grounds, as it aims to combat drug tourism and
movement of services. related disturbances.
Therefore, the restriction is not contrary to EU law.
Cassis de Dijon Art. 34 TFEU The question is whether Germany's ban on In certain cases, a Member State may adopt rules that
Free movement imports of the liqueur Cassis de Dijon impede free trade within the European Union.
of goods from France is a measure having
equivalent effect and therefore contrary to Such a situation may arise if the rule is related to the
Article 30 of the EEC Treaty (now Article effectiveness of fiscal supervision, is intended to
34 TFEU). protect public health or protect consumers
(summarized: overriding public interests).
In the present case, the Court found that none of
these circumstances were present, which means that
Germany's ban on imports is contrary to Article 30
of the EEC Treaty.
Laval Art. 49 TFEU A foreign company sought to post Under Directive 96/71, Member States may only
Freedom to workers in a host Member State, where impose the minimum employment conditions
provide services trade unions attempted, through collective specified in the directive on posted workers. Trade
action, to force the company to negotiate unions cannot take collective action to force wage
wages and sign a collective agreement. negotiations if there are no clear and accessible
The host state did not have a clearly national rules. Such action constitutes an unjustified
defined statutory minimum wage. restriction on the freedom to provide services
(Article 49 TFEU).
Bosman Art. 45 TFEU By asking for this high transfer fee, his The Court ruled that Bosman and all other EU
Free movement transfer was prevented, Bosman argued. footballers were given the right to a free transfer at
of workers He sued the Belgian Football the expiration of their contracts, provided that they
, Association , claiming that the transfer transfer from a club within one EU association to a
rules and nationality rules in football were club within another EU association.
contrary to the Treaty of Rome on
Competition and the Free Movement of
Workers . The Belgian court suspended
the proceedings and asked the Court of
Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Schmidberger Art. 34 TFEU Schmidberger, a transport company, sued Whether a Member State infringes the free
Free movement Austria for damages, arguing that the movement of goods and subsequently whether it is
of goods blockade unlawfully restricted EU free responsible for this depends on the circumstances
movement of goods. of the case.
The Austrian court dismissed the claim, The Court of Justice holds that the authorisation of
leading to an appeal where the European that meeting [on the Brenner Pass] respected a fair
Court of Justice was asked to balance free balance between the protection of the
movement of goods against fundamental fundamental rights of demonstrators and the
rights like freedom of expression and requirements of the free movement of goods.
assembly. Consequently, the Austrian authorities cannot be
accused of having committed a breach of
Community law for which the Member State
concerned is liable.
Omega Art. 49 TFEU A Member State imposed a national ban EU law allows restrictions on the freedom to provide
Freedom to on commercially exploiting games that services if justified by public policy, such as
provide services simulate acts of homicide, arguing that protecting human dignity.
such activities violate human dignity. The
restriction was challenged as an Member States can adopt different levels of
, infringement on the EU freedom to protection, and a prohibition on violent games is not
provide services. an unjustified restriction if it
1) aligns with constitutional values and
2) is necessary to achieve its objective.
Carbonati Art. 34 TFEU A municipality in a Member State Such a tax constitutes a charge having equivalent
⇒ Art. 30 imposed a tax based on the weight of effect to a customs duty under Article 23 EC, as it
TFEU goods transported beyond its territorial restricts the free movement of goods within the EU
boundaries. The tax applied to a specific customs union.
Charges having
class of goods, regardless of whether their
equivalent effect
final destination was within the same The customs union principle requires the
Member State or another EU country. elimination of internal barriers/frontiers, meaning
that charges affecting cross-border trade—even
within a single Member State—are incompatible
with EU law.
Charges having equivalent effect are prohibited
under EU law, unless they are justified.
Josemans Art. 49 TFEU A Dutch municipality restricted access to EU law does not protect trade in illegal goods like
Freedom to coffee shops selling cannabis to residents cannabis, meaning restrictions on its sale do not fall
provide services only, excluding non-residents. Josemans, under the free movement of services. The resident-
a coffee shop owner, challenged this rule, only policy can be justified on public order
arguing that it violated EU law on the free grounds, as it aims to combat drug tourism and
movement of services. related disturbances.
Therefore, the restriction is not contrary to EU law.
