Chapter 8 Question
Although in Procureur du Roi v Dassonville the Court gave a broad definition of measures of equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports, this has been mitigated considerably by the possibilities offered by Article 36 TFEU and the so-called ‘rule of reason’ in Cassis de Dijon.
Discuss this statement and consider whether it reflects accurately the possibilities for Member States to escape the prohibition in Article 34 TFEU.
Attempt this question before reading the answer guidance below.
Provide a brief general introduction to the free movement of goods and the attitude of the CJEU in the case law to measures taken by the member states which restrict the free movement in goods in some way.
Next, you should outline Article 34 and the Dassonville formula on how that Article may be breached, then outline Article 36 and the exceptions to Art 34, and finally describe the role of the court in policing them by using case examples. This would include a consideration of the requirements to be necessary, proportionate, and not to infringe the second sentence of Art 36. The rule of reason in Cassis should also be considered to include considerations of Mandatory requirements set out in that judgment. These are that there should be no community system to protect relevant interests, that the measure should be indistinctly applicable, and that it should be proportionate, complete with subsequent case law attempt to define limits of Cassis de Dijon. You should conclude by arguing whether you consider the development of the law to have made it easier of more difficult for member states to escape the prohibition of Art 34. For example, do the additional grounds offered by the Cassis case make it easier? Or, are the mandatory requirements in fact very strict and thus difficult to meet?