European Union- Principles in Cassis de Jion
SRN: 229113
Article 34
Article 34 TFEU states that “Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between member states.” In regards to the quantitative restrictions, it is clear that member states cannot restrict the level of imports from other member states.
MEQRs
On the issue of measures having equivalent effect (MEQR), the situation is unclear. In the case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v Dassonville(1974), the Court of Justice gave definition of a MEQR: “All trading rules enacted by member states that are capable of hindering directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra- community trade are considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions”. This clearly illustrates that court favour a broad view of measures which that hinder or impede the free movement of goods. Additionally, it is stated that a MEQR can be an effect in order; discrimination between domestic and imported goods does not have to be illustrated. bpp229113
MEQR’s can be divided into categories; those that ‘distinctly applicable measures’ and ‘indistinctly applicable measures’ (IAMs). Although the case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v Dassonville(1974) did not distinguish between distinctly applicable measures’ and ‘indistinctly applicable measures’. Subsequent case law has illustrates that the two situations are different.
In short, distinctly applicable measures impose on imported goods a ‘different burden in law as well as in fact’, in comparison to domestic goods. Although distinctly applicable rules are explicitly discriminatory, the discrimination is obvious at first glance of issue.
Indistinctly applicable rules, apply to both imports and domestic products alike. Therefore, they appear to be fair and have no direct discriminatory effect, but in fact place a higher level of burden on imported goods. The case law on indistinctly applicable measures can be divided into four
Article 34
Article 34 TFEU states that “Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between member states.” In regards to the quantitative restrictions, it is clear that member states cannot restrict the level of imports from other member states.
MEQRs
On the issue of measures having equivalent effect (MEQR), the situation is unclear. In the case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v Dassonville(1974), the Court of Justice gave definition of a MEQR: “All trading rules enacted by member states that are capable of hindering directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra- community trade are considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions”. This clearly illustrates that court favour a broad view of measures which that hinder or impede the free movement of goods. Additionally, it is stated that a MEQR can be an effect in order; discrimination between domestic and imported goods does not have to be illustrated. bpp229113
MEQR’s can be divided into categories; those that ‘distinctly applicable measures’ and ‘indistinctly applicable measures’ (IAMs). Although the case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v Dassonville(1974) did not distinguish between distinctly applicable measures’ and ‘indistinctly applicable measures’. Subsequent case law has illustrates that the two situations are different.
In short, distinctly applicable measures impose on imported goods a ‘different burden in law as well as in fact’, in comparison to domestic goods. Although distinctly applicable rules are explicitly discriminatory, the discrimination is obvious at first glance of issue.
Indistinctly applicable rules, apply to both imports and domestic products alike. Therefore, they appear to be fair and have no direct discriminatory effect, but in fact place a higher level of burden on imported goods. The case law on indistinctly applicable measures can be divided into four