Lfeu
LFEU formative assessment
“The Purity Commandment”
Articles 34 and 36 of the TFEU prohibits quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect but does not provide a definition or explain the effect this will have on trade within the EU. Quantitative restrictions are explained in Geddo as ‘measures which amount to a total or partial restraint of, according to the circumstances, imports, exports, or goods in transit.’ The concept of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports has not been defined in the Treaty, but developed through jurisprudence in various important cases including Dassonville, Cassis de Dijon and Keck and Mithouard. It is necessary to refer to these cases and the way in which Article 34 and 36 is interpreted in order to establish whether the German Beer Tax violates EU law.
Dassonville offered a definition of measurements having equivalent effect as being ‘trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade’. Article 36 of the TFEU lays out the justifications of instances in which a Member state can prohibit or restrict its imports, one of which is ‘the protection of health and life of humans’ . In order for the German Beer Tax Act to be found not violating EU law, it will be necessary to find that the trading rules in the Act are not capable of hindering intra-Community trade or the provisions are necessary in order to protect the health and life of humans.
The Cassis ruling was of great significance in relation to measures having equivalent effect as it lay down the principle of mutual recognition, and the mandatory requirements doctrine. The principle of mutual recognition provides that a Member State must recognise and trust the regulatory standards of other Member States in order to allow goods to circulate freely once they have been produced lawfully, unless there is reason to stop them. This was
“The Purity Commandment”
Articles 34 and 36 of the TFEU prohibits quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect but does not provide a definition or explain the effect this will have on trade within the EU. Quantitative restrictions are explained in Geddo as ‘measures which amount to a total or partial restraint of, according to the circumstances, imports, exports, or goods in transit.’ The concept of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports has not been defined in the Treaty, but developed through jurisprudence in various important cases including Dassonville, Cassis de Dijon and Keck and Mithouard. It is necessary to refer to these cases and the way in which Article 34 and 36 is interpreted in order to establish whether the German Beer Tax violates EU law.
Dassonville offered a definition of measurements having equivalent effect as being ‘trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade’. Article 36 of the TFEU lays out the justifications of instances in which a Member state can prohibit or restrict its imports, one of which is ‘the protection of health and life of humans’ . In order for the German Beer Tax Act to be found not violating EU law, it will be necessary to find that the trading rules in the Act are not capable of hindering intra-Community trade or the provisions are necessary in order to protect the health and life of humans.
The Cassis ruling was of great significance in relation to measures having equivalent effect as it lay down the principle of mutual recognition, and the mandatory requirements doctrine. The principle of mutual recognition provides that a Member State must recognise and trust the regulatory standards of other Member States in order to allow goods to circulate freely once they have been produced lawfully, unless there is reason to stop them. This was