Self-Control Exercises on Case Law on Quantitative Restrictions
Fill in the blanks!
The ECJ originally defined MEEs in case 8/74, Dassonville: "All trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or , actually or , intra-[Union] trade are to be considered measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions". The ECJ extended the Dassonville formula to Article 35 TFEU in case 53/76, Bouhelier. In the Joined Cases C-267 and 268/91, Keck, the ECJ explained that non-discriminatory national measures restricting certain arrangements (CSAs) do not constitute MEEs, and consequently fall outside the scope of Article 34 TFEU. Thus, Dassonville applies to "all trading measures", meaning that Article 34 TFEU concerns the marketing stage, not the stage. These measures need not be legally binding, but may include practices and policies. According to Dassonville, the measures must be "enacted by Member States", which cannot mean legal enaction not to exclude policies. The measures must not belong to government or quasi-government bodies, but to also non-governmental bodies. In case Cassis de Dijon, the ECJ explained that in the absence of common rules it is for the to regulate all matters relating to the production and marketing of alcohol and alcoholic beverages on their own territory. The ECJ added: "Obstacles to movement in the [Union] resulting from disparities between the national law relating to the of the products in question must be accepted in so far as those provisions may be recognised as being necessary in order to satisfy mandatory requirements relating in particular to the effectiveness of supervision, the protection of public , the fairness of transactions and the defence of the consumer. In case 261/81, Rau, the ECJ added: "It is also necessary for such rules to be to the aim in view. If a Member State has a choice between various measures to attain the same objective, it should choose the means which least restricts the free movement of goods." In Cassis de Dijon, the ECJ also explained: "There is therefore no valid reason why, provided that they have been produced and marketed in one of the Member States, alcoholic beverages should not be introduced into any other Member State." This idea is also known as presumption of equivalence or mutual = goods lawfully produced and in one Member State can, in principle, be solved in another Member State without further restriction = Germany must recognize Estonian standards as to its own, unless Germany demonstrates that its measures can be justified under one of derogations, and that the national measures are proportionate. Thus, Cassis de Dijon also introduced the principle of home State to check whether an important interest of home State is at issue.
In Towing Trailers, the ECJ constructed total , by saying that a prohibition on the use of a product in the territory of a Member State has a considerable influence on the behaviour of consumers, which, in its turn, affects the access of the product to the market of that Member State.