Cassis de Dijon case analysis. Having considered the two essential legal principles in Community law from Cassis, it is important to recognize that the judgment of the case in question may support the principle of supremacy in European Union law in that

Authors Avatar

24939        European Union Law        16th December 2011

This is the decision from the Court of Justice (CJEU) within the 6th Chamber of 16 January 2003 whereby Italian legislation required cocoa and chocolate products containing vegetable fats other than cocoa butter to be sold in Italy only under the name “chocolate substitute” on the grounds that the need for consumer protection was vital.

The commission was quick to point out that the product met the specifications of chocolate under the Directive 73/241, which does not reduce the minimum content required.  It added that if a chocolate product is lawfully manufactured in one of the Member States then it should be free to be marketed and sold in any other State unless the Member State of import can point to a mandatory requirement that would justify a forced name change. However, the Italian Government claimed that their consumer expectations of chocolate were not to contain such fats. Thus arguing that there was a need for consumer protection due to a possibility of customers being misled. The central issue was whether the obligation under the Italian legislation to market this product as ‘chocolate substitute’ amounted to a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction.

Evidently, the Court of Justice (CJEU) found that the Italian Republic have failed to fulfil the obligations under Article 34 of the TFEU, as it infringed the Community law set out in Article 34 TFEU that prohibits obstacles to the free movement of goods. The Commission added that such restriction significantly obstructs access to the Italian market.  Therefore the Court followed the commission’s line of argument by stating that Article 34 aims to prohibit “all rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra – Community trade ” as laid out in the case of Procureur du Roi v Dassonville [1974] also known as the ‘Dassonville formula’.  Therefore the existence of a MEQR and a breach of Article 34 TFEU were evident.

Join now!

The Court of Justice clearly stated that such legislation could not be justified as being essential to satisfy overriding requirements relating inter alia to consumer protection.  CJEU further stated that appropriate labelling which informs consumer of the existence of other vegetable fats is sufficient to ensure that consumers are correctly informed.

The decision of the court was an important ruling as it reinforced the principle and the importance of free movement of goods as well as confirmed the two key legal principles that derived from the case of Cassis de Dijon [1979]. As the court applied the presumption of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay