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 mutual recognition which is the first principle, it held that "once a product had been lawfully produced and marketed as chocolate in one member state, it should be freely sold in any other member state without restriction ". However, if the member state of import can demonstrate a mandatory requirement, it may justify the restriction on the free movement of goods. Consequently, it is important to consider whether Italy in this case had a justifiable mandatory requirement, which is the second rule that resulted from Cassis de Dijon. It was argued that the legislation is based on the need for consumer protection. Nonetheless, if any mandatory requirement is to be considered and successful then it must be proportionate to the objective pursued. As J. Steiner stated that "The court must decide whether the requirements advanced are "mandatory", in that they are designed to promote ends which are capable under Community law; then it must be satisfied that the measure is proportionate, no more than is necessary to achieve those ends." Consequently, if there are other means of achieving that objective that may be less restrictive of intra – community trade, then that should be applied. As illustrated in this case, the CJEU evidently permits the use of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter as long as it complies with Directive 73/241. It exemplifies that such alteration of the name is unnecessary due to the fact that those fats do not make the product substantially different. It was explained that the need for traders to use the name ‘chocolate substitute’ could increase packaging costs for importers as well as adversely change the perception of the consumers as the value of the product may be depreciated. The Italian rules are therefore disproportionate leading to an unsuccessful defence against a breach of article 34 TFEU.
Commission v Italy, undeniably supports the two principles from Cassis and it also demonstrates that mandatory requirements will rarely lead to a successful defence due to the need for proportionality. It seems that the CJEU’s ruling was reasonable as it confirmed the right of free movement of goods, which is one of the key principles in EU law. Lawrence W. Gormley, commented that "the court has consistently maintained that the grounds of justification set out in art.36 TFEU must be strictly interpreted and that the grounds mentioned therein cannot be expanded".
It appears as though the EU will not tolerate any breaches of Article 34 unless the member state in question is able to justify it under Article 36 TFEU or by the case law. It may be argued that this is approached in a rather strict manner by not allowing member states to follow their rules or traditions. On the other hand, the single market would not function with obstacles as discussed. In the case of Gaston Schul [1982] it was stated that “the elimination of all obstacles to intra – Community trade in order to merge the national markets into a single market bringing about conditions as close as possible to those of a genuine internal market”.
The Courts have faced many cases relating to ingredients, packaging and composition of the product such as the case of Deserbais [1988] or Walter Rau v De Schmedt [198]; however the judgment appears to be comparable as well as conservative due to the legal principles of Cassis. The principles that the Court of Justice adopted when deciding this case is undoubtedly still applicable today as the CJEU will certainly continue to ensure that uniformity, justice and free movement of provisions are always upheld. Although, there are academics who challenge the idea that the principle of mutual recognition derived from Cassis. Karen Alter argued against a "common belief that the Cassis ruling became significant because it created a European policy of Mutual Recognition, instead suggesting that its influence was mediated through the political response it received from the European Commission which itself tried to create such a policy, prompting reaction from member states".
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 the EU law prevails over national law. Conversely, it may be said that the decision of CJEU to some extent limits the sovereignty of the state. Every member state unquestionably desires to uphold their independence as much as it is possible, however due to the doctrine of Supremacy, member states are required to follow EU law. It appears as though the court will always follow Treaty provisions and try to maintain the idea of free movement of goods as it is one of the cornerstones of EU’s single market.
Having considered all the relevant issues, it may be right to say that the CJEU's ruling is a fair one. It clearly provides a clear solution on the legal issue by following Treaty provisions. Most importantly, it reinforces the free movement of goods principle and undoubtedly maintains the aims of the European Union's Single Market, which of course is the world's largest domestic market, hence why it is so important to maintain uniformity between member states.
1,498 words including footnotes
Bibliography
Books
Craig and De Burca, European Union Law, Text, Cases and Materials 5th edition Oxford 2011".
Articles
Agnete Philipson, Guide to the Concept and Practical Application of Articles 28-30 EC, Brussels, 2001
European chocolate makes the trade go round, Des Taylor
Journals
[Food & Drink Law Monthly] Publication Date: 2003
Edinburgh Law Review, 2011, Publication Review, The European Court's political power, Karen Alter.
Irish Jurist 2011 Free movement of goods within the EU: Lawrence W. Gormley
Drawing the line: uses and abuses of article 30 EEC - J. Steiner
European Law Review 2009, Leaving Keck behind? The free movement of goods after the rulings in Commission v Italy and Mickelsson and Roos, Eleanor Spaventa
Legislation
The treaty on the functioning of European Union (TFEU)
Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 34TFEU
Articles 34, 35 and 36 of TFEU
Council Directive 73/241/EEC of 24 July 1973
Cases
Gaston Schul (Case 15/81 [1982] ECR 1409)
Rewe-Zentrale AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon) (Case 120/78 [1979] ECR 649
Commission of European Communities v Italian Republic C-14/00 [2003] ECR I-513
Procureur du Roi v Dassonville (Case 8/74 [1974] ECR 837)
Commission v Spain (Case C-12/00 [2003] ECR I-459)
Walter Rau v De Schmedt (Case 26/81 [1982] ECR 3961)
Guimont [2000] ECR I-10663
Other sources
http://eprints.usq.edu.au/2652/2/Taylor_2007_CESAA_Authorversion.pdf
Commission v Italian Republic C-14/00 [2003] arguments, para.27
Procureur du Roi v Dassonville (Case 8/74 [1974] ECR 837)
European chocolate makes the trade go round, Des Taylor
Rewe-Zentrale AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon) (Case 120/78 [1979] ECR 649) Para 14.
Drawing the line: uses and abuses of article 30 EEC - J. Steiner p. 75
Irish Jurist 2011 Free movement of goods within the EU:Lawrence W. Gormley
Gaston Schul (Case 15/81 [1982] ECR 1409)
Agnete Philipson, Guide to the Concept and Practical Application of Articles 28-30 EC, Brussels, 2001, at 7.