• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

EU law

Extracts from this document...


EU Assessed Essay a) Porquette is a young scientist trying to market her pill "Slimming Beauty" in her home town, Burgeria, and through mail order. However, Burgeria will only allow sales of diet pills in authorised pharmacies only to be directly advertised to medical professions. This problem is to do with selling arrangements. A selling arrangement is "A judicial device which removes national law from the scrutiny of European Community law relating to the free movement of goods".1 In this case the selling arrangement is the legislation that says that the pills are only allowed to be sold in authorised pharmacies. This is a similar case to Commission v Greece2 where powdered infant milk was only allowed to be sold in authorised Pharmacies. However this case was different as there was no powdered infant milk produced in Greece at the time. The application was made on the grounds that the legislation was contrary to Art 28(ex 30) EC, which states "Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall, without prejudice to the following provisions, be prohibited between Member States."3 The court found that the effect of the Greek legislation was to "limit the commercial freedom of traders irrespective of the actual characteristics of the product... concerns the selling arrangement of certain goods, inasmuch as it prohibits the sale, other than exclusively by pharmacies... ...read more.


Quantative restrictions were defined in R v Henn and Darby12 as "...a prohibition on imports inasmuch as this is the most extreme form of restriction. The expression used in [Art 28] must therefore be understood as being the equivalent of the expression "prohibitions or restrictions on imports" occurring in Art 30" Porquette's problem is similar to the Cassis de Dijon13 case and Commission v Germany (Re German beer purity Laws14) as both these cases regard imports which had strict restrictions on them. In Cassis de Dijon, there was a problem with the import of Cassis from France to Germany, as German legislation said that there had to be a minimum alcohol level of 25% per litre of spirit and the French Cassis had an alcohol level of 15-20%. Although the legislation applied to all spirits it had the effect of prohibiting the sale of French cassis. The ECJ held that "the measures had equivalent effect to a quantative restriction. However the court went on to say that in the absence of community rules relating to the production and marketing of products"15 The ECJ also established the principle of mutual recognition, which was followed in Commission v Germany (German Beer Purity) Under German law, beer was only able to have four ingredients and were not allowed any additives. The German authorities claimed this was to protect the health of the consumer, however the additives were allowed in other products. ...read more.


Therefore if the Burgeria authorities do not take necessary and proportionate actions against Fit and Round, Porquette will have a claim through Art 28 EC as the group is seen to be a restriction on free movement of goods. 1 Connor, Accentuating the Positive: The 'Selling Arrangement', The First Decade, and Beyond, (2005) 54 ICLQ 127 2 Case C-391/92., Commission v Greece [1995] ECR I-1621 3 Art 30 TEC 4 Case C-391/92., Commission v Greece [1995] ECR I-1621 5 C-405/98Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v Gourmet International Products AB [2001] E.C.R. I-1795 6 C-267/91Keck and Mithouard [1993] E.C.R. I-6097. 7 C-405/98Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v Gourmet International Products AB [2001] 2 C.M.L.R. 31 8 Case C-412/93 Societe d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Soplec v TFI Publicite SA and M6 Publicite SA[1995] ECR I-179 9 Weatherill:After Keck: some thoughts on how to clarify the clarification (1996) 33 CMLR 885 10/ Coles, Law of the European Union,(2002, Old Bailey press) 3rd edition, p 203 11 ibid 12 Case 34/79 R v Henn and Darby (1979) ECR 3795 13 Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentrale AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung f�r Branntweini[1979] ECR 649 14 Case 178/84 Commission v Germany (Re German beer purity Laws) [1987] ECR 1227 15 Wolf, Briefcase on European Community Law(1996, Cavendish), 1st ed, p.89 16 Case 174/82 Officier van Justitie v Sandoz BV [1983] ECR 2245 17 Case C-265/95 Commission v France [1997] ECR I-6959 18 ibid, para. 3 19 ibid, para. 8 20 ibid, para. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree European Union Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree European Union Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    What is the meaning of the term 'measure equivalent to a quantitative restriction' for ...

    4 star(s)

    This now can be seen to create an area of great complexity - not only does the intention of the member state have to be taken into consideration, but also on a separate part entirely the effect, when deciding whether a measure is an MEQR and when trying to define what an MEQR is.

  2. What are the outer limits of Article 28 EU?

    be promoted, mentioning certain properties and if those varieties are a typical national product. This shows that there is a "fine line between State-sponsored promotion of national goods.... which is unlawful, and State-sponsored promotion of specific goods having distinctive qualities is permissible"26.

  1. Predatory pricing strategies in the European union: A case for legal reform.

    cigarette industry, in which two leader firms possessed a combined market share of almost 70 per cent, started competing vigorously by introducing a line of generic cigarettes and selling them at prices considerably lower than the traditional cigarettes. As Liggett's product was gaining ground, Brown & Williamson sought to retaliate

  2. Discuss the rules of Competition law and how the European Commission enforces these Laws.

    Enforcement Articles 81 and 82 both have direct effect see the case of BRT v SABAM27. This does not mean that the national courts of the Member States have the right to grant exemptions. So that the national courts can all be equal the Commission has published guidance so the courts are in no doubt how to proceed.

  1. Discussion of the quotation from Advocate General Jacobs in Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v. ...

    an action within two months10 of becoming aware of the decision then he will not only loose the right to challenge the act directly, but also, should he bring an action in the national court, the ECJ will decline to consider a preliminary reference procedure under Art 234,11 however, Art

  2. How far has the creation of a single market in goods resulted in the ...

    However, the courts have had problems applying the test. The case law is not always consistent44. States activity is unrestricted if the Cassis defence is used abusively. For example Oostheok's Uitgeversmaatschappij[1982]45, Holland tried to use it to justify the use of restriction of free gifts in promotions. This is apparently stretching the rule of reason' too far, but the court accepted it.

  1. EU Law - age discrimination and market access case studies.

    Both suggest that the least restrictive measure should be taken, so, for the purposes of consumer protection, the requirement of every vendor to register is more restrictive than necessary; other methods such as a public warning campaign on, for example, illegitimate vendors could be launched to make sure the public are aware of less genuine jewellery.

  2. EU Law - Albatros Pool problem case. Mark and Sunita must be advised that ...

    There are several derogations from the general Article 28 prohibition set out in Article 30. One of them, namely the provision which permits measures justified on grounds of the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants is possibly applicable in this context, given the ostensible motive of environmental protection.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work