Critical Analysis of EU Law: Exceptions and Mandatory Requirements

The assignment discusses the exemptions allowed by Article 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) for member countries to justify the breach of Articles 34 and 35. It also examines the mandatory requirements set by the Cassis de Dijon case, which apply to both domestic and imported goods. The analysis focuses on the differences between these exemptions and requirements, including their applicability to distinctly and indistinctly applicable measures, and the conditions that must be met for Article 36 exceptions to apply.

Critically Analysis: EU Law Contrast the exceptions
under Article 36 TFEU and the mandatory
requirements of the Cassis de

Table of Contents
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................1
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................2

MAIN BODY
Article 34 and 35: This Articles defines prohibitions of quantitative restriction (measure
which amounts to total or partial restriction) on import and export for the member states of EU.
Same is also known as a process of negative harmonisation 1. The are two types of measures:
Distinctly and indistinctly measure and major distinction between two can be defined as the latter
can be justified if there are mandatory requirements.
Mandatory requirement: environmental, consumer, cultural, fundamental rights, child
protection, road safety etc.
Cassis de Dijon case established important principles for Article 34 and 35: in this case
court decided that Article 34 of TE$FU could be applied to measures which appeared to apply to
both domestic and product and imports.
Article 36 of TFEU: defines 6 derogation that the member countries can invoke to
justify the breach of Article 34 and 352. It allows prohibition on exports and imports which are
justified on a number of specific grounds.
Gourds: public morality, policy, security, protection of -health and life of human, animal or
plant; national treasure possession, industrial or commercial property.
Article 36 is applicable to both distinctly and indistinctly applicable measure on the
contrary Cassis de Dijon requirements are applicable to only indistinct measure. For application
of Article 36 courts watch certain conditions that are necessary to meet such as arbitration
discrimination and proportionate of National measures3. The exception of Article 36 are only
applicative to domestic products rather the mandatory requirements set under Cassis de Dijon
case are applicable to both Import and domestic goods.
1 Schütze, Robert. "Of types and tests: towards a unitary doctrinal framework for Article
34 TFEU?." European law review. 41.6 (2016): 826-842.
2 European Union: Free Movement of Goods. 2018. [Online]. Available through
:<https://soapboxie.com/economy/EU-FMOG>.
3 Free Movement of Goods. 2018. [Online]. Available through
:<https://www.studocu.com/en/document/northumbria-university/european-union-law-ft-law-
plus/summaries/free-movement-of-goods-revision-notes/1173125/view>.
1

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Schütze, Robert. "Of types and tests: towards a unitary doctrinal framework for Article 34
TFEU?." European law review. 41.6 (2016): 826-842.
Online
European Union: Free Movement of Goods. 2018. [Online]. Available through
:<https://soapboxie.com/economy/EU-FMOG>.
Free Movement of Goods. 2018. [Online]. Available through
:<https://www.studocu.com/en/document/northumbria-university/european-union-law-ft-
law-plus/summaries/free-movement-of-goods-revision-notes/1173125/view>.
2