logo

EU LAW. LAW. 1. : EU LAW. EU LAW. Name of the Student.

Memo requesting assistance with French advertising ban and Italian tax changes in relation to EU law compatibility.

5 Pages815 Words6 Views
   

Added on  2022-09-10

About This Document

This assignment requires you to submit a portfolio of legal advice based upon the problem scenarios. The relevant problems related to the following issues: 1. The legal effects of EU law; • Please find material attached 01a – Legal Effects Email and supporting documentation 01b, 01c, 01d and 01e. Please note that there was a small typo in an earlier version of this document. The email from McBeal was 4 February 2020 and the email from Perrin was 3 February 2017. Both should have been dated 2020. Please, therefore, address this problem as though the emails all came in 2020

EU LAW. LAW. 1. : EU LAW. EU LAW. Name of the Student.

Memo requesting assistance with French advertising ban and Italian tax changes in relation to EU law compatibility.

   Added on 2022-09-10

ShareRelated Documents
Running Head: EU LAW
EU LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
EU LAW. LAW. 1. : EU LAW. EU LAW. Name of the Student._1
1
EU LAW
LAW
MEMORANDUM- 3
To: EU Division (Trainees)
From: Alison McBeal
Re: Mr. Perrin and Sprout and nettle wine
Date: 14 April 2020
It is to be said that the first question in issue is whether French restriction is violating the
provision of Article 34 The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or not.
According to the provision of Article 34, it forbids quantitative constraints on imports and
every measure that has similar effects between the Member States of the treaty. In the case of
Geddo1, it has been held that a quantitative restriction applies like total or partial restraint
over import, export or goods that are in transit. Furthermore, the rule of Measures Having
Equivalent Effect to Quantitative Restrictions (MEQR) as envisaged under Article 34 states
that any rule of trading that has been enacted by the Member States has the capability of
causing direct or indirect hindrance either actually or potentially upon the intra-Community
trade practice is said to be MEQR2. Therefore measures that have an equivalent effect upon
quantitative restrictions are recognized by Article 34. Another application of Article 34 can
be seen is the Cassis3 which states that Article 34 can also be applicable for the indistinctly
applicable rules that are non-discriminatory measures. In another case of Keck4, a contrary
judgment has been made which states that if a similar rule in the Dassonville case is creating
hindrances for the selling of domestic products and products of other market states then it
should not be decided by Article 34 as this can be referred as discriminatory. Therefore, in
this case though by the virtue of the judgment of the Keck case, Sunshine Desserts can ask for
1 Geddo v Ente Nazionale Risi 1971 ECR 865
2 Procurer du Roi v Dassonville 1974 ECR 837
3 Rewe-Zentral v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (1979) Case 120/78
4 C-267 and 268/91 Keck and Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097
EU LAW. LAW. 1. : EU LAW. EU LAW. Name of the Student._2

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
(PDF) Free Movement of Goods in the EU
|5
|630
|37

EUROPEAN LAW. European Law Name Institution. 1. EUROPEA
|3
|424
|356

EU Law: Challenges and Implications
|9
|3465
|31

ASSIGNMENT ON EUROPEAN LAW
|9
|2115
|21

Critically Analysis EU Law
|4
|507
|328

European Union Law
|5
|659
|53