ASSIGNMENT ON EUROPEAN LAW

Running head: EUROPEAN LAW
European Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

EUROPEAN LAW1
The present situation involves Rhiskey Bookey Bros Ltd. (RBB Ltd) who was specialised
in the supplier of specialist informative magazines. Those magazines were focusing in
particular on weight training, history and financial magazines. The company has been
previously based on UK. However, has been deciding to expand in the European market.
Moreover, the company also provided adults education via online courses and the same has
been accredited by the upon University in the UK. By virtue of its expansion plan, it has
launched its product lines in Italy and Spain. Subsequently it also launched its product line in
the Germany and France. There were several concerns that has cropped up. All these
concerns needs to be resolved by the application of the EU law on free trade. In the present
memo, the laws relevant situation relating to free movement would be provided. It will also
strive to analyse the situation of the case under the light of the relevant laws mentions. Lastly,
it would provide an advice regarding the benefits that Rhiskey Bookey Bros Ltd. (RBB Ltd).
can avail from the EU law relating to free movement.
The laws relating to free movement of goods under the EU law has been enumerated in the
provisions contained under article 28 to 37 pertaining to the Treaty on the functioning of the
European Union (TFEU). For the purpose of this part, the definition of goods needs to be
analysed under the light of the principles established in the case of Commission v Italy (Art
Treasures)1. In this case it has been contended that any product that can be measured in
monetary value and can be used as a subject matter for commercial transactions can be
termed as goods2.
The provisions contained in article 34 to 36 has been providing for certain restrictions.
The provisions contained in article 34 puts restriction on the member states to adopt any
measures which has the effect of restricting imports from any other states who is a member. It
1 [1968] ECR 423 at 428
2 Recchi, Ettore. Mobile Europe: The theory and practice of free movement in the EU. Springer, 2015.

EUROPEAN LAW2
has been held in the case of Commission v France3 that the liability of the citizens who has
been trying to prevent imports of certain goods from other member states needs to be
considered as a liability of the member state itself4.
Article 35 contains provisions, which requires the prohibition between the member states
regarding quantitative restrictions being imposed on exports and adopting the measures
having the same effect. There are certain derogations, which implies opportunities for the
member states to avail an immunity for the purpose of breaching Article 35 and 34 as
provided under the provisions contained in article 36. There are certain compulsory
requirements that effect in the listing of the reach of article 34. However, there are certain
instruments through which restriction can be imposed upon the exports as well as imports of
goods. These include licensing, quota as well as the system of banning. This can be best
explained with the case of Geddo v Ente Nazionale Risi5.
Any quantitative restrictions that discriminates against products, which are imported can
be treated as a breach of article 34. This invites accusations hindering the free trade within
the member states of the European Union in case it can be brought under the purview of any
of the justifications. The MEQRs provides for certain measures that has the equal effect as
that of the quantitative restrictions. But these measures are more complicated as the
application of the same is upon both the imported as well as domestic products6.
It has been held in the case of Procurer du Roi v Dassonville7 that MEQRs depicts all
rules relating to trade and commerce that are passed by the member states and which are
capable of directly as well as indirectly, potentially or actually deterring the trade of intra
3 [1997].
4 Gormley, Laurence W. "Inconsistencies and misconceptions in the free movement of goods." European law
review 6 (2015): 925-939.
5 [1973]
6 Chalmers, Damian, Gareth Davies, and Giorgio Monti. European union law. Cambridge university press, 2019.
7 [1974] ECR 837