TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1 MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................1 Potential complexity of keck case law........................................................................................1 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................2 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................3
INTRODUCTION Free movement of goods is consideredto be a cornerstonein the EU law. It has enabled companies to freely import and export products and services. At the same time, free movement of goods is secured by both positive integration and deregulation. The report will include critical analysis of the statement that free movement of goods is undermined byunlimited list of derogations. MAIN BODY Potential complexity of keck case law Pre Keck problem was related to the PerDassonville, Article 34 which is associated to the measures taken by companies which either directly or indirectly hinder community trade. In context of Cassis de Dijon article 36, derogation has proven to be as too narrow and has failed to justify valuable national norms. Keck approach is considered to be too rigid in context of subsequent case law1. In addition to this, Keck has left undefined concepts.According to the discriminatory barriers to trade article 36: Restricting domestic and imported products from EU is considered to be as undesirable2. Justifying barriers to trade The provision of article 34 as well as 35 should not be preclude restriction on import and export of products in transit is justified on the basis of public morality, policy, the protection of national treasures, protection of industrial and commercial property. Such restriction shall not constitutes a means of arbitrary discrimination on trade between member states. Limitation of article 34 TFEU is that ECJ in early application of Cassis de Dijon that certain types of national legislations restricting the selling of products does not fall in this article³. 1'Free Movement of Goods, “Fact Sheets on the European Union, European Parliament' (Europarl.europa.eu, 2019) <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/38/free- movement-of-goods> accessed 10 January 2019. 2Schenk, A. and Schmidt, S.K., 2018. Failing on the social dimension: judicial law- making and student mobility in the EU.Journal of European Public Policy.pp.1-19. 3Berlingher,D.,2018.RegulatingFreeMovementofGoodswithintheEuropean Union.Journal of Legal Studies. 21(35). pp.61-77. 1
CONCLUSION It has been concluded from the report thatscope of unlawful limitation on advertisement of products or services are widely imposed by court of justice. The other thing which has been concluded is that certain types of restriction are permissible. It has also been concluded from the assignment that there is some limitation related to the provision 34 TFEU. 2
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
REFERENCES Books and Journals Berlingher, D., 2018. Regulating Free Movement of Goods within the European Union.Journal of Legal Studies. 21(35). pp.61-77. Schenk, A. and Schmidt, S.K., 2018. Failing on the social dimension: judicial law-making and student mobility in the EU.Journal of European Public Policy.pp.1-19. Thielemann, E., 2018. Why Refugee Burden‐Sharing Initiatives Fail: Public Goods, Free‐Riding and Symbolic Solidarity in the EU.JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 56(1). pp.63-82. Online 'Free Movement of Goods, “Fact Sheets On the European Union, European Parliament'. [Online]. Available through: <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/38/free- movement-of-goods> accessed on 10thJanuary 2019. 3