Comparing Article 36 TFEU Exceptions and Cassis de Dijon Requirements
VerifiedAdded on 2020/10/22
|4
|507
|328
Report
AI Summary
This report critically analyzes the differences between Article 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the principles established in the Cassis de Dijon case, focusing on their implications for the free movement of goods within the European Union. Article 36 provides specific grounds for member states to justify restrictions on imports and exports, such as public morality, public policy, and the protection of health. In contrast, the Cassis de Dijon case introduced the concept of mandatory requirements, allowing restrictions on goods if they are necessary to satisfy mandatory requirements, such as consumer protection or environmental concerns. The report highlights that Article 36 applies to both distinctly and indistinctly applicable measures, whereas Cassis de Dijon primarily concerns indistinctly applicable measures. Furthermore, the report emphasizes that Article 36 exceptions apply to domestic products, while the Cassis de Dijon requirements are relevant to both import and domestic goods. The report also references key legal sources and academic literature to support its analysis, providing a comprehensive overview of these crucial aspects of EU law.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
1 out of 4