Analysis of Free Movement of Goods within the EU: A Legal Report

This report provides a critical analysis of the free movement of goods within the European Union, a cornerstone of EU law facilitating the import and export of products and services. It examines the legal framework, including positive integration and deregulation, and addresses the potential undermining of free movement by derogations. The report delves into the complexities of Keck case law, pre-Keck problems related to Article 34 (Dassonville), and the limitations of Article 36. It also discusses the rigidity of the Keck approach, undefined concepts, and the justification of barriers to trade based on public interest. The conclusion highlights the scope of unlawful limitations on advertisement of products or services and permissible restrictions, as well as limitations related to the provision 34 TFEU. The report references relevant books, journals, and online resources to support its analysis.

FREE MOVEMENT OF
GOODS WITHIN THE EU

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 considered to be a cornerstone in 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 by unlimited list of
derogations.
MAIN BODY
Potential complexity of keck case law
Pre Keck problem was related to the Per Dassonville, 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.
2 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.
3 Berlingher, D., 2018. Regulating Free Movement of Goods within the European
Union. Journal of Legal Studies. 21(35). pp.61-77.
1

CONCLUSION
It has been concluded from the report that scope 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

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 10th January 2019.
3