European Union Law

European Union Law

European Union Law is a conglomeration of rule that regulate all the members’ states that ascribe themselves to be members of the greater E.U. The Union has a total membership of 28 countries and which are free to trade with each other as long as they are in the European trade bloc. In order to subdue the regional barriers to trade that were bound to inhibit peaceful trade among member states, the union decreed to establish its own legal orders which have been refined over time with the subsequent enactment of treaties such as that of protecting traders and other goods from being sidelined in the E.U markets[1]. Specifically the United Kingdom joined E.U in 1973 (Craig & De Burca, 2011). This was a time when the Union was focused on sustaining economic balance and stability of prices with the objective of triggering economic development among its European members. In addition to the economic development, the E.U was expected to promote constructive competition among industries, provide employment opportunities to merited candidates and lastly the member states had to protect and improve on their environment which has been instigated through technological and scientific advancement resulting from research and innovations.

The case against Michael and his daily products is supported by the clause that allows for free movement of goods and people across the E.U without unnecessary restrictions and constraints[2]. This is because the United Kingdom is a member of the union which means that traders from U.K have a right to access the internal market enjoyed by being a ascribing to the trade bloc (Craig & De Burca, 2011). This statement is supported by the fact that the E.U dismantled all barriers to free movement of goods and services. The clause further provides remedies for dealing with discriminations raised against goods from foreign member countries. Even though there are exceptional conditions under which a country can derogate itself from the rule pertaining free movement of goods, it is evident that France is forfeiting the E.U rules on free movement of goods by charging imported dairy products. It is even more traumatizing to realize that the charges are being forwarded towards strengthening their domestic dairy industry by financing activities of the youths venturing into dairy farming as startup businesses which augers as a protectionism strategy implemented to reduce increase the cost of production and sale of foreign goods in the French market. As a result the domestic dairy products will be underpriced while those from other foreign countries are overpriced to cater for the charges.

According to articles 28, 29 and 30 of the European Unions’ laws regarding the movement of goods, members states are restricted from charging tariffs and custom duties on goods produced in the internal market. The article abolishes any form of charges or custom duties on imports as well as exports. Likewise article 110 prohibits discriminative practices aimed at protectionism of any form for instance internal taxations. The case between Sociaal Fonds vs. Diamantarbeiders illustrates the efficacy of this clause (Birkinshaw, 2008). The Justice Court of European Union was uncompromising on the reasons given by the defense. In the case, the ruling was made in favor of the appellant citing that the reason for charging the 0.33% charge was for a social good but the idea of good cause was subject to the prohibitions made in the EU treaty restricting charging of imported or exported goods between member countries[3]. With such a ruling Michael gets solace in the realization that he can sue France in the Courts of Justice for charging dairy products from a member state. Exceptions against this law are only made when the charge constitutes an expense to be made to the government for compulsory services such as inspections authorized by the union.

The restriction banning Michael from selling fruit yoghurt or any form of artificially manufactured flavoring to the Portuguese market is oppressive to the extent that the internal markets operate as a free market where trade activities are conducted between a willing buyer and a willing seller (Van den Bogaert, 2012). This partially implies that the Portuguese government should consider educating their public on the possible dangers of using the fruit yoghurts but not completely restricting the customers from accessing the product on the ambivalent grounds of a possible health scare. In fact the banning of the fruit yoghurt in Portugal is restrained by the realization that rules enacted for the internal market are standard hence they are applicable to all domestic and imported dairy products irrespective of their ingredients. This means that the certification of the fruit flavor in other countries makes the selling of the same drink in Portugal. The E.U realized that the application of divergent state rules could deter the attainment of free trade standards as well as triggering the creation of different rules aimed at protectionism[4]. As a result the European Union enacted the mutual recognition of standards principle which removed any form of obstacle imposed on internationally certified goods and products.

This rule is supported by the case of Commission vs. Spain where the principle of mutual recognition is practiced (Chalmers, 2006). Spain and Italy had made national provisions that restrained the use of other vegetable fats in making chocolate; hence any company manufacturing chocolates had to use cocoa butter[5]. Irish and British companies used vegetable fats thus for them to be allowed in Spain and Italy, they had to be marked as substitutes to chocolate. Just like in the case of Cassis de Dijon, the Court of Justice held that as long as a good has been produced lawfully and legalized in one member state, other states cannot prevent it from entering their markets. In the case of Michael, the Portuguese government is liable for damages caused to Michael for banning the sale of fruit yoghurt because it contravenes article 34.

The allegations made by Michael regarding the closure of shops in Italy are baseless because the Italian government has not enacted any national regulations restraining businesses from operating on Sundays. Michael should therefore appreciate the dynamics of operating international business ventures and appreciate the social cultural practices of Italians who are known to rest on Sundays. The fourth case scenario appertains the banning of British dairy products because of a previous incidence of milk contamination in a farm in the United Kingdom. Among the products banned are dairy products including yogurt and cheese which implies that Michael cannot access the Romanian market for an indefinite period of time. According to the laws on derogation, the Romanian government is at liberty to rebut entry of British milk and other dairy products on the ground of a health scare. This exception is provided for under article 36[6]. This clause is supported by the rule on mandatory requirement as well as the rule of reason which contains the movement of goods deemed to be contaminated in a bid to protect its citizens from health risks. In the case regarding the purity of beer between Commissions vs. German, the Court of Justice held that the government had the legal obligation of guarding its citizens in the event that certain goods are bound to create a health scare (Kaczorowska, 2013). Thus the indefinite ban imposed on British dairy products is justified.

Bibliography

A Kaczorowska, European Union Law (3^rd Ed.), Routledge, Hollandale. London 2013

D Chalmers, European Union Law: Text and materials, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA 2006

P Birkinshaw, European Public Law, Wadsworth, London, 2008

P Craig & G De Burca, Text, Cases and Materials (5^th Ed.), Oxford, New York, 2011

S Van den Bogaert, U Law: Text, cases and materials. (5^th Ed.), Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MD 2012

[1] P Craig & G De Burca, Text, Cases and Materials (5^th Ed.), Oxford, New York, 2011 p. 73

[2] ibid.

[3] P Birkinshaw, European Public Law, Wadsworth, London, 2008 p. 41

[4] S Van den Bogaert, U Law: Text, cases and materials. (5^th Ed.), Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MD 2012 p. 9

[5] D Chalmers, European Union Law: Text and materials, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA 2006 p. 34

[6] A Kaczorowska, European Union Law (3^rd Ed.), Routledge, Hollandale. London 2013 p. 32

Last Completed Projects