Free Movement of Goods

'Quantative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivelent effect shall be prohibited between MS'

A quantative restriction is 'any measures which amount to a total or partial restraint of imports, exports or goods in transit'

Proportionality

Morality

Policy

Security

Health

Animals and Plants

National treasures- artistic, historic or archeological

Industrial and commercial property

Facts: Belgian law specified that they needed a certificate of origin. Dassonville didn't have one and Belgium issued criminal proceedings

'All trading rules enacted by MS which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-community trade are to be considered as measures having an equivelent effect to quantative restrictions'

Differentiated between a selling arangement and a product requirement

'prohibiting certain selling arangements is not such as to hinder directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, trade between MS'

Facts: German law meant that you could only define something as a liquour if it has 25%. Casis had 15-20% and so couldn't be sold in Germany.

This was a barrier to free movement.

Proportionality

Mutual recognition

Road safety is upto MS

Varying degrees are not necessarily disproportionate

1. The union shall adopt measures w/ the aim of establishing or ensuring the functionung of the internal market

2. The internal market shall comprise of an area w/out internal fronters in which the FMOG, P, S and C is ensured

Goods are 'products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as such, of forming the subject of commercia transactions'.

Rule that bottle of wine should be done in the region of production to preserve the reputation of wine.

Restrictive to trade but justified

Focus on Art 35 (exports)

Restricting free movement to prevent crime

Not proportional as one tool of many

40% surcharge on imported goods by ship from another MS

Commission v UK: Beer and wine comparable so higher tax not allowed under art 110

Commission v Sweden: Differences in beer and wine meant that the tax didn't influence consumers

Angus MacCulloch: harmful and hazardous drinkers were being targeted which gives health exception as per Art 36

Tax v MUP- least onerous choice?

Former lawyer Carl Gardner: 'delphic'- courts position on proportionality not clear