1. Internal policies Stages of economic growth Free trade zones Customs union Common market Economic union

2. 1.Free movement of goods Art 23, 25: No customs duties + No charges having equivalent effect (CEE) Comm v Italy re art tax (7/68) Comm v Germany re live animal inspection costs (18/87)

3. 1. Free movement of goods Art 90: No direct taxation Comm v Italy re regenerated oil (21/79) Comm v Ireland (55/79) + no indirect (discriminatory, once inside a MS) taxation Humblot v Dir des Service Fiscaux (112/84) but objective justification: Chemial Farmaceutici v DAF (140/79) advise a state with regions of v heavy rainfall re a tax favoring such goods to support people of such areas

4. 1. Free movement of goods Difference between a fee designated as a tax, under art 25 (charges having equivalent effect) and Art 90 (direct or indirect internal taxation) ? –A CEE is any charge imposed on an imported product but not on the same or similar domestic product –An internal tax is borne by imports and domestic products –If there are no similar domestic products, the charge need not be a CEE if part of a general system of internal dues Art 25 and Art 90 are exclusive

5. 1. Free movement of goods Art 28, 29 No quantitative restrictions on imports and exports + No meqrs “…all trading rules enacted by MSs capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra Community trade”. What are meqrs? Dir 70/50 Procureur du Roi v Dassonville (8/74) -overtly targets imports or exports -directly discriminatory -hinders Comm trade

6. 1. Free movement of goods Defences to Art 28: Art 30 Public morality Public policy Public security Protection of health and life of… Construed strictly + principle of proportionality

7. 1. free movement of goods and ECJ: Rewe v BMV f. Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon, 120/78) -measures apply to all products -not directly discriminatory -still hinders trade Can only be defended if necessary to satisfy mandatory requirements (fiscal supervision, prot public health, fairness of comm transaction, defence of consumer – list is not exhaustive)

8. 1. Free movement of goods Cassis de Dijon also stands for –Mutual reciprocity principle Court generally checks both defences –Comm v Germany (German beer, 178/84) –Comm v Denmark (containters, env prot, 302/86) –Comm v Belgium (food additives, 2000) Is any measure exempt from art 28? –Torfaen BC v B&Q (145/88) –Keck (268/91)

9. 1. Free movement of goods To reduce non-tariff barriers, must harmonise product standards re health, safety, env, consumer protection CE mark

10. 2. Free movement of workers –Art 39-43 (employed) –No direct or indirect discrimination –What is a worker? –Not those in public service –What is public service? 3. Freedom of establishment –Art 43-48 (self employed) Art 43 directly effective (Reyners) Non-discrimination –provision of services 49-55

11. General grounds for derogation from free movement of workers, freedom of establishment: 39(3) public policy, security, health 46(1) public policy, security, health Based on personal conduct (van Duyn) 4. Free movement of capital

12. Aspects of competition law/policy Art 81-86 antitrust: –Agreements, decisions, concerted practices which have as their object distortion of competition = prohibited unless do not have effects ICI v Commission (48/69) Wood pulp (85/202) –Statutory exceptions 81(3) –Exemptions must be granted Individually En block Negative clearance

13. Aspects of competition law/policy –abuse of dominant position (United brands v Commission 27/76, Hofmann La Roche 85/76) = prohibited –Mergers regulated as having impact on competition, to be notified Continental Can (6/72)

14. Aspects of competition law Art 87-89 government subsidies (state aid) –Social or economic justification –Gratuitous –Intention irrelevant –Must affect Comm. Trade –Exemptions subject to Comm. Control Statutory exceptions –87(2) –87(3) Cooperate with MS to determine (Art 88) Spain v Comm. (409/00)

15. Product liability –Directive 85/374 Consumer protection –Based on consumer protection and information policy –Comm v Germany (178/84) re German beer –Oosthoek case (286/81) –Comm v Spain (107/04) re labelling of organic products