Eu Course Work
INTRODUCTION
The first three paragraphs of the question deals with the free movement of goods within the European Union, under which I will be discussing the meaning of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restriction (MEQR), breaches under Article 28 EC and derogations under Article 30 EC or under the rule of reason in the case of Cassis de Dijon. The Lisbon treaty has changed the EC numbering but I will be making reference to the old numbering throughout the essay.
In the third paragraph I will be talking about selling arrangements seen in Keck and Mithouard v France, and also justifications under Art 30 EC or under Cassis.
Paragraph 4 has to do with Art 39 EC, which deals with the free movement of workers within the EC. I will also talk about direct discrimination against non nationals and if the Redundancy payments Act can be seen as discriminatory against Carlota and justifications the member state may have against this.
In the last paragraph, I will be talking about the direct effect of Directives, and state liability as in Francovich & Bonifaci v Italy.
Issues: paragraphs 1-3
The issues arising are whether the Luxembourg law (which prohibits the sale of any drink containing more than 5% sugar) constitutes a measure equivalent to a quantitative restriction (MEQR) and if it is a breach of Art 28 EC or whether it is justified under community law by Art 30 EC, or under the rule of reason from the case of Rewe v Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon).
The second problem to tackle is regarding Norfolk Punch being sold only in Estonian pharmacies- Omar will be arguing that this is an MEQR and a breach of Art 28 while the Estonian authorities will argue that it is a selling arrangement and therefore falls outside the scope of Art 28.
And lastly, the issue regarding the prevention of advertising Norfolk Punch in the Estonian media- Again, the Estonian authorities would be arguing that this is a selling arrangement and
The first three paragraphs of the question deals with the free movement of goods within the European Union, under which I will be discussing the meaning of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restriction (MEQR), breaches under Article 28 EC and derogations under Article 30 EC or under the rule of reason in the case of Cassis de Dijon. The Lisbon treaty has changed the EC numbering but I will be making reference to the old numbering throughout the essay.
In the third paragraph I will be talking about selling arrangements seen in Keck and Mithouard v France, and also justifications under Art 30 EC or under Cassis.
Paragraph 4 has to do with Art 39 EC, which deals with the free movement of workers within the EC. I will also talk about direct discrimination against non nationals and if the Redundancy payments Act can be seen as discriminatory against Carlota and justifications the member state may have against this.
In the last paragraph, I will be talking about the direct effect of Directives, and state liability as in Francovich & Bonifaci v Italy.
Issues: paragraphs 1-3
The issues arising are whether the Luxembourg law (which prohibits the sale of any drink containing more than 5% sugar) constitutes a measure equivalent to a quantitative restriction (MEQR) and if it is a breach of Art 28 EC or whether it is justified under community law by Art 30 EC, or under the rule of reason from the case of Rewe v Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon).
The second problem to tackle is regarding Norfolk Punch being sold only in Estonian pharmacies- Omar will be arguing that this is an MEQR and a breach of Art 28 while the Estonian authorities will argue that it is a selling arrangement and therefore falls outside the scope of Art 28.
And lastly, the issue regarding the prevention of advertising Norfolk Punch in the Estonian media- Again, the Estonian authorities would be arguing that this is a selling arrangement and