Home / Summaries / Steiner and Woods EU Law / measures-goods-tfeu

Non-Fiscal Barrier to Trade

8 important questions on Non-Fiscal Barrier to Trade

Abolition of Custom Duties and CHEE and Prohibition on Discriminatory Taxation

Abolition of CD and CHEE and prohibition on DT would not be sufficient to guarantee the free movement of goods within the common market.

Comparison between Articles 34, 35 and Articles 28, 30 TFEU

The former two cover a much wider range of measures than the latter two. The former two have provision which is made for derogation (Article 36 TFEU).

Apple & Pear Development Council v KJ Lewis Ltd

Actions of quango were held to be state's measure as it was exercising powers deriving from public law.

R v Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

CJ held that measures adopted by professional bodies, such as the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, on which the national legislation has conferred regulatory or disciplinary powers were 'measures taken by MS' subject to Article 34 TFEU.

Commission v Ireland (Buy Irish campaign)

A measure does not need to be a binding act to fall within the prohibition. Practices which capable of influencing the conduct of traders and consumers are sufficient to constitute a breach of Article 34.

Commission v France (Angry Farmers)

CJ held that omissions or inaction can also constitute 'measures'. In this case, the French state failed to take action to prevent private individuals from impeding the cross-border flow of goods which was destructing the free movement of goods.

Riseria Luigi Geddo v Ente Nazionale Risi

Quantitative restrictions were interpreted as any measures which amount to a total or partial restraint on imports, exports or goods in transit.

R v Henn

QR were interpreted to include measures capable of limiting imports to a finite/limited quantity, including zero, and include import bans. In this case, a ban on import of pornographic materials was concerned.