Procureur du Roi v Benoît and Gustave Dassonville summary PDF

Preview

Summary

summary of Dassonville case...

Description

Procureur du Roi v Benoît and Gustave Dassonville Case 8/74 EU:C: 1974:82 Germany required certificate of origin. Would cost more to sell here. Belgium law was MEQR and must be prohibited under art 34

France didn’t require certificate of origin. Could sell there freely

    







Defines MEQR Case involves Belgian Law which required certain products (i.e. Scotch Whiskey) to be sold only if they have a certificate of origin included with them The traders were prosecuted for selling the product without certificate, but a handwritten note They had brought the bottles from France where no certificate was required. The issue was whether this fell within article 34 or not It was incompatible with art 34, it would be more difficult for a seller such as Dassonville to sell Scotch Whisky in Belgium than in France (he would have to adapt his whisky at additional cost in order to sell it in Belgium), the Belgian law was a measure of equivalent effect and must be prohibited Broad definition of MEQR in Dassonville: “All trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade are to be considered as measures having an equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions” Definition is very broad, and it can include a ‘huge’ rang of restrictions. The court has therefore sought to limit the range of the Dassonville decision in cases such as Cassis de Dijon From this broad definition, we have the three limbs of Dassonville: 1. All trading rules enacted by a member state 2. Direct or indirect hindrance to union trade 3. Actual or potential hindrance to union trade...