Internal Market - Free Movement of Goods

• Key concept for EU integration 
• Runs counter to Eu's aim to achieve a single market
• To do this; looks to remove all barriers so all MA can trade as if trading in one country 
• The existence of the 4 freedoms tries to allow this; Movement of - Goods, Capital, Services, Establishment and Persons. 
• EU trying to harmonise laws and standards 

• Cutomes Union established by Art 28 - covers all trade in goods
• Art 30 - prohibits CD and charges having equivalent effect (CHEE)
• Makes imported goods more expensive than domestic
• Van Gend En Loos 1963 - features CD and shows they are unlawful

Charges Having Equivalent Effect (CHEE)

• Art 28 and 30 also prohibt CHEE
• Court of Justice made it cleart hat CD was crucial as shown in Com v Italy 1968 - argued defintion of goods, Charge was held to be unlawful as it was on aart and cultural items
• Scoiaal fonds 1969 - also showed charge for import of diamonds was irrelevent

• Art 36 TFEU can dergoate from FMOG under certain exceptions
• The Bersciani case 1976 shows that where there is compulsary health inspection there will be no charge.
• To get permissable charhe under Art 36 it must be of direct benefit to the importer
• Rewe-Zentralfinaz case - showed no service was given so charge would have been unlawful

• Internal Tax Art 110 - Tries to ensure non-discrimination
• No internal tax may be imposed where the dometic products are not taxed in the same manner
• Com v Ireland 1980 - favourable tax terms
• Art 110 - similar products
• the MS must treat the domestic and imported product in the same way.
• if products are found to be in competion with each other then the taxation must be removed
• Comm v UK 1983 - beer and wine found to be in competion

• Art 34 prohibits Quantative Restrictions i.e. quotas + Measures Having Equivalent Effect to QR
• Art 35 - extends to imports and prohibits them also
• Geddo v ENTEL 1973  defines QR
• MEQR also prohibitted Art 34
• MEQRs are anything that hinders diretly or indirectly goods coming in/trade
• Dassonville case 1974 - developed formula to define measures known as Dassonville Formula
• Case of Cassis de Djon 1979 - in which required minimum alochol precentage; added 2 more principles and gave list of requirements; may be able to justify restriction if proportionate Art 34

• Contains exceptions to MEQR
• MS must prove that the measure serves an important part + is recognised as valuable by union
• 1) Public Morality, Public Policy; narrowly contstructed and protecrs interest of state, Public Securtiy; courts are sympathetic on these arguements
• 2) Protection of Health , Animals, Humans and Plants - most common
• 3) Protection of National Treasures with artistic, hirstoric and archaeological value - not very common
• 4) Protection of Industrial and Commercial Property - protects private property

• Rules were laid down in the Cassis de Dijon case 1979 - there was no valid reason for prohibiton
• Other mandaroty requirements broaden Art 36 TFEU
• These can be something that affects imports+exports but has a bigger burden on imports; Cassis case 1979 states thats if is proportionate can be justifed Art 34
• Function of rules is to make the regulations equal and equality of access to market
• Keck 1998 case - shows regulation of selling arrangements
• Keck establ;ished a general rule which is to be applied in the context of equal burdens ; there is no doubt that Keck moved the law forward

• Art 49 - Prohibits restriction of freedom of establishment for nationals of MS
• May work and establish business on a premanent, ongoing basis in another MS
• Gebhard case 1995 - stated a person may be established in more than one MS
• Must be able to pursue business as the states nationales would - Reyners v Belgium 1974 - one of the first cases which was vital in creating movement rights especially for the self-employed. Also Held thats non-discrimonation was key in the treaties.
• Art 54 - companies are to be treated and given same freedoms as the natural person
• Applies to companies registered in a MS
• Centros Ltd case 1999 shows this
• However, R v HM Treasury case 1988 shows that the distinction appears to be based on where the company was originally incorporated

• If something affects access to the market then it will be restricted - Com v Spain 2011 outlined this
• Com v France 1986 - shows there was a discrimination where tax breaks offered
• Com v Ireland 1991 - case where nationalitty requirements on part of idividuals registering vessels in Ireland
• It may be restricted but only by necessary means in pursuit of a legitimate aim - National Grid case 2011
• Vale 2012 case - shpws breached measure as it went beyond what was seen to be necessary to achieve aim

Must make distinction between estblishment and services - even though may be narrow to define as the Gebhard case 1995 established

• Freedom to proivde services under Art 56
• Art 57 defines what a service is - must be within the meaning of the Treaties; inc. industrial and commerical activites etc but NOT banking or insurance. That is covered by Free Movement of Capital
• Van Bindsbergen case 1974 - affirmed Art 56 could be directly effective
• Should also be 'inter-state' element to case - Koestler 1978 case shows this.

• Tourism may also be considered as receiving a service rather than giving one as Cowan 1989 case demonstartes.
• State - funded services can be things such as, Education and Medical Costs
• Education - students and those of independant means are inc
• Belgium v Humbel 1988 case
• They must have sickness insurance and not become a burden on the state - Watts case 2006
• Com v Italy 1988 shows that there must be equal treatment if a perosn wishes to be self employed in another state similar to Cowan 1989 case.

• Immoral or illegal services will not be given the freedom to establish themselves in other MS
• These may be such things as Gambling, Abortion and Prostituion
• Gambling - Customs case 1994
• Abortion - Grogan 1991 case

• Art 56 and 57 justify where freedom of services will be restricted
• Van Binsbergen case sets out requiremnts were restrictions are justified
• Laval case 2007 - where protection of worker did not justify blockade