European union law free movemenet of goods Case Study

European union law free movemenet of goods - Case Study Example c) Denmark has passed a law banning the use of plastic packaging and requiring the use of recyclable materials instead, such as paper or aluminium foil. SCP's Cheesy Snax have always been sold in plastic packs, and no other material is as effective in keeping them fresh. d) Ireland has passed a law requiring all food products to be guaranteed free from genetically modified (GM) produce. SCP goes to great lengths to ensure that it does not knowingly use GM products, but it knows that it cannot be absolutely sure that the ingredients it buys are totally free from contamination. 2. The case of Keck drew a distinction between rules relating to the goods themselves and rules relating to selling arrangements. Do you consider that this distinction is a useful or practical way of determining which rules are contrary to Article 28, EC Treaty 1. The questions and issues pertaining hereto relate to obstacles to internal trade in the European Community. As counsel I would approach each case by looking firstly into the municipal legislation and the existence of harmonisation and attempt the procedural removal of the related obstacles from that direction. Where no such harmonisation was made, the approach will be taken from the concept of mutual recognition under Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome. The obstacles herein are obviously not fiscal, so analysis of their natures will also be made whether the bases fall under the mandatory requirements1 or justified exceptional grounds (to Article 30) for prohibitions or restrictions or whether they do constitute arbitrary discrimination or disguised restriction on trade between Member States.2 Only when the proper evaluation of the factual and legal issues is made can the proper remedies be considered and taken in the proper fora. 1.a. France. In this particular case, the subject matter relates to food which is already subject to harmonisation and the French ban is made on the basis of a preservative SO2. Any relief can only be made pursuant to EU regulations on the matter of food safety, in this case Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 which has a horizontal effect. Determination must be made whether the ban on SO2 containing foodstuffs was made based on risk analysis under Article 6 of the said regulation or as a precautionary measure pursuant to Article 7 thereof. The problem only stated that said ban was made after the publication of one scientific study suggesting carcinogenic tendencies in food products containing the said preservative despite the existence of contrary findings of many other scientific studies. In other words, the scientific study was not a risk assessment within the context of Regulation No. 178/2002. Furthermore, it was not a risk management measure and could not have taken into account the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority or the factors of proportionality and non-restrictiveness of trade under Article 7 of the said regulation. On such ground, I would advice SCP to pursue an initial claim in the French government for the suspension of the ban and the conduct of a proper and independent risk assessment based on all available scientific evidence on the matter. If denied, the proper claim may be made in the French Court of First Instance for the relief of the ban and an appeal in the Supreme Court if denied. If further denied, a