Eu law

1387 Words6 Pages
Claude owns a bakery in Belgium, located near the French border. He wishes to import dried apricots from Turkey for a new range of buns but is being charged 3 euros per box at the border. A friend who owns a bakery in Germany tells him that he is only charged 2 euros when he imports the same dried apricots. He also imports coarse stone ground flour from Ireland but has just been informed that there may be a problem with tiny insects, known as weevils, getting into the flour at the mills. As a precaution the Belgian authorities have decided to start inspecting the flour at the port of Ostend where it arrives, and Claude will be charged 10 euros per tonne for the inspection. As these inspections may take up to a week (the insects being particularly small and hard to detect), he will have to store the flour sacks in a warehouse in Ostend, at a charge of 5 euros per tonne per night. A group of militant French bakers, angry at the increasing volume of imported bakery products being sold in French shops, has launched a campaign of ‘direct action’. The group recently halted one of Claude’s vans in France and threw its entire load into a nearby river. French police officers who witnessed the event refused to intervene or to arrest any of those involved. The French police have since issued a statement saying that intervention would have provoked an escalation of the violence and led to increased damage to property. After much thought, Claude has decided to buy a small specialist chocolate business in the neighboring town. As Belgian chocolates have an excellent reputation as luxury goods, he designs and pays for an advertising campaign with the theme “Belgian chocolates are real chocolate – don’t waste your money on foreign imitati... ... middle of paper ... ...Art 34 as it permitted consumers to "...assert any prejudices which they may have against foreign products" and affect EU trade. If a producer or retailer wishes voluntarily to indicate the country of origin, they may do so, but it cannot be compulsory under national legislation. If Clause voluntarily labelling goods with its origin- it might be render the contrary to EU law. However, content labelling might be considered justifiable under the public health derogation (found in both Article 36 and Cassis). Additionally, consumer protection is also found in Cassis and the ECJ frequently suggests labelling as the answer to many situations where national rules, indistinctly applicable, might otherwise place too heavy a burden of exporters in other member states (walter Rau and certainly Cassis itself). As a result content labelling requirement could be considered valid.

More about Eu law

Open Document