The the free movement of goods. As aforementioned, it

The first question asked by the national courts during the preliminary ruling was whether the requirement for an individual to own a licence for the purpose of operating a bakery, which was implemented by ‘the prefectural authority’ for the marketing of “bake-off” bakery products, constituted as a ‘quantitative restriction’ or is simply a measure adhering to the interpretation of Article 34 TFEU. It was stated in Van der Veldt that “it is for Member States to regulate all matters relating to the composition, making and marketing of those foodstuffs on their own territory, provided that they do not thereby discriminate against imported products or hinder the importation of products from other Member States’. This therefore demonstrates that despite the outcome, member states are granted the ability to restrict the marketing of bakery and bread products through the condition of obtaining a licence for the purpose of protecting consumer standards. However, it is evident that there must be a limit to the extent to which this freedom is exercised, particularly with regards to the EC Treaty and the principal rights which are stated within it, including the free movement of goods. As aforementioned, it is laid out in Article 34 TFEU that “quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States’. This article therefore enhances the idea that, “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 effect equivalent to quantitive restrictions” which was defined as an MEQR by the ECJ in Dassonville and Commission v Germany. The judgement in Alfa Vita is one which follows a similar outcome in the earlier case of Cassis de Dijon, where it is established that measures which are implemented “without distinction” to either imported or domestic products from other Member States (such as France in Cassis de Dijon) are essentially restricting the free movement of goods.  In Alfa Vita it is evident that the courts established that the condition for a prior licence is a measure which is “applied without distinction”. 
However, the court established that such measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions prohibited by Article 34 TFEU do not consist of national provisions which constrain or prohibit various “selling arrangements”. This is as long as these provisions refer to traders functioning within the state, and as long as they similarly affect the marketing of national products and from other member states. The case-law of Keck and Mithouard are referred to by the “prefectural Authority” and the Greek Government through claims that the measures implemented simply control the method in which “bake-off” goods can be sold and therefore do not breach Article 34 TFEU. However, the provisions clearly state that the objective is to specify the conditions of the operation for bakery and bread goods, which also consists of “bake-off” products. The requirement for all vendors to comply with, that are applied to traditional bakery products as well results in additional expenses for the vendors, and as a result marketing such products would prove more troublesome. Therefore such national legislation creates an obstacle for imports which does not constitute as a ‘selling arrangement’ as referred to in Keck and Mithouard. It has been held that national legislation that prevents the free movement of goods does not always oppose Community law if it can be justified either by the grounds of public interest or through one of the requirements stated through the court’s case-law where national legislation can be applied “without distinction” as seen in Rewe-Zentral. 
Furthermore, with regards to the second question of whether the legislation could be justified on the grounds of consumer protection, it was held by the Court that a measure cannot be justified on the basis of promoting good quality products, if at the same time it hinders the free movement of goods. The only manner in which such national measures can be justified is through any other requirements that are also seen of vital importance, including health or consumer protection. Specifically with regards to consumer protection, it was established by the Prefectural Authority through a food specialist that consumers generally are led to believe that the bakery products they are purchasing are fresh when realistically these products do not contain any fresh nutrients or vitamins, and this is due to the “bake-off” method.
However, the Court also determined that such national measures have hindered consumers from being able to   differentiate between “bake-off” and fresh, traditional products when purchasing such goods at stores. In order to market “bake-off” goods in a manner that holds less restrictions, providing the correct information relating to the content of the products could prevent this. Furthermore, with regards to health protection it was argued by the Prefectural Authority that the legislation implemented was a means of guaranteeing that during the entire operation of baking, all the conditions concerning hygiene are followed in order to prevent the risk of bread and bakery products becoming contaminated. Despite the objective of national measures attempting to ensure the compliance of hygiene requirements, some of these conditions which refer to the manner in which traditional goods are manufactured, are not imperative in safeguarding public health. This is  due to the fact that when these requirements are applied to “bake-off” products they are futile, as such products are merely reheated or in the final process of baking when they are put out for sale. In response to the questions put forward it can be confirmed that through the interpretation of Article 34 TFEU, national measures are inhibited which results in the marketing and sale of “bake-off” goods prone to the same conditions which also apply to the entire process of marketing and sale of traditional bakery products.

x

Hi!
I'm Marcella!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out