Meqrs Eu Law Meaning

Meqrs Eu Law Meaning

These articles cover “measures having equivalent effect” to a “quantitative restriction” (MEQF); measures which directly or indirectly impede the free movement of goods. `National provisions adopted for the purpose of attaining one of the objectives referred to in Article 36 [TFEU] shall be compatible with the Treaty only in so far as they do not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the objective pursued.` By contrast, the rules on “selling arrangements” were not considered to fall within the scope of Article 34 as long as they constituted an “equal burden” for both imported and domestic products. [17]. Articles 34 and 35 TFEU are provisions prohibiting quantitative restrictions (QRs) and equivalent measures (MEQF). This case allowed the CJEU to declare the requirement of proportionality for the application of Article 36. As mentioned earlier, Keck made a distinction between the terms of sale and the rules relating to the products themselves. While it has been recognised that advertising may fall within the scope of the selling arrangements, certain selling arrangements which discriminate against imported goods have been considered not to fall within the scope of Article 34 (ex 28 EC). One council required licenses to be obtained before selling sex toys. The CJEU ruled that this did not violate Article 34, as it was a measure that could not hinder trade between Member States, but only affected the flow of trade within a Member State itself. `While a non-discriminatory approach creates an area in which national regulatory authorities can act freely, without being hampered by EU law, the market access criterion has shifted the balance in favour of the EU and has given the Court the power to examine an increasingly broad category of national measures as to their compatibility with EU law.` [37] Quantitative restrictions are not merely legislation, but can be administrative acts, as shown by the Franking Machine case (Case 21/84).

Market access itself is a very broad concept. This is a central principle that encompasses the free movement of goods. Market access can be viewed from different angles. It is a way for a producer to access the national markets of other Member States and to supply goods without barriers to trade, a system that would put it in direct competition with the internal market. On the other hand, a consumer may perceive market access as an idea of the free market that increases choice and allows him to choose from a wider variety of goods between domestic and imported products. [1] As there is no definition of this term in the Treaty, case law had to provide for such a definition. The Court of Justice of the European Union considers that any charge, whatever its name or application, “which, levied on a product imported from a Member State to the exclusion of a similar domestic product, has, by altering its price, the same effect on free movement as a customs duty”. may be regarded as a charge having equivalent effect, whatever its nature or form (Joined Cases 2/62 and 3/62 and 232/78).

Harmonization has been achieved by the introduction of the qualified majority rule required for most directives on the completion of the internal market (Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, as amended by the Maastricht Treaty) and by adopting a new approach proposed in a Commission White Paper (1985) aimed at: to avoid costly and detailed harmonization. In the new approach, based on the Council Resolution of 7 May 1985 (confirmed by the Council Resolution of 21 December 1989 and Council Decision 93/465/EEC), the guiding principle is mutual recognition of national rules. Harmonisation should be limited to essential requirements and is justified where national rules cannot be considered equivalent and create restrictions. The Directives adopted under this New Approach have the dual objective of ensuring the free movement of goods through the technical harmonisation of entire sectors and of ensuring a high level of protection of the general interest objectives referred to in Article 114(3) TFEU (e.g. toys, construction materials, machinery, gas appliances and telecommunications terminal equipment). In that case, a discriminatory law was repealed, but the administrative practice did not change. The authorities have shown a “consistently unfavourable” attitude towards the approval of imported products. The scope of the MEQF is broader than quantitative restrictions. In Gourmet, the Court held that `[w]here national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements must not fall within the scope of Article 30 of the Treaty [34 TFEU], they must not be such as to prevent access to the market for products from another Member State or to impede access to domestic products`. [26] Commercial apple and pear growers were required to register with the Apple and Pear Development Council and pay a mandatory annual fee.