147607
Descripción
Fichas por haideh_hillier, actualizado hace más de 1 año
|
Creado por haideh_hillier
hace más de 11 años
|
|
| Pregunta | Respuesta |
| Cassis De Dijon (Cassis rule of reason) Indistinctly applicable | when there is no community wide rule, member state can justify the rule to show 1: The rule is necessary to justify mandatory requirement (consumer protection, public health, defence of customer). 2:It is proportionate to achieve the 3:Mutual recognition |
| Punta Casa v Capena [1994] | Article 34 (ex 28) does not apply to law relating to opening hours, or the day shops are open. |
| Commission v Greece [1995] | selling arrangements relate to measures on when, where, how and by whom goods are sold. |
| Mars Ice-Ceam case | Relates to characteristic of goods which include packaging. Capable of being MEQR, prohibited by Article 34 TFEU |
| Hunermund v landwsapotheckerkammer [1993] | Advertising relates to selling arrangement. |
| Dassonville 1974 Beguim required certificate of authenticity to import whiskey from France. | all nation measures(law) of trading that directly or indirectly, actually or potentially restrict import of good is having effect equal to MEQR. |
| Geddo v Ente1973 | measures that results to total or partial ban is quantitive restriction. |
| Francovich v. Italian state[1991] amended by Factortame principal of state liability. | Member states are required to pay compensation for failure to implement a directive. |
| Condition applied when there is state liability | The claimant has to prove the following failure to implement the directive (Francovich) * the rule conferred right to individual *Breach must be serious * there must be direct link between the bread and the damage sustained |
| Belka-Kaufhaus criteria [1986] To objectively justify possible discriminatory treatment. | 1: Genuine need of the business 2: suitable for the objective 3: They are necessary for that purpose. |
| Leanasio v Italian ministry of agriculture [1972] Cash payment to be paid to farmers to compensation for lower production. Italy refused to pay. | ?? |
| Antonio Munas Cia SA v. Frumar Ltd [2002] | case of horizontal effect of regulation |
| Foster v British Gas [1990] describe what is public body | Subject to the authority or control of the State. Providing service under control of state. |
| Foster v British Gas Emanation of state | 1 Be under duty to provide a public service have special power Be under state control |
| Keck and Mithouard 1993 | Selling arrangement Fall outside of Article 34 no justification is necessary |
| Direct discrimination | Is specific reference to original of goods |
| Indirect discrimination | Refers to category of goods. |
¿Quieres crear tus propias Fichas gratiscon GoConqr? Más información.