INSTRUCTIONS;
1. Your ability to construct a logical argument on the grounds in the scenario, in
support of your client’s case
2. Your use of appropriate law in support of your argument, including cases
and/or EU legislation as appropriate to the scenario, demonstrating your
understanding of relevant EU law, and your ability to apply it to a factual
scenario
3. Your ability to make a clear and coherent presentation in the scenario you
have chosen
Question
Scenario A
You are acting on behalf of the European Commission in a matter that has now
reached the Court of Justice of the EU, against France and Sweden, both Member
States of the EU. The Commission alleges that both France and Sweden have
committed breaches of EU Law that allows them to bring an action against them
under Article 258 TFEU in the following matters:
After the outbreak in Italy earlier in 2020 of Coronavirus, several other Member
States have expressed concern about imports into their countries coming from Italy.
The EU is quick to dismiss concerns, and states that there is not any scientific
evidence that Coronavirus would be transmitted in particular from Italy. However, in
order to tackle the perceived problems, the French and Swedish Governments put
into place the following measures:
1. The French Government have imposed a health inspection requirement on all
prosecco imported from Italy into France, and have charged all importers of
Prosecco for the inspection. This inspection is not required in any other
country, or for any other form of sparkling white wine.
2. The Swedish Government requires all alcoholic drinks to be sold only through
government-run shops. This applies to imported and domestically
manufactured alcoholic drinks.
These shops, by law, add a label to all
products with the country of origin clearly displayed. As a result, Italian
prosecco makers say their sales have dropped because of the negative
association of Italy with lots of Coronavirus cases.
The French and Swedish Governments argue that the measures that they have
taken fall under the derogations in Article 36 TFEU and the mandatory requirements
under the Rule of Reason in Cassis de Dijon.
You are responsible for bringing the case in front of the CJEU after attempts to deal
with the matter by the Commission through dialogue with France and Sweden have
failed. The Commission has issued a Reasoned Opinion that in its view France and
Sweden are in breach of EU Law. Your brief is to:
a) Make representations to the Court on behalf of the European Commission
detailing any breaches of the law on Free Movement of Goods by France and
Sweden. You are also required to respond to the French and Swedish
Governments’ arguments above.
b) Make recommendations to the Court regarding the application of fines to
either France or Sweden under Article 260 TFEU for any breaches of EU Law
above.
