EU Law - Free Movement of Capital and the Economic and Monetary Union

[@jamesgilliam8501]

Your 15 video series on EU Law is world class - for my EU course I've scoured the Internet and your law site [any legal subject] are the very best I've found. Thank you for spending the tremendous amount of time and effort paying it forward to us your humble students who - from a personal standpoint - are in awe! Jim Gilliam 2L University of London

[@marcuscleaver]

Cheers James, truly appreciate the kind words!

[@nikolaraznatovic7775]

Your videos are brief, clear and very useful. Thank you for your efforts!

[@lizziemcphee3844]

Marcus Cleaver you are the best Law Tutor all the Law students appreciate you. Watch out for the Karma Marcus

[@marcuscleaver]

Fingers crossed! ;)

[@marisfarrugia1113]

Thank you for these super helpful videos!

[@azizrahman6269]

Nice. It would be great watching your lecture on Charter of Fundamental Hu man Rights.

[@jamesgilliam8501]

You are totally welcome - I'm active on our student forums here is an excerpt from my last post on a freedom of movement of goods question based on what I learned from you. Introduction A central requirement in EU law is “freedom of movement” of goods between member states and ensuring the “protection” against Measures - Equivalent to - Quantitative - Restrictions [MEQRs] and in order to accomplish this the absolute requirement is to examine the “effect” not the “purpose” of the host state’s enactment of - in our case: Poland’s Intoxicating Substances Law 2010 and the Advertisement Law 2011. This short paper will attempt to sort out the legal methods available to Bobrova allowing its expansion of its product (Vodka cocktails) into the Polish beverage market without incurring prohibitive costs that would nullify any possible profit margins. The company’s case will be presented reasoning that Poland’s laws amount to MEQR violations and the Polish government’s defences will be offered in mitigation, however, these - history shows - usually fail. The case for Biborova In order to prevail in the ECJ Biborova’s lawyers must prove that Poland is illegally applying MEQRs defined in Dassonville [1974] as any measure capable of hindering inter-community trade by enforcing its Intoxicating Substances and Advertisement laws. MEQRs are classified in Cassis de Dijon [1979] as either distinctly or indistinctly applicable. Indistinct MEQRs are allowed if they protect the environment as in Commission v Denmark [1988] or protect the consumer which is Poland’s contention here. However, in this case we must take into account mutual recognition where something allowed in one state - plastic bottles in Latvia - should be allowed in all states including Poland per Walter Rau [1982] and Commission v Germany [1987]. Indistinct MEQRs are also allowed if they constitute a selling arrangement as for example Keck [1993] but this is not applicable here. Article 110(1) prohibits discrimination between similar domestic goods and imports see Commission v Italy [1985] here it is most important to consider the effect not the purpose of the law - the effect here is to make it unprofitable for Biborova to sell its product - defined in the Italian Art Case [1962] as something valued in money that is subject to commercial transactions. Article 110(2) prohibits discrimination between competing domestic goods and imports as for example in the case of Commission v UK [1983] which begs the question: Do products compete and do taxes favour domestic goods over imports? Article 49(2) deals with unjustified restrictions as a form of discrimination, see for example Gebhard [1995] (Trade between Member States is not likely to be impeded, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, by the application to products from other Member States) national actions liable to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms must not discriminate, must be in the public interest, must be suitable to attain the objective, and must not go beyond the necessary. The threshold question is do Poland’s Alcohol and Advertising laws comply? Biborova’s lawyers take the position that they do not. The case for the government of Poland Most likely the government will mount an Article 36 defence of its statutes on a public policy basis per Thompson [1978] (need to protect the right to mint coinage which is traditionally regarded as involving the fundamental interests of the state) and it might even make a case for its advertisement statute on moral grounds per Henn & Darby [1979] Lord Diplock said: ‘The European Court seeks to give effect to what it conceives to be the spirit rather than the letter of the Treaties…It views the communities as living and expanding organisms and the interpretation of the provisions of the Treaties as changing to match their growth.’ Article 114 imposes duties and restrictions on the state. There are limits on Art. 114 as in the Tobacco Advertising cases of [2000] and [2006] A directive (98/43) effectively banning all (non-trade) advertising on tobacco products was enacted on the basis of [Art 114 TFEU] There were differences between Member States’ approaches to tobacco product marketing - some Member States favoured complete bans, whereas others took a more liberal approach. Germany objected to this directive, claiming that the measure went beyond the scope of Art. 114, was ultra vires and so should therefore be annulled. Was the directive ultra vires? The ECJ said yes and the directive was annulled because Directive 98/43’s prohibition of advertising was so exhaustive that it could not be justified by the need to eliminate obstacles to inter-state trade/the freedom to provide services, especially in areas where inter-state trade was negligible. Here, the statute is not exhaustive but overly restrictive and cannot be sustained and Art 114 TFEU does not provide a general power to regulate the internal market; measures must genuinely have their objective set on improving market conditions and must remove existing or future obstacles to inter-state trade. A member state’s concerns must relate to the environment, the working environment, or exceptions to Art. 36 in order to retain the existing national legislation. Conclusion The environmental concerns of Poland’s glass over plastic approach would be sustainable since plastic bottles are an immense environmental problem not only in the EU states but are a Global problem and the Polish government has the right to ban plastic containers in Poland in the interest of environmental protection. If Biborova wants to expand to Poland they have to retool their packaging to comply with Polish law. However, Poland’s Advertisement law is not sustainable per the Tobacco Advertising cases above. How'd I do? Jim

[@jamesgilliam8501]

P.S. Here's the question for the above answer: Biborova is a Latvian company producing vodka, well known in particular for Bibotal, a line of ready-made vodka cocktails that it markets in 1 litre plastic bottles. Bibotal is mainly destined to home consumption, and is not distributed to pubs, bars or restaurants. In May 2016 Biborova decides to enter the Polish market with Bibotal, but encounters several difficulties. First, the Intoxicating Substances Law of 2010 provides that intoxicating substances no matter how big the alcohol concentration can only be marketed in glass bottles, for reasons of consumer protection and public health. Biborova will thus incur high packaging costs in order to be able to sell its products on the Polish market. Second, according to the Advertisement Law of 2011 alcohol can only be advertised in pubs, bars and restaurants, as well as in specialized gastronomic magazines. Biborova fears that this will seriously diminish its chances to be known on the Polish market. Biborova's advisors think that the Intoxicating Substances Law and the Advertisement Law are contrary to European law. Argue the case from both sides and come to a conclusion. Does the answer above make better sense now? Jim

[@kartikdec]

am I right in assuming that, the reason the greece currency crisis happened was that the european monetary union/ECB didn't increase the money supply so as to increase inflation, thus meaning it was more expensive for Greece to pay it's debt.

[@marcuscleaver]

That was certainly an incidental effect of that decision.

[@kartikdec]

cheers for the swift reply