User:Kaihsu/IMlawB

There are four possibilities for a national measure to be allowed:
 * 1) A directly discriminating measure can be justified with express derogation: e.g. Campus Oil; Van Duyn; Belgian utilities golden shares.
 * 2) An indirectly discriminating measure (e.g. product and language requirements) can be justified by public-interest exemption with proportionality: e.g. PreussenElektra; Bosman, Groener.
 * 3) A nondiscriminating measure that restricts access to market or freedom of movement can also be justified by public-interest exemption with proportionality: e.g. Trailers; Gebhard.
 * 4) A nondiscriminating measure that does not restrict access to market or freedom of movement is not caught by the prohibition: e.g. Keck; Graf.

Article 34 TFEU: import restriction
Mutual recognition is assumed: Cassis de Dijon.

Measures equivalent to quantitative restriction: Dassonville; = restricts/hinders trade, e.g. origin marking: Irish souvenirs, price fixing: LIBRO.

Access to market test (whether selling arrangement or product related requirement) OK if not protectionist, even if total ban: Commission v Italy (trailers). Selling arrangement OK if justified: Keck.

Reverse discrimination not OK if affecting intra-Union trade: Pistre. But see PreussenElektra, where price fixing etc. is OK when justified by public-interest exemption.

Article 35: export restriction
Restriction resulting in discrimination against exported products prohibited: Gysbrechts (payment card).

Article 36: exemptions
Derogations exhaustive: Irish souvenirs. “Economic emergency” not OK: Commission v Italy (pork imports). Proportionality: Schwarz (candy wrap). No disguised restriction: UHT milk.

Express derogations: morality (Conegate), security (Campus Oil), health (Schwarz), etc.

Public-interest requirement: freedom to protest: Schmidberger.

Article 37: state monopoly
Cassis de Dijon: monopoly must avoid discrimination.

Article 110: internal taxation
Lütticke: direct discrimination is prohibited. Reverse discrimination is prohibited: Nygård (pigs). But see Outokumpu, Chemial.
 * Article 110(1): similar products: John Walker, objective characteristics. Substitutability: Case 45/75 Rewe-Zentrale (spirits).
 * Article 110(2): products in competition: Commission v UK (beer and wine).

Indirect discrimination not OK: Humblot (French cars). Tax on unique product must not be excessive: De Danske.

Citizenship: Articles 18, 20, 21 TFEU
“Fundamental status”: Grzelczyk. No need to invoke freedoms: Baumbast. “Genuine enjoyment” even in wholly internal situations: Ruiz Zambrano, cf. Chen, distinguish from McCarthy and contrast with worker freedom in Carpenter.

Name: different treatment for different circumstance: Garcia Avello. Contrast with freedom in Konstantinidis. Article 21: Grunkin and Paul; caveat: Wardyn, Sayn-Wittgenstein.

Enter, reside, remain: “joins spouse”: Metock, see also Eind. “Only if entered and resided lawfully”: Akrich; Surinder Singh not applied.

Article 45: workers
Direct discrimination not OK.

Indirect discrimination: different treatment not OK once recruited: Sotgiu. Linguistic requirement exempted by policy: Groener.

Market access restriction without justification not OK: Bosman.

Exceptions:
 * Article 45(3): Public policy and security (Van Duyn, Bonsignore, Adoui). Public health: not against health workers: Gül.
 * Article 45(4): Public service.

Article 49: establishment
Direct discrimination not OK: Reyners, Van Binsbergen. (See by analogy Article 56, services.)

Fiscal sovereignty: residence as a valid distinction in taxation must be applied for both benefits and burdens systematically: Commission v France (avoir fiscal).

Exemptions: Articles 51 and 52 (shared with services).

Article 56: services
Direct discrimination not OK: Laval.

Non-discriminatory restriction: hindrance must be
 * non-discriminatory;
 * justified by general-interest requirements;
 * suitable for the objective; and
 * not beyond what is necessary: Gebhard.

Exemptions: Articles 51 and 52 (shared with establishment). Reyners: official capacity (Article 51). Public health sector not beyond freedom: Kohll.

Benefits and social security; education
Non-discrimination: Martínez Sala. Students: Grzelczyk, Bidar; but integration needed: Förster.
 * But refusal of benefits for substistence OK: Dano.
 * No guarantee that move is neutral for social security: von Chamier-Glisczinski.

Article 63: capital
Restrictions, not discrimination: Commission v UK (golden shares), Commission v Portugal (tax amnesty), Commission v Portugal (tax representative).

Exemption: Article 65. Fiscal matters; public security: Commission v Belgium (utilities golden shares). Needs to be proportionate and not arbitrary discrimination: Albore.