User:Kaihsu/IMlawC

‘All trading rules enacted by Member States, which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Union trade are to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions’: Dassonville. Cassis de Dijon established the principle of mutual recognition.

However, there are these possibilities for a national measure to be allowed: In any case, a measure whose effect too uncertain and indirect (de minimis) are not caught: Krantz, Graf, Viacom.
 * A directly discriminating measure (discriminatory in law/de jure) can be justified with express derogation: e.g. Campus Oil, Van Duyn, Belgian utilities golden shares (or mandatory requirements?: Decker, Walloon waste, Lindman, Josemans).
 * An indirectly discriminating measure (“double-burden” rule; discriminatory in fact/de facto; e.g. product and language requirements) can be justified by public-interest exemption with proportionality: e.g. PreussenElektra, Bosman, Säger, Groener.
 * But a nondiscriminating measure (not creating “double-burden”; not discriminatory in fact/de facto; “certain selling arrangement”) that does not restrict access to market or freedom of movement is prima facie not caught by the prohibition: e.g. Keck (fixing Torfaen), De Agostini.
 * 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, Mickelsson; Gebhard, Alpine. See CaixaBank, Barbier for failed attempts at justifying.

For a restricting measure to be justified with proportionality, it must be (Familiapress):
 * suitable for securing the attainment of the objective that they pursue, and
 * necessary (absence of any less restrictive means).

Declaration is preferred over authorization: Sanz de Lera; labelling over name restriction: Beer purity. Collective action must allow operator to know beforehand what is required: Viking Line, Laval. Gambling monopoly must be justified: Stoß.

Procedural requirements applies to the justifications and exceptions: the leading case is Case C-309/02 Radlberger; Analir, Canal.