User:Kaihsu/IMlawD6

European internal market.

Module D: Regulation of the internal market.

Chapter 6: Sectoral examples of harmonising legislation.

Food labelling
The principal measure relating to food labelling is Regulation 1169/2011, based on Article 114 TFEU. It is without prejudice to sectoral rules such as those in Case C-303/97 Sektkellerei Kessler.

The principles governing mandatory food information is in Article 4, and the list of mandatory particulars in Article 9; the Commission can adopt delegated and implementing acts on these, assisted by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (established by Regulation 178/2002 “General Food Law”; in practice sections of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed). “Any Union measure in the field of food information law which is likely to have an effect on public health shall be adopted after consultation of the European Food Safety Authority”: Article 5. Food information shall not be misleading: Article 7. Rules on the name of the food is provided for in Article 17.

Article 15 (language requirements) provides that “mandatory food information shall appear in a language easily understood by the consumers of the Member States where a food is marketed. [...] Within their own territory, the Member States in which a food is marketed may stipulate that the particulars shall be given in one or more languages from among the official languages of the Union.” A national law can neither require the exclusive use of a specific language for the labelling of foodstuffs (Case C-369/89 Piageme v Peeters I) nor the use of the language most widely spoken in the area in which the product is offered for sale, even if the use at the same time of another language is not excluded [unless complying with Article 15 above] (Case C-85/94 Piageme v Peeters II). National legislation can prescribe the use of a specific language for the labelling of foodstuffs if it also permits the use of another language easily understood by purchasers [but see Article 15 above]; supplementary sign adjacent to the product in the shop is not sufficient: Case C-385/96 Goerres.

Rules on allowed national measures and the Union procedure requiring notification to the Commission before adoption are in Chapter VI. A non-harmonised national provision is to be examined under the Treaty provisions: e.g. a rule requiring separate mention that the period of minimum durability has expired, justified on the ground of prevention of fraud in Case C-229/01 Müller. Protection of public health cannot justify a national measure restricting free movement of goods by requiring prior authorisation of all health-related labelling of foodstuffs: Joined Cases C-421/00, C-426/00 and C-16/01 Sterbenz and Haug.

Recognition and harmonization of qualifications
Recall that in Case 2/74 Reyners and Case 33/74 Van Binsbergen, the Court ruled that the freedoms of establishment (Article 49 TFEU) and to provide services (Article 56 TFEU) have direct effect. Article 53 and 62 TFEU allow Union legislation for mutual recognition of qualifications and for coordinating how the freedoms can be exercised. But where there is no such legislation, the host Member State is obliged to compare the qualification for mutual recognition: C-340/89 Vlassopoulou; and the Treaty rules continue to apply: Case C-234/97 Fernández de Bobadilla; both confirmed in Case C-586/08 Rubino.

An example of a sectoral directive is Directive 77/249 for lawyers providing (occasional) services. Under the directive, “Member States must take account of the equivalence of diplomas and, if necessary, proceed to a comparison of the knowledge and qualifications”: Case C-55/94 Gebhard. Host Member State fee rules may apply, but the assisting host Member State lawyer must be reimbursed: Case C-289/02 AMOK. Minimum fee scale rules must be proportionate to the objective of the proper administration of justice: Joined cases C-94/04 and C-202/04 Cipolla.

In addition, Directive 98/5 provided for the free establishment of lawyers: validity confirmed in Case C-168/98 Luxemburg v Parliament and Council. EU law precludes a “Member State from refusing to enrol the holder of a legal diploma obtained in another Member State in the register of persons undertaking the necessary period of practice for admission to the bar solely on the ground that it is not a legal diploma issued or confirmed by a university of the first State”: Case C-313/01 Morgenbesser.

Directive 2005/36 provides for: Directive 2013/55 updated it to introduce the European Professional Card and Common Training Frameworks (after Europass: the European Qualifications Framework of Decision 2241/2004).
 * a general system of professional qualifications,
 * the automatic recognition of qualifications in certain sectors,
 * the harmonized automatic recognition of many medical professional qualifications, and
 * the non-harmonized sectoral mutual recognition for architects.

A profession cannot be described as regulated when there are in the host Member State no laws, regulations or administrative provisions governing the taking up or pursuit of that profession: Case C-164/94 Aranitis. A national collective agreement governing the right to take up or pursue a profession may constitute rules regulating a professional activity: Fernández de Bobadilla.

The compensatory measure provided for in the directive must be used proportionately; partial practice of a regulated profession is allowed: Case C-330/03 Colegio de Ingenieros. Homologation is not a diploma: Case C-311/06 Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri; distinguish from Case C-286/06 Commission v Spain (engineers). The host State must examine all qualifications (even if third-country) and experiences when doing a Vlassopoulou-style comparison: Case C-238/98 Hocsman, building on Case C-319/92 Haim I, which in turn qualified Case C-154/93 Tawil-Albertini (both judgments delivered on the same day). The same applies to the Blue Card scheme: Directive 2009/50.

The host Member State can regulate the professions when justified, even by imposing criminal penalties: Case C-61/89 Bouchoucha, Case C-108/96 Mac Quen.