Can the labeling restriction be justified by ensuring consumer protection and market transparency?
Cassis de Dijon outlines two principles. Firstly, mutual recognition is based on the concept; if a good is lawfully produced in its own member state, there is no reason ‘it should not be introduced into any other member state’. Secondly, it creates justifications called mandatory requirements.Keck, distinguishes between product requirements and selling arrangements.
Product requirements are caught under Article 34. They are rules about characteristics and presentation of goods. In contrast, selling arrangements aren’t covered by Article 34. These are market circumstances with rules on location and authorized sellers. The labeling requirement would be a product requirement because it’s a measure based on the product’s packaging. Thus, the labeling requirement breaches Article 34.
Article 36 outlines acceptable circumstances such as public policy. It’s available where there is no ‘arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade.’ Secondly, where there are no purely economic reasons for justifications. Thirdly, it is subject to the principle of proportionality. This entails if its suitable, necessary or reasonable to achieve the aim. The aim is suitable and necessary, as are there are no other less restricting measures, in my opinion. This requirement ensures the member state’s citizens can read the good’s label, ensuring consumer protection and clarity through knowledge of the ingredients.