Is the labeling requirement a restriction to companies?

Fruit juice, is covered by the definition of a good, in Commission v Italy. ‘products which can be valued in money and which are… the subject of commercial transactions.’ There are two forms of restrictions on imports and exports of goods. Article 34 prohibits quantitative restrictions on goods being imported and exported. Geddo outlines quantitative restrictions (‘QR’) as ‘measures which amount to total or partial restraint of… imports, exports or goods in transit’. The other restriction prohibited by Article 34, is measures having an equivalent effect (‘MEQR’). Dassonville outlines ‘all trading rules by member states which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra community trade.’.

In my opinion, this labeling requirement is an ‘MEQR,’ as the requirement isn’t quantitative. There are two types of ‘MEQR.’ Firstly, there is distinctly applicable ‘MEQR.’ It is obvious discrimination about import and export of goods. This labeling measure isn’t overt discrimination, as the requirement applies to all member states. The second form is indistinctly applicable ‘MEQR.’ These measures apply without distinction to imported and domestically produced goods. Nevertheless, they potentially hinder trade through indirect discrimination. The labeling requirement would fall under this category, as there is no explicit discrimination against other member state goods, but it makes exportation of goods more complicated, hindering free movement. Product requirements make other member states production of goods ‘more difficult; it also has the effect of slowing down economic interpenetration’.