Prohibition of selling fruit juice by post is an indistinctly applicable ‘MEQR.’ The requirement isn’t explicit but, puts external producers at a disadvantage. Under Cassis de Dijon, the mandatory requirement applicable is the protection of public health, as the requirement’s purpose is to benefit health through fresh fruit. This requirement is a selling requirement, which is a dual burden caught under Article 34 and thus breaches it. A treaty justification, under Article 34, is to...
Prohibition of selling fruit juice by post is an indistinctly applicable ‘MEQR.’ The requirement isn’t explicit but, puts external producers at a disadvantage. Under Cassis de Dijon, the mandatory requirement applicable is the protection of public health, as the requirement’s purpose is to benefit health through fresh fruit. This requirement is a selling requirement, which is a dual burden caught under Article 34 and thus breaches it.
A treaty justification, under Article 34, is to protect the life and health of humans. This is demonstrated to be difficult to argue in Commission v Denmark. Furthermore, justifying postal restrictions is difficult, seen in Doc Morris. Could only justify selling medication by post if prescribed to save lives. The measure is arguably not suitable, as preventing fruit juice from being posted it doesn’t ensure healthier consumption and therefore goes beyond what is necessary. Thus, this restriction is a breach of Article 34.
Article 45 secures the ‘freedom of movement for workers’ in the union, by the abolition of discrimination based on nationality regarding employment. This protects national workers ability to travel and reside in other member states, to accept employment offers. It also makes allowance for limitations to be justified on the grounds of public policy, security, and health. Moreover, it provides that employment in the public sector falls outside the article.
