Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Case 1 :
Charlie owns a chocolate factory. He distributes chocolate cakes, biscu
Case 1 :
Charlie owns a chocolate factory. He distributes chocolate cakes, biscuits and sweets in his home State of Wonkaland (a fictitious EU Member State) and other EU Member States. He is very concerned about the impact on his sales of the food advertising ban that Slugworth (another fictitious EU Member State) has proposed. The ban is intended to help to address the growing health problems associated with unhealthy diets.
Charlie seeks your advice on the compatibility of this proposal with EU law on the Free Movement of Goods.
the following answer:
In assessing the compatibility of Slugworth’s proposed food advertising ban with EU law on the free movement of goods, we need to consider the principles established in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), particularly Article 34 which prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect between EU member states.
Scope of Article 34 TFEU: Article 34 TFEU aims to ensure the free movement of goods within the EU’s single market. It prohibits any measure that directly or indirectly hinders or restricts trade between member states. This includes measures such as import quotas, tariffs, and any other regulations that create barriers to the movement of goods.
Objective of Slugworth’s Proposal: Slugworth’s proposed food advertising ban is intended to address health concerns associated with unhealthy diets. While promoting public health is a legitimate objective, any measure adopted to achieve this goal must comply with EU law, including the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality.
Proportionality and Justification: To be compatible with EU law, Slugworth’s food advertising ban must be necessary and proportionate to achieve its health objectives. This means that the ban should not go beyond what is necessary to protect public health and should not unduly restrict the free movement of goods.
Potential Impact on Charlie’s Chocolate Factory: As the owner of a chocolate factory distributing products in multiple EU member states, Charlie may be directly affected by Slugworth’s advertising ban. If the ban disproportionately affects the marketing and sale of his chocolate cakes, biscuits, and sweets in Slugworth or other member states, it could constitute a breach of Article 34 TFEU.
Possible Challenges and Remedies: If Charlie believes that Slugworth’s food advertising ban violates EU law on the free movement of goods, he may have grounds to challenge the ban through legal channels. This could involve lodging complaints with national authorities or seeking recourse through the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to ensure compliance with EU law.
In advising Charlie, it would be essential to carefully examine the specific provisions and implications of Slugworth’s proposed food advertising ban in relation to EU law on the free movement of goods. If the ban is found to unjustifiably hinder the free movement of Charlie’s products within the EU single market, he may have legal avenues to challenge its compatibility with EU law.
Case 2 :
iCharlie’s brother, Mike, left Wonkaland around a decade ago and has lived in Slugworth ever since. Initially he worked as a waiter, but Mike did not like the ‘zero-hours’ contract he had and so he left after a few months. Since then, he has relied on an inheritance he received from his wealthy Aunt Josephine to support him and his daughter, Violet, but this money has now been almost entirely spent. He applies for a benefit available to jobseekers but this is refused on the ground that he is not a citizen of Slugworth.”
Advise Mike as to his rights under EU free movement law.
the following answer:
Mike, as a citizen of Wonkaland residing in Slugworth, is entitled to certain rights under EU free movement law, particularly as it pertains to the free movement of persons, as outlined in Articles 20 to 25 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
Non-Discrimination: Article 18 TFEU prohibits discrimination on the grounds of nationality within the scope of application of the Treaty. This means that Slugworth cannot discriminate against Mike solely because he is a citizen of another EU member state. Refusing him benefits solely on the basis of his nationality would likely constitute a breach of this provision.
Freedom of Movement: Article 21 TFEU guarantees the right of EU citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states, subject to certain limitations and conditions. As a citizen of Wonkaland, Mike has the right to reside in Slugworth, provided that he does not become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of Slugworth.
Equal Treatment: Article 24 TFEU ensures that EU citizens residing in a member state other than their own are entitled to equal treatment with the nationals of that member state in the areas covered by EU law. This includes access to social assistance benefits, such as the benefit for jobseekers that Mike applied for. If Slugworth provides such benefits to its own citizens in similar circumstances, it should also extend them to Mike, as an EU citizen residing in Slugworth.
Derivative Rights: Additionally, under the concept of derivative rights, family members of EU citizens may also benefit from certain rights of free movement. Mike’s daughter, Violet, may have rights as a family member of an EU citizen (Mike), which could include the right to reside and access social benefits in Slugworth.
In advising Mike, it would be important to emphasize that his rights under EU free movement law protect him from unjust discrimination based on his nationality and entitle him to certain benefits and treatment in Slugworth as an EU citizen. He may have grounds to challenge the refusal of benefits based solely on his nationality and should explore options to assert his rights, including seeking assistance from legal experts or relevant authorities.
I have written the two cases and their answers. You only have to answer two important questions:
1.THE WEAKNESSES IN ANSWER AS A LAW STUDENT IS THAT:
2.KEY POINTS FOR IMPROVEMENT MORE THAN THE WRITTEN IS:
(In addition to Sport, these two exams are presented at France Academy in each section starting with 1. Scope of Article 34 TFEU ect. )
I have also added two files to help you find the answrs
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.