Week 9: The Four Freedoms I – Free Movement of Goods, and Persons (Workers and EU Citizens)

Fundamentals of EU law

Free movement of goods

Dassonville

The Court also played a key role in shaping the free movement of goods within the EU. In Procureur du Roi v Benoît and Gustave Dassonville (1974), it established what became known as the “Dassonville Formula”.

EU rules forbid Member States from setting limits on imports into their country from other EU countries. The rules also ban any national rules with an “equivalent effect” to such a limit. In this case, Belgium required certificates of origin for Scotch whisky. Gustave Dassonville, a wholesaler in France, and his son Benoît, who managed a branch of the business in Belgium, bought bottles of “Johnnie Walker” and “Vat 69” whisky in France to sell in Belgium. As no such certificate was required in France, they could not provide it. They were then prosecuted in Belgium.

The Court ruled that national rules that restrict trade in the EU, either directly or indirectly, have an equivalent effect to limits on imports.

Cassis de Dijon

The Dassonville reasoning was developed in Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (1979), also known as Cassis de Dijon.

Germany refused to allow the liqueur “Cassis de Dijon” to be imported from France and sold in Germany, as it did not meet German standards for alcohol content. In order to be sold in Germany as liqueur, a drink had to have an alcohol content of more than 25%. Cassis de Dijon had an alcohol content of only 16%. Rewe-Zentral, a German supermarket, complained about this rule in a national court, which then asked the Court of Justice questions. The Court said that any product legally produced and sold in one EU country must be allowed onto the market of other EU countries. This is called the principle of “mutual recognition”.

Free movement of people

Grzelczyk

In addition to recognising the free movement of goods, the Court has also affirmed the free movement of people within the EU, for instance in Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre Public d'Aide Sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve (2001).

A French student living in Belgium supported himself for the first three years of his studies and asked for a minimum income allowance in his fourth year. He was, however, denied the allowance because he was a foreign national. The Court found that this constituted unjust treatment, as EU citizenship gives people the right to equal treatment in law, regardless of their nationality.  

Ruiz Zambrano

A decade later, in Ruiz Zambrano (2011), the Court expanded on the concept of EU citizenship.

This case concerned two children born in Belgium with Belgian nationality. Their parents had Colombian nationality. The parents were threatened with deportation, which would have also had the effect of the children having to leave the EU. The Court ruled that EU countries should grant residence and a work permit to third-country parents whose minor and financially dependent children have that country’s nationality. Denying them these rights would deprive their children of the full enjoyment of their rights as EU citizens. This case reinforced the idea that EU citizenship extends certain rights not just to the individual but to their family members as well.