Advise Brian as to the Application of EU Law on the Free Movement of Goods to This Situation - Essay Example

ADVICE BRIAN AS TO THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ON THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS TO THIS SITUATION By Advise Brian as To the Application of EULaw on the Free Movement of Goods to This Situation Introduction Trade in the world today has been opened up by many different efforts that have indicated to the development of relations between different continents, regions and countries as a way of easing trade. Through these efforts, the promotions of a free market for many regions that have interrelations have seen to the promotion of trade. For the European Union, the free movement of goods from one European Union country to another has taken shape with many countries within the region having more flexible trade relations shared. The details of this paper discuses a case of movement of goods in a free manner that needs considering. Brian’s position According to the case presented, Brian is a recognized trader in these items and has dealt them for years. Having sold the products for ten years, one would judge Brian as an experienced manufacturer and supplier of these materials. The free movement of goods treaty aims at restricting limitations to trade between member states of the European Union and compliance is key for a good relation for the different states. France as a state is part of the treaty and is bound by the treaty to comply and eliminate any restrictions that are developed either by its domestic suppliers of Power Saws or by legislation that seeks to create a discriminatory effect to the trade aspects of the EU. A number of cases exist on the aspects of discrimination in trade because of legislative effects of member states of the European Union. These include the following. According to a case as per Schmidberger, case Case C-112/00 on free movement of goods vs. protection of fundamental right1. According to this case, respect of fundamental rights of persons in the different states is part of the responsibility that the states have. The free movement of goods into and out of France needs not affect the livelihood of the people especially their health. Considering the health aspect attached to the case, the rights of protection on health aspects for the people is the mandate of the government that limits the exposure as per the goods in relation to the PSs. The free movement of goods relates to the removal of barriers from the market free trade to exist2. Facts of the situations Brian is a manufacturer within the UK, which is part of the European Union. He manufactures goods that qualify for sale on the European Union and that explains the reasons why he has for ten years supplied the goods in UK and Germany markets and all these have appreciated his products. Among the facts involves the position of France as one of the European Union members, which means the laws that apply to Germany and UK that the manufacturer sells his goods, would apply. For some reasons, France has different rules governing the manufacture of Panel Saws with regard to a number of health reasons. They would want a product that is fitted with an external system for filtering the dirt of sawdust from the cutting process. The government needs to keep a close watch on the health of its citizens and only issues licenses for such products to sale in government outlets after issuance of a trading license. The license applications for such products are issued through applications delivered once a year. The products that exist in the market already have the external filters fitted because of the rules provided by the government that resulted from the research that indicated the need to have these filters that reduce risks related to health complications with 75%. According to Brian, his system’s internally built filtration systems serve better compared to the others and he feels the French regulations are unfair with their legal approach. The European Union has an internal market that is sometimes referred to as the single market that guarantees free movement of goods and services across the region. The market aimed at creating an increased competitive effect and has the quality of goods improved. It created an avenue free movement of goods and services across the region through which an improved efficiency in allocation of the scarce resources available in the region featured. The system also aimed at creating economic integration between the member states that would solidify the relationship between the countries. The legislation has harmonized nearly half of the goods traded in this region creating a close relation. The development of this market system of integration is still ongoing and is still marled by a number of differences that include cases such as Brian’s. A good example of a case that involves the trade dealing with green electricity within the member states of the region as per the Swedish State and the option of limiting the trade through the feed system created in this legislature. Through references to this case, the court introduced an item that set precedence to these cases called “in the opinion of unwarranted reference that followed the Angry Farmers Case3. In the case of green electricity, the European Union considered using advocating for all power producers to have a given portion of their power as green power. The directive only stated the basics but the member states are required to ensure that this is done in their own way. According to this case, the court ruled with consideration of two aspects with less regard to the discriminatory arrangements developed because of countries favoring their own producers giving the rights to issue licenses to foreign suppliers hence limiting the market. The court indicated that all suppliers come as requirements for purchase of the certificates for supply of electricity in different countries. Any suppliers that did not comply were to pay fines as determined by the court. On the other hand considering the Angry Farmer’s Case where the domestic producers decide to create obstacles that will affect the trade aspects, the court considered it the obligation of the states to provide a duty positive in nature in relation to yielding to movement of goods freely in the region. On this account, discovered that the legislations of Sweden do not comply with article 34 of the TFEU as stated, “When a Member States fails to adopt measures that weigh adequately in the prevention of the development of barriers to movement of goods freely in the region. This is especially the case for those created through the actions of different on the domestic scale but made possible and promoted by specific legislation developed by that state, obstruction of intra-Community trade proves a positive act (Para 74)4. Another fact to consider is the case of Essent Case as judgment delivered on this case on 11 September 20145. In this case, a number of factors followed the aspect of discriminative trade. These all reflect the very complex regulatory regime that many of the member states have adopted. In summarizing the dispute in this case, a Flemish Regional scheme developed requirements for all suppliers of energy that have connection to the grid to have renewable energy aspects attached to their systems or risk a heavy penalty. For this effect, the production of green energy was only left to the locals and only this energy counted to the quota established hence limiting suppliers from using green energy imported from other states as a prove of compliance. The company Essent company had green energy sourced from Norway, Sweden Norway and the Netherlands but was not allowed to use it. The petition was raised in the Belgian courts following the many sanctions that the company Essent had suffered in this regard. Through this, the courts asked preliminary questions to the Court of Justice about the violation of the regulations of the EU free movement of goods treaty in this aspect. According to this case, the court resorted to the different articles 36 and 34 among the many and considered all aspects of discriminatory regulations established within member states that may affect the levels of trade encouraged by the different member states of the European Union. These indicated a good reason for the court to justifiably consider “under fair terms” that the certificates issued for the green energy production be redeveloped and the mechanism reconsidered6 (Fontanelli, F. Friday 19 September 2014). Advice to Brian Considering such a case proposes a different approach to the situation and based on these Brian will require facing the courts over the issue. The courts might consider the different positive effects that an internal filtration system will have and seek to explore the evidence available on the case before considering acceptance of the consideration of Brian that his internally built filtration systems provide a better or similar effect to the health as the externally built. Considering the fact that the state of France is putting restrictions on the matter, it is limiting trade and only advocating it for the domestic producers. The fact that Brian has dealt the items in other states for years without any effects makes it clear that his products meet the standards. The barrier placed by the French needs petitioning. References Cases: Essent cases C-204 to C-208/12 Schmidberger case Case C-112/00 on free movement of goods vs. protection of fundamental right Angry farmers’ case Books: Fontanelli, F. (Friday 19 September 2014). The Essent Judgment: Another Revolution in the Case Law on Free Movement of Goods? TFEU Websites: Inadim (2009). Free Movement of Goods in the European Union. Retrieved from http://www.eubusiness.com/topics/single-market/homepage/free Read More