 | This article needs additional citations for verification .(February 2023) |
| Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PVBA | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | European Court of Justice |
| Citation(s) | (1983) Case 261/81 |
| Keywords | |
| Free movement of goods | |
Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PVBA (1983) Case 261/81 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of goods in the European Union. [1]
A Belgian law required margarine to be marketed in cube shaped packages, to avoid confusion with butter. This was applied to all kinds, domestic and imports. Walter Rau argued that the law contravened (what is now) TFEU article 34.
The ECJ held that the measure was not lawful. In principle packaging requirements to prevents consumers being confused would be justified. But it must be ‘also necessary for such rules to be proportionate to the aim in view.’
17. It cannot be reasonably denied that in principle legislation designed to prevent butter and margarine from being confused in the mind of the consumer is justified. However, the application by one member state to margarine lawfully manufactured and marketed in another member state of legislation which prescribes for that product a specific kind of packaging such as the cubic form to the exclusion of any other form of packaging considerably exceeds the requirements of the object in view. Consumers may in fact be protected just as effectively by other measures, for example by rules on labelling, which hinder the free movement of goods less.
Margarine is a spread used for flavoring, baking, and cooking. It is most often used as a substitute for butter. Although originally made from animal fats, most margarine consumed today is made from vegetable oil. The spread was originally named oleomargarine from Latin for oleum and Greek margarite. The name was later shortened to margarine.
Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman (1995) C-415/93 is a 1995 European Court of Justice decision concerning freedom of movement for workers, freedom of association, and direct effect of article 39 of the Treaty of Rome.
The first-sale doctrine is an American legal concept that limits the rights of an intellectual property owner to control resale of products embodying its intellectual property. The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, giving, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works. In trademark law, this same doctrine enables reselling of trademarked products after the trademark holder puts the products on the market. In the case of patented products, the doctrine allows resale of patented products without any control from the patent holder. The first sale doctrine does not apply to patented processes, which are instead governed by the patent exhaustion doctrine.
In the European Union, competition law promotes the maintenance of competition within the European Single Market by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies to ensure that they do not create cartels and monopolies that would damage the interests of society.
The European single market, also known as the European internal market or the European common market, is the single market comprising mainly the 27 member states of the European Union (EU). With certain exceptions, it also comprises Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway and Switzerland. The single market seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people, known collectively as the "four freedoms". This is achieved through common rules and standards that all participating states are legally committed to follow.
Reference Re Validity of Section 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act (1949), also known as the Margarine Reference or as Canadian Federation of Agriculture v Quebec (AG), is a leading ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, upheld on appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on determining if a law is within the authority of the Parliament of Canada's powers relating to criminal law. In this particular case, the Court found that a regulation made by Parliament was ultra vires. Though the regulation contained sufficient punitive sanctions, the subject matter contained within it was not the kind that served a public purpose.
Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA [2007] IRLR 989 is European Union law case, concerning age discrimination law.
Rewe-Zentral v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (1979) Case C-120/78, popularly known as Cassis de Dijon after its subject matter, is an EU law decision of the European Court of Justice. The Court held that a regulation applying to both imported and to domestic goods that produces an effect equivalent to a quantitative import restriction is an unlawful restriction on the free movement of goods. The case is a seminal judicial interpretation of article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In the same ruling, the Court established the so-called rule of reason, allowing non-discriminatory restrictive measures to be justified on grounds other than those listed in article 36 TFEU.
Mangold v Helm (2005) C-144/04 was a case before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) about age discrimination in employment.
The general principles of European Union law are general principles of law which are applied by the European Court of Justice and the national courts of the member states when determining the lawfulness of legislative and administrative measures within the European Union. General principles of European Union law may be derived from common legal principles in the various EU member states, or general principles found in international law or European Union law. General principles of law should be distinguished from rules of law as principles are more general and open-ended in the sense that they need to be honed to be applied to specific cases with correct results.
Reference for a Preliminary Ruling in the Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard (1993) C-267/91 is an EU law case, concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and European Union law. The Court found that "selling arrangements" did not constitute a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on trade between Member States of the European Community, as it was then. As a result, the 'discrimination test' was introduced to identify such selling arrangements.
Konsumentombudsmannen v De Agostini (1997) C-34/95 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of goods in the European Union.
Konsumentombudsmannen v Gourmet AB (2001) C-405/98 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of goods in the European Union.
Commission v Italy (2009) C-110/05 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of goods in the European Union. This case is commonly referred to as 'Italian Trailers', and is predominantly known for establishing the 'market access test'.
Deutscher Apothekerverband v 0800 DocMorris NV (2003) C-322/01 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of goods in the European Union.
Commission v Italy (2003) C-14/00 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of goods in the European Union.
Omega Spielhallen und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn (2004) C-36/02 is an EU law case, concerning the freedom to provide services and the free movement of goods in the European Union.
Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional and Bwin International Ltd v Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (2009) C‑42/07 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of services in the European Union.
Ker-Optika bt v ÀNTSZ Dél-dunántúli Regionális Intézete [2010] ECR, Case C-108/09 is an EU law case concerning a conflict of law between Hungarian national legislation and European Union law. The Hungarian legislation regarding the online sale of contact lenses was considered with regards to whether it was necessary for the protection of public health, and it was concluded that this could have been done by less restrictive measures. Despite the internal measure in this case being categorised as a selling arrangement, which would generally be determined by the discrimination test established in Keck, the Court went on to use a market access test, as per Italian Trailers. Thus, this case is crucial in the recent development of the tests for determining measures equaling equivalent effect.
McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27 (1904), was a 1904 case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that greenlighted the use of the federal taxing power for regulatory purposes. The Court upheld by a 6–3 vote a federal tax on colored oleomargarine, rejecting contentions that it exceeded Congressional authority. The decision, authored by Justice Edward Douglass White, effectively allowed Congress to regulate intrastate commercial activity by levying taxes on the activity. The justices in the majority refused to examine Congress's motives, instead ruling that the tax was valid because, regardless of the intent behind it, its effect was to raise revenue. Chief Justice Melville Fuller dissented from the decision, which curtailed his own previous opinion in the 1895 case of United States v. E. C. Knight Co. and showed that Fuller's support for a limited federal government could not always garner the support of a majority of the Court.
 | This case law article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |