Indistinctly applicable measures definition

View the related practice notes about Indistinctly applicable measures

Brexit—alternative UK trade models [Archived]

Brexit—alternative UK trade models [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. As of 31 January 2020 (exit day), the UK is no longer an EU Member State and its relationship with the EU is governed by the Withdrawal Agreement, which came into effect on 1 February 2020. In accordance with the Withdrawal Agreement, on exit day the UK entered an implementation period, during which it continues to be treated as a Member State for many purposes, including trade. As a third country, the UK can no longer participate in the EU’s political institutions, agencies, offices, bodies and governance structures (except to the limited extent agreed), but the UK must continue to adhere to EU law and submit to the continuing jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union in accordance with the transitional arrangements in the Withdrawal Agreement. The UK can enter into trade talks with non-EU countries as an independent trading nation, provided any trade agreements concluded with third countries do not enter into force during the transition period. For background reading, see: Brexit—introduction to the Withdrawal Agreement. We are reviewing our content on the basis of information available and will keep it under review during the implementation period. Meanwhile, for updates on key Brexit developments and the implications for UK lawyers, see: Brexit Bulletin—key updates, research tips and resources. For

The four freedoms—goods, services, establishment and capital

The four freedoms—goods, services, establishment and capital Free movement of goods Restriction on imports Scope of the prohibition Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) prohibits ‘quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect’. The meaning of the term ‘quantitative restrictions’ was defined by the Court of Justice in Geddo as ‘measures which amount to a total or partial restraint of…imports, exports or goods in transit’. In Dassonville, the Court of Justice also fleshed out the concept of 'a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction' (MEE) by giving a rather broad definition. The court regarded the restriction as a MEE, on the ground that ‘all trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-community trade are to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions’. Article 34 TFEU can only be invoked against a Member State, but not against private parties. The Court of Justice has consistently denied horizontal direct effect of Article 34. Against the Member States, however, the provision can be relied on to contest not only positive action of a Member State, but also its inaction. For instance, in Schmidberger, the applicant, a transportation company, sought to challenge Austria’s inaction in controlling demonstrations that blocked a motorway. The Court of Justice accepted to consider the action under Article