okay so we were dealing with article 110 to founding treaty providing for other products as far as this provision is concerned for attacks code by the prohibition on discrimination the most important question is whether there is a protection on the domestic products which would be detriment to the imported products therefore the main question is whether these products can be substituted but by each other because as you would remember the paragraph does not provide similar products but other products therefore to be able to speak about a discrimination in discriminatory taxation as regards the second paragraph then we have to find out whether this these products concern the imported products and the domestic products can substitute each other and there are two different tests applied by the code of justice to find out the answer of this question to find out whether the goods are in competition the first test is the economic test the code applies or considers whether if the price of a product goes up sales of other product increases therefore the question is for the Court of Justice to find out whether the price of one product increases sale of other product increases so if there is substitutability then the products are in competition in the second test like the test it applies as regards similarity under article 100 or 110 paragraph 1 the court takes into account the factors such as the manufacture the composition of the product and the consumer preference both present and feature later in the case 170 / 78 Commission versus United Kingdom the question was whether beer and wine table wine light table wine are in competition at that time the UK government taxed the wine approximately five times more than beer beer was domestic product and wine was imported product the court held that the UK government gave an indirect product protection to beer and breach article 110 paragraph 2 according to the court two drinks were included in the same category of alcoholic beverages they were both product of natural fermentation and could be used for the same purpose they were consumed they could be they could have been consumed and in the same way as well either as refreshments or with meals therefore it was decided that they were in competition the two and 110 paragraph to apply it I'll take the questions afterwards all right the third aspect third component of free movement of goods or customs union as you know is non-tariff barriers prohibition of non-tariff barriers non-tariff barriers are also called as yes non physical barriers and they include prohibition of quantity restrictions and measures having equivalent effect there are three provisions to be applied here depending on the circumstances of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union article 34 applies for quantity restrictions and measures having equivalent effect for imports article 35 provides for quantity restrictions and measures having equivalent effect for exports an article 36 provide for derogations exceptions where these prohibitions do not apply it is provided under article 36 but as you will be seen now and as you will be reading you will be seeing that the major problem or a case law is based on or has arising under article 34 and 36 there is little case law on article 35 when you compare it with 30 article 34 now as far as article 434 is concerned meaning prohibition of quantity restrictions and measures having equivalent effect for imports we deal with the article or we can deal with the article under two different headings first what it restricts what it sorry prohibits is quantity restrictions and second measure is having equivalent effect then the first question is what is a quantitative restriction what is the quantity restriction yes exactly quantity there is no problem today about quantity restrictions themselves there are quotas and bans limitations on the amount of the goods that are a subject to import they are prohibited by article 34 which provides that quantity restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between member states they are prohibited therefore by article 34 and according to the case law of the court of justice they can only be justified such limitations can only be justified can only be saved by article 36 derogations and principle according to principle of proportionality the main problem is about the measures having equivalent effect these cover a wide range of issues wide range of measures such as national rules on the shape content packaging and labeling of goods which may hinder internal trade but cannot be described as quantitative measures what would measure mean here in Turkish what would that mean here Ted will earn lamp design lemon according to the case law of the European Court of Justice legally binding acts or practices which are capable of influencing the conduct of the consumers and traders as well as administrative practices may be called as measures or they are included in the term measures you will read an important number of cases about measures how it is wrap it is interpreted by the court of justice then what are the measures having equivalent effect you will have presentations on the free movement of good some of you and most of these presentations is about this topic measures having equivalent effect what is that measure having a cooling effect a general definition is found in the very famous decision of the solving of 1974 the European Court of Justice gave a very general definition of measures having equivalent effect in this decision according to the court all trading rules enacted by the Member States which I capable of hindering directly or indirectly actually or potentially inter-community trade are considered as measures having equivalent effect all trading rules enacted by the Member States which are capable of directly or indirectly actually or potentially hinder inter-community trade are considered as measures having equivalent effect therefore this is such a large definition a wide definition of the term and includes any measure that hinders or put even potentially hinders the imports and exports in any way it may be intended by a member state or it may not be intended by the Member State any act therefore limiting the trade between the Member State as such could be caught by the dust on win formula and therefore would that member state would be in breach of article 34 according to the court of justice there are interesting cases about the measures having equivalent effect in the case law of the court of justice for example national promotional campaigns national promotional campaigns or like by national by national like by Irish in a case for example of eighteen one Commission versus Ireland the ECJ held that the activities of a company which was controlled by the government for the promotion of sale of national products by advertising such products and the use of homemade sign on the goods infringed article 30 for the company had advertisement campaigns on the use of home produced Goods home produced products it there was a symbol on the goods as well and this advertising campaign of that company was backed by the Irish government therefore the court said here the campaign although it was not a quantity restriction itself in effect it made a domestic product or it tried to make domestic products more on the eyes of the consumer better products and campaign was or was for that therefore the Court of Justice provided that this is an infringement of article 34 another example is discriminatory national marketing rules the national markets the national marketing rules may also provide for certain restrictions on imported products which may infringe article 34 for example import licenses which by their nature only apply on imported goods import licenses or the requirements to stamp the origin of the goods on the product itself or for example in again a case of eighty-one the Court of Justice provided that the Belgian rule requiring the margaery to be produced in cubes and not in any form any other form would breach article 34 because it impose an economic disadvantage on exporters to Belgium there was a requirement to cut the margulies to produce the margarines in cubes and not for example in rectangular shapes therefore the Court of Justice said this is an in at this advantageous situation for the exporters to Belgium or for example the price restrictions involving maximum and minimum pricing is also considered as a measure having equivalent effect the Member States may only order national rules which restricts the import of the goods under article 34 may only be saved by article 36 derogations or and according to the principle of proportionality article 36 therefore provides for a general general prohibition of Tory article 36 provides for exceptions for a general prohibition of article 34 under the first paragraph so a first sentence of article 36 there is a list of derogations this list is a closed list therefore cannot be enlarged and according to the second sentence of articles 36 these limitations shall not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a discrete restriction on trade between member states therefore these exceptions is subject to the limitations as provided under the second sentence of article 36 the list includes different exceptions I will not go into detail there is a good number of cases of the European Court of Justice please you are responsible from this case no otherwise there is no possibility that we finished all the topics in class like public morality public security public health life of protection of life of humans protection of life of animals artistic historic or archaeological heritage and the protection of industrial and commercial property as long as these exceptions exist in compliance with the second sentence of article 36 then they can be accepted as exceptions of article 34 and save the Member States concerned article 34 as far as the measures having equivalent effect are concerned article 34 do not only prohibit distinctly applicable measures when we say distinctly applicable measures we mean the restrictions or the national rules which are which restrict the free movement of in free movement of goods or importation and exportation of goods by providing restrictions on the imported or exported products therefore in the distinctly applicable measures these measures apply to imports and exports only distinctly because because of the fact that they are imported or exported when we say in distinctly applicable measures or equally applicable measures we mean the measures that apply both to domestic and foreign products equally applicable measures or indistinctly applicable measures apply equally to foreign products and domestic products whereas distinctly applicable measures only apply to imports or exports therefore article 34 does not only include distinctly applicable meshes article 34 does not only prohibit distinctly applicable measures it also covers the national rules which apply or which doon which on the face of it make no distinction between domestic and foreign products since the does own will formula is very large there is a possibility that distinctly and indistinctly applicable measures are covered by article 34 therefore a gateway was provided an escape possibility was provided by the Court of Justice in another very famous case of 1978 Casas de dijon the court of justice in cases shall limit the indistinctly applicable mentions somebody some some some of the indistinctly applicable measures shall not be caught by article 34 in cases the case concerned a prohibition on the marketing in germany of certain spirits with less than 25% alcohol which included cassis a blackcurrant alcoholic alcoholic liquor having fifteen to thirty twenty percent alcohol the been applied to both domestic and imported products regardless of their origin and did not distinguish between national and foreign drinks therefore was it this distinctly applicable or indistinctly applicable that was indistinctly applicable the arguments made my German government for the ban was that the the drinks having lower alcohol percentage would lead to alcohol tolerance therefore they would lead to have important health problems in the future however the actual result was that the ban had a negative effect on French imports because that kind of alcohol was an imported product from France therefore under Article 34 according to cassis I or the cassis judgment makes it that article 34 also covers indirect discrimination therefore even a national rule which applies both to foreign and domestic products may infringe article 34 and the court has underlined this fact in cassis that as a principle such measures shall bridge article 34 prima facie prima facie exactly however if the whole sakes if the host states national rules can be justified according to one of the mandatory requirements then there is no breach of article 34 and the national prefer interests takes precedence over free movement of goods incas is therefore for the indistinct ly applicable measures the Court of Justice used a confusing phrase as mandatory requirements to supplement article 36 derogations let's put it like this we have quantity restrictions and measures having equivalent effect if there is a quantity restrictions such as a ban or a quota applied by a member states for the products of another then there is a breach of article 34 that national rule may still be saved under article 36 derogations exceptions and according to the principle of proportionality okay when there is a measure having equivalent effect according to the decimal formula this measure may be distinctly applicable meaning a national measure applied imports and exports or it may be indistinctly applicable meaning equally applicable to both domestic and imported groups when there is a distinctly applicable measure will there will there be a problem of preach of article 34 yes how can we save this national act from being infringed of EU law again article 36 exceptions and proportionality now we can't indistinct the applicable measures normally in this thing the applicable measures would always infringe article 34 right and could only be saved by article 36 derogations and printed according to principle of proportionality however in cases the court of justice also provides that when they exist mandatory requirements that member state may be justified also and not called to become to be considered as in breach of EU law but the funny thing is nobody knows what is mandatory requirements what is the phrase the meaning of the phrase in Turkish mandatory requirements Zoro nogueira Greek Nevaeh Emre DJ correctly leak like mandatory requirements or also referred as imperative requirements or overriding requirements in the public interests our good reasons put forward by the Member States to justify their conduct