hello everyone the casita June case is one of the groundbreaking rulings of the European Court of Justice this ruling dates back to 1978 the ruling should be considered in light of the free movement of goods and more in particular in light of article 34 of the TF EU this article forbids all quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures that have equivalent effect in this video log I would like to point out the main issues that came forth in his conceded Jung ruling and explained what we can learn from this ruling a seated yawn is a French black currant liqueur and it contains 15 to 20% of alcohol in the 70s a German importer 0 Central wanted to import this liqueur from France to Germany however in Germany his import was confronted with a national rule that stipulated that when you want to sell fruit liqueur it should contain at least 25% of alcohol so importing the stuff was not a problem however selling the product in Germany was the problem the German rule in itself applies to all fruit liquids regardless is origin therefore the rule is indistinctly applicable in other words the rule in itself is not discriminatory but in practice it leads to a restriction to trade and thereby it is a measure that has an equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction and this is forbidden in article 34 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union in the caseta John ruling the court introduces two very important principles in the context of indistinctively applicable measures that have the same effect as a quantitative restriction to trade principle number one the principle of mutual recognition the principle of mutual recognition applies when at the European level there is no product harmonization in that case countries should accept recognize one another's product rules so when a product has been lawfully produced in one country it should be able to sell this same product under exactly the same circumstances in all other European Union countries in the caseta Jeon case it means that the German company railway should be able to sell the French liquor that has been lawfully produced in France under exactly the same circumstances in Germany principle number two the rule of Reason doctrine the principle of mutual recognition will not apply when the country who applies the indistinctively applicable measure has a very good reason for that a good reason could be fiscal supervision or the protection of public health or the fairness of commercial transactions or the defense of the consumer these were all listed in this particular court ruling however in case of caseta June the German government was unable to convince the Court of Justice that they had a very good reason a rule of reason to justify the indistinct of the measure the consequence was that casa de Jonge could be rightfully sold in Germany alongside the French Calvados containing 40% of alcohol and the Italian limoncello in this case containing 27% of alcohol wonderful stuff if you ask me after watching this video look I hope you know something about the casita Gian ruling and are able to put this in the proper European Union law of nations check ww-why NASSCOM or liked of the rennet at Facebook that is WWF facebook.com slash dr. Leonard thank you very much for watching bye