The Free Movement of Goods: A Clear Guide for Students and Practitioners

The free movement of goods is one of the foundational freedoms of the EU internal market. It aims to eliminate barriers to trade between Member States, ensuring that products can circulate as freely as they would within a single country. Although the UK has left the the EU, the principles remain central to understanding EU law, UK-EU trade relations, and the broader logic of market integration.

This guide breaks down the core concepts, leading cases, and practical implications in a way that is accessible for students, researchers, and anyone navigating EU law.

What counts as a “Good”?

The Court of Justice defines goods as products that can be valued in money and are capable of forming the subject of commercial transactions.

This broad definition ensures that almost anything capable of being traded falls within the scope of Article 34-36 TFEU. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2016/art_36/oj/eng

The Legal Framework: Articles 34-36 TFEU

Article 34 TFEU – Quantitative Restrictions and MEQRs

  • Prohibits quantitative restricts (QRs) on imports
  • Prohibits measures having equivalent effect (MEQRs)

Article 25 TFEU – Export Restrictions

  • Mirrors Article 34 but applies to exports

Article 36 – Justifications

Allows restrictions on grounds such as:

  • Public morality
  • Public policy
  • Public security
  • Protection of health and life
  • Protection of national treausures
  • Protection of industrial and commercial property

These derogations are interpreted strictly and must comply with proportionality.

Dassonville and the Birth of the MEQR

The Dassonville formula remains one of the most cited definitions in EU law. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:61974CJ0008

“All trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade.”

This extremely broad test meant that almost any national rule could fall within Article 34.

Cassis de Dijon: Mutual Recognition and Mandatory Requirements

Cassis de Dijon transformed the landscape by introducing two key principles: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61978CJ0120

Mutual Recognition

If a product is lawfully marketed in one Member State, it should generally be allowed in all others.

Mandatory Requirements (Rule of Reason)

Non-discriminatory measures may be justified on grounds such as:

  • Consumer protection
  • Fairness of commercial transactions
  • Public health
  • Environmental protection

This opened the door to balancing trade with legitimate regulatory aims.

Keck and the Attempt to Limit Article 34

The Court later tried to narrow the scope of Article 34 in Keck, distinguishing between: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:61991CJ0267

Product Requirements

(e.g., composition, packaging, labelling) -> Always fall under Article 34

Selling Arrangements

(e.g., shop opening hours, advertising rules) -> Outside Article 34 if they apply equally in law and fact to domestic and imported goods.

Keck was meant to reduce litigation but created its own complexities.

The Modern Approach: Market Access

Recent case law (e.g., Commission v. Italy (Trailers), Mickelsson and Roos) has shifted toward a market access test:

Does the national measure hinder access of imported goods to the market?

This approach is more flexible and better reflects the realities of trade.

Why the Free Movement of Goods Still Matters Post-Brexit

Even though the UK is no longer an EU Member State:

For students and practitioners, understanding these principles is essential.

Key Cases at a Glance

CasePrinciple
DassonvilleBroad definition of MEQRs
Cassis de DijonMutual Recognition + mandatory requirements
KeckSelling arrangements distinction
TrailersMarket access test
Mickelsson and RossUse restrictions as barriers

Conclusion

The free movement of goods is a dynamic area of EU law that continues to evolve. From the sweeping breadth of Dassonville to the more nuanced market-access approach, the Court has sought to balance trade liberalization with legitimate national interests. For anyone studying EU law or working in cross-border trade, these principles remain indispensable.


Discover more from The Legal Learner

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Legal Learner

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Discover more from The Legal Learner

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading