Case I
Mr. Leo breeds a rare breed of sheep in the Netherlands. For a long time, he has been
selling the sheep to wholesalers who sell meat to nearby markets. However, desiring to earn
more money from the rare breed of sheep, he has decided to switch to a new marketing
strategy. Accordingly, Mr. Leo has started handling the slaughter and sale himself, selling
directly to consumers. As Mr. Leo achieves significant sales figures within the Netherlands
through the internet, over time, some consumers in France also show interest in vacuum-
packed meat and sausages, utilizing the internet.
One day, the French Meat Marketing Board notices Mr. Leo's internet sales. Sending
him an official notice, the Board raises the following objections regarding the sale of meat
and sausages from France's perspective:
(i) Vacuum-packed products cannot be sold in France because they do not carry French labels.
(ii) Mr. Leo's meat and sausage prices are set below the minimum selling price in France, thus
violating French law.
(iii) While sausages comply with Dutch law, they contain additives that are prohibited under
French law, making them unsellable in France.
(iv) Selling meat through postal services is contrary to French law.
According to Mr. Leo, the fact that the French enjoy tasty food presents a profitable
market for his meats and sausages. Therefore, Mr. Leo, seeking advice from a lawyer, asks
you to evaluate the claims of the French Meat Marketing Board within the framework of EU
law.
Questions:
1- Which free movement does this case concern?
2- Does this case fall within the scope of application of the relevant free movement
provision?
How will the disputed topics in this case be evaluated separately according to EU law (within
the framework of the relevant free movement provision)?
Case II
German citizen Mr. Klopp graduated from the finance department in Germany
between 1993 and 1997, and he also attended an Italian course, acquiring an advanced level of
language proficiency. Due to his love for Italian, Mr. Klopp has decided to spend the rest of
his life in Italy. During this time, in September 1997, Mr. Klopp came across a job
advertisement from a public bank in the province of Bolzano, Italy, and applied for a job
there.
The bank in question conducts an exam for job entry and requires applicants to have a
“bilingual certificate in Italian and German” to participate in this exam. This certificate is only
issued by the public authorities in Bolzano, following an exam that takes place twice a year
(May / November). Residents of this region typically obtain this certificate as they know it
may be necessary for any job application.
Although Mr. Klopp does not have this certificate, he knows both Italian and German
sufficiently. To participate in the bank's exam, Mr. Klopp provided the bank with documents
pertaining to his degree and language courses from Germany to prove his language
proficiency. However, the bank did not allow Mr. Klopp to take the exam because he did not
present the “bilingual certificate in Italian and German.”
Mr. Klopp, learning that you are a lawyer, has approached you for advice on this
matter. How would this case be characterized and resolved under EU law?
1- Which free movement is applicable in this case?
2- Does it fall within the relevant scope of application & coverage?
3- Are there any restrictions in the case?
4- Justification…?
