Based on your analysis, in your opinion has the Court’s jurisprudence been consistent?

In Cassis de Dijon, the Court of Justice of the European Union recognized the existence of indistinctly applicable rules and acknowledged the need to grant Member States a broader margin of discretion in justifying restrictions imposed by their national laws, particularly concerning potential hindrances to trade beyond the scope of Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

In numerous instances, national barriers to trade stem from product requirements. Critically evaluating the aforementioned statement entails examining any exceptions to the free movement of goods beyond those stipulated in Article 36 TFEU that have been permitted by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Based on this analysis, one must assess whether the Court`s jurisprudence has demonstrated consistency.

Cassis de Dijon prompted the Court of Justice of the European Union to recognize the existence of indistinctly applicable rules, allowing Member States greater discretion in justifying restrictions imposed by their national laws to address potential hindrances to trade beyond Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.