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, in identifying indistinctly applicable rules, saw the need to allow Member States a wider margin of discretion in justifications they might impose in their national laws in order to take the potential restriction of trade outside the application of what is now Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

In many cases, the source of national barriers to trade is product requirements. Critically analyze the above statement in light of what, if any, are the exceptions to the free movement of goods outside those laid down in Article 36 TFEU that have been allowed by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Based on your analysis, in your opinion has the Court’s jurisprudence been consistent?