The Liquor Company vs France - Case Study - Management Assignment Help

Assignment Task:

Task:

Task 1: To draft an Opinion of the Advocate General

Fictitious Case 14/2020 The Liquor Company vs France [2020]

Facts of the case
On 11 th November 2020, a newly established Spanish company called ‘’The Liquor Company’’ was transporting 700 bottles of its best-selling product, ‘’Pablo’s ‘Proper’ Brandy’’, from Spain to Germany via France. Pablo’s ‘Proper’ Brandy is a budget Brandy which contains an alcohol content of 25 per cent. Pablo’s ‘Proper’ Brandy is marketed and sold in Spain, Italy and Poland, and the Liquor Company is keen to enter the German market. After weeks of civil unrest, a series of planned demonstrations took place across France on 11 th November 2020 to raise awareness about ‘systemic racism’, alleged police brutality towards minorities, and the removal of statues of colonial figures. One such demonstration was taking place in the region of Burgundy. Permission had been granted by the French authorities to the demonstrators to congregate in Burgundy for a period of 8 hours. After 3 hours, however, the protest spilled out onto the A36 motorway toll-point (connecting Burgundy with the German border). To ensure the continuation and safety of the protesters, as well as road users, the French authorities closed the A36 motorway for 5 hours. As a result of the closure, The Liquor Company was unable to reach Germany at the scheduled time for its delivery of Pablo’s ‘Proper’ Brandy’.

Preliminary reference questions

1. What is the purpose of Articles 34-36 TFEU? In particular, with reference to its case law, can the CJEU clarify the concepts of quantitative restrictions; measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions; Treaty derogations; and mandatorymrequirements?

2. Does the closure of the A36 Motorway by French authorities constitute a quantitative restriction or a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction and was the closure of the A36 Motorway by French authorities discriminatory or non- discriminatory (indistinctly applicable), and does it make a difference in terms of the justification for the restriction?

3. Whilst Article 34 TFEU prohibits Member States from imposing rules which may restrict the free movement of goods, are Member States in breach of Article 34 TFEU when they fail to take positive steps to ensure the free movement of goods? Clarify with reference to Case 265/95 Commission v France and Case C-112/00 Schmidberger v Austria.

4. The French government claims that the closure of the A36 Motorway is justified on grounds of protecting fundamental rights. Can the CJEU give guidance on how fundamental rights are protected as part of the general principles of EU law and the EU Charter of Fundamental rights? In addition, what are the ‘sources of inspiration’ of fundamental rights; and what is the ‘field of application’ of EU fundamental rights?

5. With reference to Schmidberger v Austria and Commission v France, can the CJEU provide guidance on whether the restriction of Article 34 TFEU by the French authorities in this case is justified, namely, whether the restriction pursues a legitimate aim and whether it has been exercised in a proportionate way? In other words, was the failure to ban i.e., decision to allow, the protest in Burgundy compatible with the free movement of goods?

Task 2: To give legal advice
Facts
Recap: On 11th November 2020, a newly established Spanish company called ‘’The Liquor Company’’ was transporting 700 bottles of its best-selling product, ‘’Pablo’s ‘Proper’ Brandy’’, 4 from Spain to Germany via France. Pablo’s ‘Proper’ Brandy is a budget Brandy which contains an alcohol content of 25 per cent. Pablo’s ‘Proper’ Brandy is marketed and sold in Spain, Italy and Poland, and the Liquor Company is keen to enter the German market…. New issue: On 12 th November, when ‘The Liquor Company’ eventually arrived in Germany, the German authorities issued a notice that the consignment of Pablo’s ‘Proper’ Brandy could not be marketed and sold in Germany. The notice was issued by the authorities on the basis of German legislation which seeks to ‘protect public health’ so as to ‘avoid the spread of diluted alcoholic beverages which have the effect of inducing a tolerance towards alcohol for German citizens’. The German authorities assert that, whilst the legislation does not ban the sale of Brandy, it does prohibit the sale of Brandy that has an alcohol content of less than 30 per cent.

This Management Assignment has been solved by our Management  Experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.