EU LAW

Facts of the case

The Pixel X is a new company established in Spain. It produces and sells olive oil. In January 2020 it was transporting a large batch of its best-selling type of oil, called the 'Authentic Olive Oil' from Spain to Belgium via France. In contrast to other oils, the 'Authentic Olive Oil' is a budget olive oil which contains an olive oil content of 75 per cent. 'Authentic Olive Oil' is marketed and sold in all other member states and the Pixel X is keen to enter the Belgian market.

After weeks of civil unrest, a series of planned demonstrations took place across France in January 2020 to raise awareness about 'systemic racism', alleged police brutality towards minorities, and the removal of statues of colonialfigures. One such demonstration was taking place inthe region ofNormandy. Permission had been granted by the French authorities to the demonstrators to congregate in Normandy for a period of 8 hours. After 3 hours, however, the protest spilled out onto the A36 motorway toll-point (connecting France with the Belgian border). To ensure the continuation and safety of the protesters, as well asroad users, theFrench authorities closedthe A36 motorwayfor 5 hours. As a resultof the closure, The Pixel X was unable to reach Belgium at the scheduled time for its delivery of 'Real Olive Oil'.

Submission of the parties:

The Pixel X submits that, under Article 34 TFEU, there is an absolute duty to ensure goods can pass freely without hindrance. The French Government, on the other hand, submits that Article 34 TFEU can be restricted as the protesters were exercising fundamental rights protected under national and EU law. Guidance on the correct interpretation of EU law is therefore being sought from the Court of Justice of the EU on the following questions:

Preliminary reference questions

1. What is the purpose of Articles 34-36 TFEU? What are the concepts of quantitative restrictions; measures having an equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions; what are the Treaty derogations and whereare these found?;what are mandatoryrequirements? (Refer to the relevant case-law) 2. Would the closureof the A36Motorway by Frenchauthorities constitute aquantitative restriction or ameasure having equivalenteffect to aquantitative restriction? Whatare distinctly and indistinctly applicable measures? In the instant case, was the closure of the A36 Motorway by French authorities discriminatory (distinctly) or non-discriminatory (indistinctly applicable)? Does this make a difference in terms of the justification for the restriction? If so, why?