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. Article 34 TFEUprohibits Member Statesfrom imposing ruleswhich may restrictthe free movement of goods. Would the Member States be in breach of Article 34 TFEU when they fail to takepositive steps toensure the freemovement of goods?Clarify with referenceto Case 265/95 Commission v France and Case C-112/00 Schmidberger v Austria.

2. The French government claims that the closure of the A36 Motorway is justified on grounds of protecting fundamental rights.How are fundamentalrights protected aspart of thegeneral principles of EUlaw and theEU Charter ofFundamental rights? Inaddition, what arethe 'sources of inspiration'of fundamental rights;and what isthe 'field ofapplication' of EU fundamental rights? Refer to the relevant case-law.

3. Would the restrictionof Article 34TFEU by theFrench authorities inthis case bejustified, 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 Normandy compatible with the free movement of goods? (Refer to the cases of Schmidberger and Omega)