Aulia Lukitasari
ELIE – LAW ASSIGNMENT
1. Which market freedoms could be invoked?
Based on the case between Ebia and Latvian authorities, the market freedoms which could be
invoked is the free movement of goods. The definition of goods, according to the case C 7/68
Commission versus Italy in 1968, is “By goods, within the meaning of article 9 of the EEC
Treaty, there must be understood products which can be valued in money, and which are
capable, as such, of forming the subject of the commercial transactions.”1 In this case, the
goods are referring to the masks and lanyards. These goods are produced in Russia; however,
it was imported by a Portuguese company. It means that the goods have been cleared by
Portuguese customs. Therefore, the clear customs would apply in this situation and the legal
base of this situation is article 28 paragraph 2 and article 29 of the TFEU. Thus, when the
goods enter Latvian market, the goods are originating from other Member State of EU, in this
case Portugal.
2. Is there an interference with those freedoms? Is the measure adopted by Latvian
authorities justified? Which legitimate aims can it pursue and is the adopted measure
necessary and proportionate?
The Riga Police orders Ebia, the supermarket chain that sells the masks and lanyards, to stop
the selling and gave them a fine of 2,000 EUR. The Latvian authorities’action can be
considered as an interference to the market freedoms, particularly the free movement of
goods. There are several violations listed by Latvian authorities. First issue concerns as the
products are produced in Russia, the Latvian authorities argued that they would need to do a
safety check to the products before being sold in Latvian market. This safety check would be
unnecessary as it has been done by the Portuguese authorities to ensure that the goods from a
third country have complied to the EU regulations accordance to the article 29 of TFEU. The
action by Latvian authorities can be considered as interference on free movement of goods in
this case article 34 of TFEU, which forbids all quantitative restrictions to all imports and
measures having equivalents effect. In case C8/74 Dassonville, the court defined measures
having such an effect as all those which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly,
actually or potentially, intra-Community trade.2
1
“Judgment of the Court of 10 December 1968”, EUR-Lex, accessed May 21, 2021,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61968CJ0007