Cameron at least can’t block the Euro 17+6(+3?) using the Court of Justice

There’s too much still to digest in the fall-out from yesterday’s summit for me to write a full blog entry on it all, but there is one technical point on which David Cameron is wrong. As if he didn’t already look petulant enough, Cameron stated that he would make sure the Euro+ group would not have access to EU institutions (see para 3 here).

Here’s Article 273 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [PDF of full treaty here]:

Article 273
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in any dispute between Member States which relates to the subject matter of the Treaties if the dispute is submitted to it under a special agreement between the parties.

The ‘special agreement’ would be part of the pact the 17 Eurozone members, plus 6 (+3) others would sign, and so the Court of Justice could intervene, making legally binding fiscal surveillance by the Court of Justice viable, whatever Cameron says.

Email This Post

Print This Post

Danish Marmite ban – not Pia Kjærsgaard’s next populist plan to keep foreigners away

Today’s Guardian has the story that Denmark is to ban Marmite. As the FT’s Stanley Pignal quipped on Twitter, is this the next step (after new customs controls, despite Schengen) from Denmark’s populist Dansk Folkeparti to keep foreigners away by banning their foods?

While the idea of Pia Kjærsgaard lobbing jars of Marmite across the border is an amusing one, the case is an interesting matter of EU versus national law, and that law is not on Copenhagen’s side.

Essentially EU food law is supreme over national food law, and has been for years in the EU’s single market. This means that a product that is safe for sale in one EU Member State is allowed to be sold in other Member States. Continue reading →

Today's Guardian has the story that Denmark is to ban Marmite. As the FT's Stanley Pignal quipped on Twitter, is this the next step (after new customs controls, despite Schengen) from Denmark's populist Dansk Folkeparti to keep foreigners away by banning their foods? While the idea of Pia Kjærsgaard lobbing jars of Marmite across the border is an amusing one, the case is an interesting matter of EU versus national law, and that law is not on Copenhagen's side. Essentially EU food law is supreme over national food law, and has been for years in the EU's single market. This means that a product that is safe for sale in one EU Member State is allowed to be sold in other Member States. This is the reason why France, who had banned Red Bull, is now obliged to allow it to be sold. The Danish Marmite case also has parallels with a case from 2008 when a UK firm based in Barnsley used EU law to export baguettes to France. In that circumstance French bread law prevented the use of hydrogenated fats in baking, while EU law did not prevent this, allowing the UK firm to export. The Danish Marmite case is the same. Even if the 2004 Danish law mentioned in The Guardian's article did rule the yeast spread to be unsafe, since it is still legal for sale in the UK and legal under EU law there should be nothing that the officials from the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration can do about it. If the folks from Abigail's Food Store in Copenhagen want to keep stocking Marmite they should explain this Barnsley baguette case to the Danish authorities, and might - eventually - have to take a case before the European Court of Justice, but the chances of winning that case would be very high. In addition to the main gist of this story, I have searched to check what derogations Denmark has from EU food law, and have found this page from the Danish Parliament. The only cases where Denmark is allowed to impose tougher standards is over the nitrite and nitrate content of foods but, as far as the ingredients of Marmite show, this should not be an issue here, and The Guardian story states the reason is the vitamin supplement, not nitrite and nitrate. [UPDATE 25.5.11 - 0100] A very similar issue has been ruled upon by the ECJ in 2003 in C-192/01. That case ruled against Denmark and in favour of free movement of products with vitamin supplements. So what's different this time? In comparison to the anti-EU rubbish being spouted on politics.ie it would seem more and more likely that it will be EU law that will allow Marmite exports to Denmark to continue. [UPDATE 25.5.11 - 1400] This gets more and more complex. The line from the Danish government is that there is no ban on Marmite in Denmark, just a ban on marketing it. Selling Marmite in a shop or online is however encompassed in this definition of marketing, so - in practice if not legally - this is a ban on sales of Marmite. Different national registration systems for fortified foods are allowed under EU law (see paragraph entitled Notification/registration requirement here). Gaining this notification in Denmark can take up to 6 months, and the procedure is here, of course with no guarantee of its success. So there folks, in all of its legal complexity, is the answer. This has taken debate on Twitter and e-mail, and face to face discussions in Brussels, to finally solve, and demonstrates the tremendous complexity of trying to accurately report on any EU matter! [UPDATE 25.5.11, 1420] The Danish Food And Veterinary Administration now has released a statement explaining all of this. No ban on Marmite, but a ban (for now, until an application) on selling or marketing it. Work that one out. [UPDATE 27.5.11, 0830] If you want more on the legality or not of the Marmite ban, see this excellent post by Head of Legal. He's also far too kind about this blog. Jacob Christensen also has a Danish perspective. Photo: Celeste Hodges “Marmite” May 16, 2009 via Flickr, Creative Commons Attribution

Email This Post

Print This Post

Let’s complain like it’s 1998

icon_whocanhelpyou I don’t normally frequent the websites of the European Court of Justice and the European Ombudsman. Yes, I am an EU geek, but not that much of an EU geek. But a friend asked me some questions today and hence I visited both sites. You could argue that the ECJ’s work is adequately technical to mean that few citizens are going to look at it, especially as the EP’s OEIL legislation database is easier to use anyway.

But what’s up with the Ombudsman? He’s supposed to be the first point of call for people wanting to complain about something the EU is doing wrong, and the site is horribly retro and generally gruesome. The icon shown to the right here appears on the homepage – what’s up with this guy’s head? Looks like the shape of a factory roof? Everything looks like it was designed sometime around 1998.

Email This Post

Print This Post