1. What is the primary legal basis for harmonization measures in the EU Internal Market?
a) Article 36 TFEU
b) Article 110 TFEU
c) Article 114 TFEU
d) Article 45 TFEU
2. In Cassis de Dijon, the Court of Justice established which principle?
a) The precautionary principle
b) The principle of mutual recognition
c) The subsidiarity principle
d) The Keck doctrine
3. Under which treaty provision can a Member State justify a restriction on the free
movement of goods on public health grounds?
a) Article 114 TFEU
b) Article 36 TFEU
c) Article 110 TFEU
d) Article 26 TFEU
4. Which case confirmed that Article 34 TFEU applies to measures having equivalent
effect?
a) Commission v UK (Beer and Wine)
b) Fra.bo SpA
c) Schindler
d) Rewe-Zentral AG (Cassis de Dijon)
5. What does Article 30 TFEU prohibit?
a) Measures having equivalent effect to customs duties
b) Free movement of services
c) Recognition of professional qualifications
d) Tax harmonization between Member States
,Section B: Short Answer Questions (5 marks each)
6. Explain the difference between negative and positive harmonization in EU Internal
Market Law.
7. Discuss the principle of proportionality in the context of EU law, citing relevant case
law.
8. What are the main elements of the Single European Act (SEA) and how did it
impact the internal market?
9. How does the EU regulate the free movement of services? Explain with reference to
case law and legislation.
10.What are the conditions under which a Member State can justify restricting free
movement based on public policy or public security?
Section C: Essay Questions (10 marks each, choose TWO out of three)
11.The Principle of Mutual Recognition and its Limitations
Critically analyze the principle of mutual recognition as established in Cassis de Dijon.
To what extent has this principle contributed to the functioning of the internal market?
Discuss its limitations and exceptions with reference to case law.
12.Regulating the Internal Market: Art. 114 TFEU and its Challenges
Article 114 TFEU plays a crucial role in legislative harmonization. Discuss the scope,
limitations, and judicial interpretations of Article 114. How has the Court of Justice
addressed issues of subsidiarity and proportionality in harmonization cases?
13.Free Movement of Goods vs. National Regulatory Autonomy
Discuss the tension between the EU’s objective of ensuring the free movement of goods
and the Member States’ right to regulate markets. Use case law such as Keck and
Mithouard to illustrate your argument.
, Answer Sheet:
Section A: Multiple-Choice Questions (1 mark each)
1. (c) Article 114 TFEU – This is the primary legal basis for harmonization measures in the
EU Internal Market.
2. (b) The principle of mutual recognition – Cassis de Dijon established that products
lawfully produced and sold in one Member State should, in principle, be accepted in all
others.
3. (b) Article 36 TFEU – Allows Member States to justify restrictions on free movement
based on public health, public security, or public policy.
4. (d) Rewe-Zentral AG (Cassis de Dijon) – Confirmed that Article 34 TFEU applies to
measures having equivalent effect.
5. (a) Measures having equivalent effect to customs duties – Article 30 TFEU prohibits
customs duties and equivalent charges between Member States.
Total: 5 Marks
Section B: Short Answer Questions (5 marks each)
6. Difference between Negative and Positive Harmonization
○ Negative Harmonization: Removes national barriers to trade by prohibiting
restrictive national rules under Articles 34–36 TFEU (e.g., Cassis de Dijon).
○ Positive Harmonization: Involves EU-wide legislation that creates common
rules across Member States, primarily under Article 114 TFEU. Example:
Tobacco Advertising case confirming harmonization limits.
7. Proportionality in EU Law
○ The principle of proportionality requires that measures taken by Member States
or the EU must be appropriate, necessary, and not excessive to achieve their
aim.
○ Confirmed in cases like Cassis de Dijon (German alcohol content rule was
disproportionate) and Mickelsson and Roos (Jet ski restrictions justified but had to
be proportionate).
8. Main Elements of the Single European Act (SEA)
○ Introduced qualified majority voting for internal market measures.
○ Strengthened the legal basis for completing the Single Market (Article 114
TFEU).
○ Facilitated mutual recognition, reducing the need for exhaustive harmonization.
a) Article 36 TFEU
b) Article 110 TFEU
c) Article 114 TFEU
d) Article 45 TFEU
2. In Cassis de Dijon, the Court of Justice established which principle?
a) The precautionary principle
b) The principle of mutual recognition
c) The subsidiarity principle
d) The Keck doctrine
3. Under which treaty provision can a Member State justify a restriction on the free
movement of goods on public health grounds?
a) Article 114 TFEU
b) Article 36 TFEU
c) Article 110 TFEU
d) Article 26 TFEU
4. Which case confirmed that Article 34 TFEU applies to measures having equivalent
effect?
a) Commission v UK (Beer and Wine)
b) Fra.bo SpA
c) Schindler
d) Rewe-Zentral AG (Cassis de Dijon)
5. What does Article 30 TFEU prohibit?
a) Measures having equivalent effect to customs duties
b) Free movement of services
c) Recognition of professional qualifications
d) Tax harmonization between Member States
,Section B: Short Answer Questions (5 marks each)
6. Explain the difference between negative and positive harmonization in EU Internal
Market Law.
7. Discuss the principle of proportionality in the context of EU law, citing relevant case
law.
8. What are the main elements of the Single European Act (SEA) and how did it
impact the internal market?
9. How does the EU regulate the free movement of services? Explain with reference to
case law and legislation.
10.What are the conditions under which a Member State can justify restricting free
movement based on public policy or public security?
Section C: Essay Questions (10 marks each, choose TWO out of three)
11.The Principle of Mutual Recognition and its Limitations
Critically analyze the principle of mutual recognition as established in Cassis de Dijon.
To what extent has this principle contributed to the functioning of the internal market?
Discuss its limitations and exceptions with reference to case law.
12.Regulating the Internal Market: Art. 114 TFEU and its Challenges
Article 114 TFEU plays a crucial role in legislative harmonization. Discuss the scope,
limitations, and judicial interpretations of Article 114. How has the Court of Justice
addressed issues of subsidiarity and proportionality in harmonization cases?
13.Free Movement of Goods vs. National Regulatory Autonomy
Discuss the tension between the EU’s objective of ensuring the free movement of goods
and the Member States’ right to regulate markets. Use case law such as Keck and
Mithouard to illustrate your argument.
, Answer Sheet:
Section A: Multiple-Choice Questions (1 mark each)
1. (c) Article 114 TFEU – This is the primary legal basis for harmonization measures in the
EU Internal Market.
2. (b) The principle of mutual recognition – Cassis de Dijon established that products
lawfully produced and sold in one Member State should, in principle, be accepted in all
others.
3. (b) Article 36 TFEU – Allows Member States to justify restrictions on free movement
based on public health, public security, or public policy.
4. (d) Rewe-Zentral AG (Cassis de Dijon) – Confirmed that Article 34 TFEU applies to
measures having equivalent effect.
5. (a) Measures having equivalent effect to customs duties – Article 30 TFEU prohibits
customs duties and equivalent charges between Member States.
Total: 5 Marks
Section B: Short Answer Questions (5 marks each)
6. Difference between Negative and Positive Harmonization
○ Negative Harmonization: Removes national barriers to trade by prohibiting
restrictive national rules under Articles 34–36 TFEU (e.g., Cassis de Dijon).
○ Positive Harmonization: Involves EU-wide legislation that creates common
rules across Member States, primarily under Article 114 TFEU. Example:
Tobacco Advertising case confirming harmonization limits.
7. Proportionality in EU Law
○ The principle of proportionality requires that measures taken by Member States
or the EU must be appropriate, necessary, and not excessive to achieve their
aim.
○ Confirmed in cases like Cassis de Dijon (German alcohol content rule was
disproportionate) and Mickelsson and Roos (Jet ski restrictions justified but had to
be proportionate).
8. Main Elements of the Single European Act (SEA)
○ Introduced qualified majority voting for internal market measures.
○ Strengthened the legal basis for completing the Single Market (Article 114
TFEU).
○ Facilitated mutual recognition, reducing the need for exhaustive harmonization.
