Used Baby Northface For Sale

Europeans are not discriminated against in Maastricht Dutch "? Europe and women

Today I echo a curiosity. Non-Dutch Europeans to visit Maastricht are not allowed in the coffee shops . I invite you to reflect on a story about a legal dispute by the consumption of cannabis in coffee shops Dutch, particularly in the city of Maastricht (what a paradox that is in the city that gave its name to the Treaty which provided for the birth of European Union). Look at this link and read carefully what interesting case of legal interpretation, which, in my opinion, violates the non-discrimination on grounds of nationality in within the European Union.

'll bring not too many elements of my own. Summarize the story and give my point of view. In the same text find relevant case law. This is the case. In the Netherlands there is a great tolerance towards cannabis use, and allows marketing in effect establishments known as coffee shops . The City of Maastricht found that produced an excessive influx of foreigners, which alter the normal functioning of the city. Specifically, according to information provided by the mayor at the hearing of the trial, the 14 coffee shops that exist in the city attract half 10,000 visitors a day, of which 70% are not resident in the Netherlands. This fact justifies the filing of the complaint, arguing that the "drug tourism" is detrimental to Maastricht.

In fact, the case went to trial because the council forbade the owners of the establishments the entry of non-resident in the Netherlands. Then the owner decided to bring a local demand, taking up the EU legislation that requires equal treatment for all European citizens. Do not think that there are European laws governing cannabis. As seen in the same article, referring to EU law which states that narcotics may only be marketed scientific or medical purpose and therefore does not circulate through the normal channels of free markets. Therefore, the Court says, the local owner can not defend the admission of non-Dutch customers on the principle of free movement of goods. The Tribunal considers that cannabis is not good in that regard. However, the applicant goes further and argues that in selling local drinks and food, and thus to prohibit access to the same non-residents, they are being discriminated against and deprived of access to these resources. For the Court, in this particular case the property itself is secondary, and what is the service is offered.
Just
this seems ironic, but it is a clear example of the lack of development of the internal market of services (existing on paper but not in practice ... one day I will talk about the new services directive and how the Commission is literally chasing the Member States for the meeting).

Under the Treaty of Lisbon (art. 18), prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality. However, the Court considers that this provision would not apply in this case, as it specifically applies only to situations governed by European legislation. The Lisbon Treaty itself (Article 21) establishes the right of all citizens EU to move and reside freely within the territory of all Member States. In this article, as well as the rules governing the internal market, we must infer that there is freedom to provide services, do not you think? I refer to previous irony. Are not fulfilling the mandates of the treaties in the services market.

Do you think it acceptable that a court ruled that a citizen has no right to enter premises located within the Community?

Incredibly, the Court considers that the standard case discrimination is justified because the measure imposed by the City Council is working to end a background of public disruption due to the large number of tourists. It goes further to say that combat tourism "narcotic" is of interest "legitimate" and justifies the restriction of the obligations imposed by European law. The Court considers that the ban on foreigners will eventually solve the problem, "public" that generates a massive influx of non-residents. Moreover, it considers that its decision is not discriminatory, since other non-residents can freely go to other local drinks or food available in Maastricht.

The bottom line is that the European Union is not narcotics can be freely traded (including cannabis), so the city has no "right" to access your consumption as if it were a normal product or service, or subject to the usual marketing channels. Therefore, if the cannabis is tolerated in Holland, not follow that it should be tolerated in other Member States. Although at that point we agree, it also seems doubtful that the decision conforms to the general principles of EU treaties, especially the understanding that the European Union relies heavily on the proper functioning of the internal market , whose provisions guaranteeing freedom of movement of goods, persons, capital and services, do not you think that the four freedoms should prevail? And if that cannabis should not be a product accessible to all citizens, would not it be reasonable to also prohibit the marketing in the Netherlands? Either way, this situation clearly attentive to the equality of market and freedom of movement and services. It is certainly an anecdotal case, but may be an undesirable precedent.