Introduction
This essay examines the legal issues surrounding NordicDesign, a furniture business established by Wilma, a Swedish national residing in France, and the personal circumstances of Wilma and her Danish husband, Lars, under European Union (EU) law. Two primary areas of EU law are addressed: the free movement of goods concerning the confiscation of NordicDesign’s furniture in the Netherlands and Italy, and the free movement of workers and Union citizenship rights in relation to expulsion orders issued against Wilma and Lars by French authorities. The analysis draws on relevant EU legal provisions, case law, and academic commentary to assess the legality of the measures taken against NordicDesign and the couple. This essay aims to advise NordicDesign, Wilma, and Lars on their rights and the potential breaches of EU law in their respective situations, while demonstrating a sound understanding of the legal framework governing these areas.
Free Movement of Goods: NordicDesign’s Issues in the Netherlands and Italy
The free movement of goods, enshrined in Articles 34 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), prohibits quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect (MEEQR) on imports between Member States unless justified on specific grounds. NordicDesign faces challenges in the Netherlands and Italy, where local authorities have confiscated its furniture on differing grounds.
In the Netherlands, the confiscation by Amsterdam Council inspectors is based on non-compliance with Dutch quality, safety, and sustainability standards. Under EU law, while Member States can impose national standards, these must not constitute an unjustified barrier to trade. The landmark case of Cassis de Dijon (Case 120/78) established the principle of mutual recognition, whereby goods lawfully produced and marketed in one Member State should generally be accepted in others unless there are overriding reasons, such as public health or safety, to restrict them (Barnard, 2019). The Dutch authorities’ actions could be seen as an MEEQR under Article 34 TFEU unless they can demonstrate that the mycelium-based furniture poses a genuine risk and that the measure is proportionate. Given that Wilma has obtained certifications in France approving the manufacturing methods and compliance with standards, the Dutch restrictions appear questionable. Furthermore, the lack of detailed reasoning provided in the confiscation suggests a potential breach of procedural fairness, as Member States are expected to justify restrictive measures clearly.
In Italy, the Ferrara Council’s confiscation of NordicDesign’s furniture at Opla’ due to pricing below the cost of production raises different concerns. Italian law prohibiting sales below production cost is a selling arrangement rather than a product requirement. According to the case of Keck and Mithouard (Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91), selling arrangements fall outside Article 34 TFEU unless they discriminate against imported goods. Here, the rule applies equally to domestic and imported products, and there is no evident discriminatory intent. Thus, the Italian measure is likely lawful under EU law, as it does not directly infringe on the free movement of goods in a manner prohibited by the TFEU. However, NordicDesign could explore whether the advertisement’s claim of exclusivity led to disproportionate enforcement, though this is unlikely to succeed given the non-discriminatory nature of the rule (Craig and de Búrca, 2020).
In sum, while the Italian measure appears consistent with EU law, the Dutch confiscation may constitute an unlawful barrier to trade unless justified under Article 36 TFEU. NordicDesign should challenge the Dutch measure, requesting evidence of the specific risks posed by the mycelium material and arguing for mutual recognition of French certifications.
Free Movement of Workers and Union Citizenship: Rights of Wilma and Lars
Turning to Wilma and Lars, their situation engages EU principles of free movement of workers (Article 45 TFEU) and Union citizenship (Articles 20 and 21 TFEU). As EU nationals, both enjoy fundamental rights to reside and work in other Member States, subject to certain limitations.
Wilma, a Swedish national, faces an expulsion order from France due to her unsuccessful application for income support, predicated on not having resided in France for seven years continuously. Under Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of Union citizens to move and reside freely, EU citizens have an unconditional right to reside in another Member State for three months, and beyond that, must meet conditions such as being a worker, self-employed, or having sufficient resources (Article 7). Wilma, having worked as creative director at SauveNature and later established NordicDesign, qualifies as a worker and self-employed person during her time in France. The case of Baumbast (Case C-413/99) confirms that even past economic activity can confer rights under Union citizenship, suggesting Wilma retains derived rights despite her business closure. Moreover, expulsion measures must be proportionate and based on individual conduct (Article 27, Directive 2004/38/EC). The automatic issuance of an expulsion order merely for seeking social assistance appears disproportionate, especially as there is no evidence of Wilma being an unreasonable burden on the French system. Academic commentary supports this view, noting that recourse to social assistance alone cannot justify expulsion (Dougan, 2009).
Lars, a Danish national, is threatened with deportation without specific reasons provided, though his past convictions for criminal damage during university and recent involvement in a fundraising campaign are noted. Under Directive 2004/38/EC, expulsion on public policy or public security grounds must be based on personal conduct constituting a genuine, present, and sufficiently serious threat (Article 27). The case of Orfanopoulos and Oliveri (Case C-482/01) emphasizes that past convictions cannot automatically justify expulsion unless they indicate a current risk. Lars’s convictions are historical, and there is no suggestion of recent criminal behavior. Furthermore, his charity work with Ta Voix, even if controversial, falls within his freedom of expression and association under EU law (Article 12, Charter of Fundamental Rights). The lack of specific reasons for the deportation threat likely violates procedural safeguards under EU law, rendering the French authorities’ actions unlawful unless substantiated by concrete evidence of risk.
Therefore, both Wilma and Lars have strong grounds to challenge the French expulsion orders. Wilma’s economic contributions and Lars’s lack of current threat suggest that their rights to reside in France as Union citizens are being infringed without proper justification or proportionality.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this analysis reveals potential breaches of EU law in the cases of NordicDesign, Wilma, and Lars. Regarding the free movement of goods, the Dutch confiscation of NordicDesign’s furniture likely violates Article 34 TFEU due to insufficient justification and failure to recognize French certifications, whereas the Italian measure aligns with EU law as a non-discriminatory selling arrangement. For Wilma and Lars, the expulsion orders issued by French authorities appear disproportionate and procedurally flawed under Directive 2004/38/EC and relevant case law. Both individuals retain rights as Union citizens, bolstered by their past economic activity and lack of evidence justifying expulsion. The implications of these findings underscore the importance of Member States adhering to principles of proportionality and mutual recognition in enforcing national measures. NordicDesign should pursue legal remedies in the Netherlands, while Wilma and Lars should contest the expulsion orders through legal channels, potentially invoking EU judicial oversight to protect their fundamental rights.
