[6] In addition, through three individual agreements on a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) with the EU, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine have also been granted limited access to the single market in selected sectors.

[9] The market is intended to increase competition, labour specialisation, and economies of scale, allowing goods and factors of production to move to the area where they are most valued, thus improving the efficiency of the allocation of resources.

[12] One of the core objectives of the European Economic Community (EEC) upon its establishment in 1957 was the development of a common market offering free movement of goods, service, people and capital.

In the 1980s, when the economy of the EEC began to lag behind the rest of the developed world, Margaret Thatcher sent Lord Cockfield to the Delors Commission to take the initiative to attempt to relaunch the common market.

Harmonisation would only be used to overcome barriers created by trade restrictions which survived the Cassis mandatory requirements test, and to ensure essential standards where there was a risk of a race to the bottom.

[26] Aspects of the EU Customs area extend to a number of non-EU-member states, namely Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and Turkey, under separately negotiated arrangements.

Under Article 29 of the TFEU, customs duty applicable to third country products are levied at the point of entry into EUCU, and once within the EU external border goods may circulate freely between member states.

This "wide test",[40] to determine what could potentially be an unlawful restriction on trade, applies equally to actions by quasi-government bodies, such as the former "Buy Irish" company that had government appointees.

[43] The justifications include public morality, policy or security, "protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants", "national treasures" of "artistic, historic or archaeological value" and "industrial and commercial property".

Although many companies, including Mr Schmidberger's German undertaking, were prevented from trading, the Court of Justice reasoned that freedom of association is one of the "fundamental pillars of a democratic society", against which the free movement of goods had to be balanced,[47] and was probably subordinate.

The Court of Justice rejected the German government's arguments that the measure proportionately protected public health under TFEU article 36,[56] because stronger beverages were available and adequate labelling would be enough for consumers to understand what they bought.

In Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PVBA[58] the Court of Justice found that a Belgian law requiring all margarine to be in cube shaped packages infringed article 34, and was not justified by the pursuit of consumer protection.

So, in a 2009 case, Commission v Italy, the Court of Justice held that an Italian law prohibiting motorcycles or mopeds from pulling trailers infringed article 34.

In contrast to product requirements or other laws that hinder market access, the Court of Justice developed a presumption that "selling arrangements" would be presumed to not fall into TFEU article 34, if they applied equally to all sellers, and affected them in the same manner in fact.

[64] The Court of Justice held, as "in law and in fact" it was an equally applicable "selling arrangement" (not something that alters a product's content[65]) it was outside the scope of article 34, and so did not need to be justified.

In Konsumentombudsmannen v De Agostini[66] the Court of Justice reviewed Swedish bans on advertising to children under age 12, and misleading commercials for skin care products.

[74] This suggested the Court's preference that a government, if it sought public ownership or control, should nationalise in full the desired proportion of a company in line with TFEU article 345.

[89] The Court of Justice has held that both a member state government and a private party can hinder freedom of establishment,[90] so article 49 has both "vertical" and "horizontal" direct effect.

[100] However, in Cartesio Oktató és Szolgáltató bt the Court of Justice affirmed again that because corporations are created by law, they are in principle subject to any rules for formation that a state of incorporation wishes to impose.

Josemans v Burgemeester van Maastricht held that the Netherlands' regulation of cannabis consumption, including the prohibitions by some municipalities on tourists (but not Dutch nationals) going to coffee shops,[115] fell outside article 56 altogether.

In Alpine Investments BV v Minister van Financiën[116] a business that sold commodities futures (with Merrill Lynch and another banking firm) attempted to challenge a Dutch law prohibiting cold calling customers.

The Court of Justice held that the German constitutional value of human dignity, which underpinned the ban, did count as a justified restriction on the freedom to provide services.

For example, in Steymann v Staatssecretaris van Justitie, a German man claimed the right to residence in the Netherlands, while he volunteered plumbing and household duties in the Bhagwan community, which provided for everyone's material needs irrespective of their contributions.

In Groener v Minister for Education[134] the Court of Justice accepted that a requirement to speak Gaelic to teach in a Dublin design college could be justified as part of the public policy of promoting the Irish language, but only if the measure was not disproportionate.

The Court of Justice, giving "horizontal" direct effect to TFEU article 45, reasoned that people from other countries would have little chance of acquiring the certificate, and because it was "impossible to submit proof of the required linguistic knowledge by any other means", the measure was disproportionate.

Although the tax was "likely to have a negative bearing on the decision of migrant workers to exercise their right to freedom of movement", because the charge applied equally to Austrians, in absence of EU legislation on the matter it had to be regarded as justified.

Fourth, and more debated, article 24 requires that the longer an EU citizen stays in a host state, the more rights they have to access public and welfare services, on the basis of equal treatment.

[151] However, in Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig, the Court of Justice held that the German government was entitled to deny child support to a Romanian mother who had lived in Germany for 3 years, but had never worked.

[citation needed] Stabilisation and Association Agreement states have a "comprehensive framework in place to move closer to the EU and to prepare for [their] future participation in the Single Market".

[161] Akrotiri and Dhekelia, the British Sovereign Base Areas, located on the island of Cyprus, are integral parts of the EU Customs Union, allowing goods to move freely.