The classic freedom? The free movement of goods: old doctrines, new cases and contemporary reflections

In this contribution and aft er having recalled the scope of application of Articles 34 and 35 TFEU, I will turn to discuss what I consider Th e Free Movement of Goods 97 6 Consistent case law, see eg, Case 113/80 Commission v Ireland ( Irish souvenirs ) EU:C:1981:139 ; Case 72/83 Campus Oil EU:C: 1984:256 ; Case 15/79 Groenweld EU:C:1979:253 ; Case C-209/98 FFAD ( Sydhavnens Sten & Grus) EU:C:2000:279 ; indirect discrimination has only more recently been brought within the scope of Art 35 TFEU; see Case C-205/07 Lodewijk Gysbrechts EU:C:2008:730 . However, it should be considered that we have comparatively little case law on Art 35 TFEU and, in the writer ’ s opinion, this is the reason for the slow evolution. 7 Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral AG , above n 1. 8 See also Regulation 764/2008 laying down procedures relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another Member State and repealing decision 3052/95 [ 2008 ] OJ L218/21 . to be the more problematic areas. In this respect I will focus on the procedural constraints imposed on regulators by Article 34 TFEU and on the problem arising from an abstract and detailed proportionality assessment in relation to devolved administrations.