Free movement of goods

Case stady Free movement of goods A is a Latvian manufacturer of innovative high tech bicycles with especially good road holding. In order to commercialise his bikes more efficiently, he offers them for favourable prices but takes high prices for spare parts - in particular for the wheels (tyres and rims). Furthermore, he designed the wheels in a special size, which makes it impossible to use spare parts of other bicycle manufacturers. One day, the EU member state X issues a regulation, according to which in this state only bicycles with wheels in standard sizes (24, 25, 26, 27, 28 inches etc) may be sold. The regulation is justified with requirements of consumer protection. In addition, it is said to be necessary because there had been accidents after owners of bikes with special wheel sizes had inserted spare parts in standard sizes and the bikes had not been secure any more. In part, there had been confusion; in part the bike owners would had accepted the minimal size differences for financial reasons. Whether this regulation is compatible with EU law? . The regulation in member state X is compatible with EU law if it does not violate any primary or secondary law of the European Union. In the given case, the regulation in member state X might violate one of the economic fundamental freedoms of the citizens of the Union, namely the free movement of goods under art. 28 ff., 110 f. FEU Treaty. The secondary Union law not containing any rules concerning the question of the size of the wheels of bicycles up to now The free movement of goods is violated if the sphere of protection [scope/area of protection] of this freedom is concerned and the regulation represents an encroachment on this freedom and this encroachment is not justified by the limits of the free movement of goods and therefore illegal. The regulation of member state X can only violate the free movement of goods if it represents an encroachment on the freedom. It does not impose any payment obligations and hence does not erect any tariff barriers. But it might constitute a non-tariff barrier. Since it does not impose quantitative restrictions on imports, it may only represent an encroachment in the form of a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports in the sense of art. 34 FEU Treaty.