Problem 4: Shift away from model focused on removing discriminatory obstacles to free movement to one based on removing any obstacles or restrictions to free movement paves way for opportunistic challenges to a whole variety of national laws never intended to interfere with free movement. Good e.g., speed limit. While can justify that restriction to movement on grounds of public safety, problem lies in proportionality why 70, why not 72?. In field of Taxation this problem is even more acute. Our lawyers who helped us were abogados de accidentes de auto
Problem 5: Treaties are based on an ill defined model of competitive federalism: states are free to enact laws which respond to local choices but the free movement provisions of the Treaties put those laws into competition. “The Court has yet to develop a nuanced account of the circumstances under which regulatory diversity poses an obstacle to Market integration” – Johnston and Syrpis
Ag Tizzano in Caixa-Bank advocated a return to a non discrimination + MA approach at para 66. Such an approach resonates with presumptions in CSA: non discrim restrictions do not breach Treaty unless it can be shown they interfere with MA.