Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

To Use or Not to Use—That’s the Question. On Article 34 and National Rules Restricting the Use of Lawfully Marketed Products

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Reach of Free Movement

Abstract

This chapter examines the extent to which Article 34 TFEU encompasses national rules that neither prohibit the sale or the use of a product, but merely regulate how, where and when the product may be used. It argues that the Court of Justice was right not to apply the Court’s case law concerning selling arrangements to such kinds of rules. Moreover, it discusses whether the Court’s approach to use restrictions, and the market access test that the Court applies in such cases, has a spillover effect on other aspects of its case law under Article 34 TFEU. Finally, it provides a suggestion for how to draw the line for when a restriction on the use of a legally marketed product constitutes a measure of equivalent effect.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The expression ‘trading rules’ is used in e.g. Case C-481/12, UAB Juvelta, ECLI:EU:C:2014:11; Case C-385/10, Elenca Srl, ECLI:EU:C:2012:634; Case C-456/10, ANETT, ECLI:EU:C:2012:241; Case C-484/10, Ascafor, ECLI:EU:C:2012:113; Case C-108/09, Ker-Optika, ECLI:EU:C:2010:725; Case C-531/07, Fachverband, ECLI:EU:C:2009:276; Case C-244/06, Dynamic Medien, ECLI:EU:C:2008:85; Case C-434/04, Ahokainen and Leppik, ECLI:EU:C:2006:609. The expression ‘all commercial rules’ is used in e.g. Case C-333/08, Commission v France, ECLI:EU:C:2010:44; Case C-254/05, Commission v Belgium, ECLI:EU:C:2007:319; and Case C-192/01, Commission v Denmark, ECLI:EU:C:2003:492. The expression ‘all measures’ is used in e.g. Case C-333/14, Scotch Whisky Association, ECLI:EU:C:2015:845; Case C-354/14, SC Capoda Import-Export, ECLI:EU:C:2015:658; Case C-573/12, Ålands Vindkraft, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2037 (any measure); Case C-150/11, Commission v Belgium, ECLI:EU:C:2012:539 (any measure); Case C-88/07, Commission v Spain, ECLI:EU:C:2009:123; Case C-319/05, Commission v Germany, ECLI:EU:C:2007:678; Case C-158/04, Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos, ECLI:EU:C:2006:562; and Case C-366/04, Schwarz, ECLI:EU:C:2005:719. The expression ‘all rules’ is used in e.g. Case C-171/11 Fra.bo SpA, ECLI:EU:C:2012:453; and Case C-265/06, Commission v Portugal, ECLI:EU:C:2008:210. The expression ‘all legislation’ is used in e.g. Case C-443/10, Bonnarde, ECLI:EU:C:2011:641; Case C-421/09, Humanplasma, ECLI:EU:C:2010:760; Case C-141/07, Commission v Germany, ECLI:EU:C:2008:492; Case C-143/06, Ludwigs-Apotheke, ECLI:EU:C:2007:656; and Case C-170/04, Rosengren and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2007:313.

  2. 2.

    Case C-67/97, Bluhme, ECLI:EU:C:1998:584; Case C-184/96, Commission v France, ECLI:EU:C:1998:495; and Case 177/82, Van de Haar, ECLI:EU:C:1984:144.

  3. 3.

    Case C-184/96, Commission v France (‘foie gras’), ECLI:EU:C:1998:495.

  4. 4.

    Case C-463/01, Commission v Germany (‘mineral water’), ECLI:EU:C:2004:797, para 65; Case C-405/98, Gourmet International Products, ECLI:EU:C:2001:135, para 22; and Case 249/81, Commission v Ireland (‘Buy Irish’), ECLI:EU:C:1982:402, paras 22 and 25.

  5. 5.

    Case C-169/91, Stoke-on-Trent, ECLI:EU:C:1992:519; and Case C-145/88, Torfaen Borough Council, ECLI:EU:C:1989:593.

  6. 6.

    Joined Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91, Keck and Mithouard, ECLI:EU:C:1993:905.

  7. 7.

    Case C-291/09, Guarnieri & Cie, ECLI:EU:C:2011:217; Case C-412/97, ED, ECLI:EU:C:1999:324; and C-44/98, BASF, ECLI:EU:C:1999:440; Case C-266/96, Corsica Ferries France, ECLI:EU:C:1998:306; Case C-140/94, DIP, ECLI:EU:C:1995:330; Case C-134/94, Esso Española, ECLI:EU:C:1995:414; Case C-379/92, Peralta, ECLI:EU:C:1994:296; and Case C-69/88, Krantz, ECLI:EU:C:1994:296. See similarly Case C-112/00, Schmidberger, ECLI:EU:C:2002:437, Opinion of AG Jacobs, para 65 ff.

  8. 8.

    Case C-142/05, Mickelsson and Roos, ECLI:EU:C:2006:782, Opinion of AG Kokott, paras 57–63.

  9. 9.

    In Countryside Alliance and others v HM Attorney General [2006] EWCA Civ 817, the English Court of Appeal denied that a hunting ban constituted a restriction for the purposes of Article 34, since it was not aimed at products from other Member States and did not have a discriminatory effect on imported products. In a judgment on appeal of 27 November 2007, the House of Lords found it questionable whether the ban was caught by Article 34, but found that issue to be of little importance, as any restriction clearly was justified, see House of Lords Session 2007–08 [2007] UKHL 52.

  10. 10.

    Spaventa 2009, pp. 922–923. Compare Oliver 2011, p. 1456.

  11. 11.

    White 1989, p. 246, underlined by White.

  12. 12.

    White 1989, pp. 247, 253–254 and 258.

  13. 13.

    Case C-441/04, A-Punkt Schmuckhandel, ECLI:EU:C:2006:141; Case C-20/03, Burmanjer and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2005:307; Case C-71/02, Karner, ECLI:EU:C:2004:181; and Case C-418/93, Semeraro Casa Uno, ECLI:EU:C:1996:242.

  14. 14.

    Horsley 2009, pp. 2012, 2014 and 2017–8. See also Enchelmaier 2007, pp. 130–132. Indeed, this was the very reasoning that led the UK Court of Appeal in the above-mentioned Countryside Alliance case to hold that English law did not constitute a trade restriction. For the Court of Appeal it did not matter that the rule had the practical effect of taking products off the market, as ‘the implication of the argument is that a member state can be under an obligation to keep intact, or even possibly to create, a market for the benefit of importers from other member states. That cannot be so, at least where the state is equally depriving its own citizens of that benefit’.

  15. 15.

    Case C-192/01, Commission v Denmark, ECLI:EU:C:2003:492.

  16. 16.

    See similarly Joined Cases C-158/04 and 159/04, Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos, ECLI:EU:C:2006:212, Opinion of AG Maduro, paras 37–40; and Case C-442/02 CaixaBank France, ECLI:EU:C:2004:187, Opinion of AG Tizzano, para 63, arguing that such an interpretation ‘would be tantamount to bending the Treaty to a purpose for which it was not intended: that is to say, not in order to create an internal market in which conditions are similar to those of a single market and where operators can move freely, but in order to establish a market without rules. Or rather, a market in which rules are prohibited as a matter of principle, except for those necessary and proportionate to meeting imperative requirements in the public interest’. See somewhat similar Davies 2014, p. 29, according to whom ‘litigants who challenge non-protectionist regulation are in fact not claiming that they are denied market access. They are claiming that a different market should exist.’

  17. 17.

    For a broader view of the purpose of Article 34, see Case 412/93, Leclerc-Siplec, ECLI:EU:C:1994:393, Opinion of AG Jacobs, and Spaventa 2009, pp. 925 and 929.

  18. 18.

    Case C-265/06, Commission v Portugal, ECLI:EU:C:2008:210.

  19. 19.

    Paras 33–34 of the judgment. See also Case C-65/05, Commission v Greece, ECLI:EU:C:2006:673; Case C-473/98, Toolex, ECLI:EU:C:2000:379; Case C-67/97, Bluhme, ECLI:EU:C:1998:584; and Case 60/84, Cinéthèque, ECLI:EU:C:1985:329. For a different kind of use restriction related to transit-transport see Case C-28/09, Commission v Austria, ECLI:EU:C:2011:854.

  20. 20.

    Case C-267/03, Lindberg, ECLI:EU:C:2005:246. As will be shown later, this formulation is strikingly close to that adopted by the Court in the judgments discussed below concerning Case C-142/05, Mickelsson and Roos, ECLI:EU:C:2009:336; and Case C-110/05, Commission v Italy, ECLI:EU:C:2009:66. Already directive 66/683 eliminating all differences between the treatment of national products required Member States to abolish measures which partially or totally prohibited the use of an imported product.

  21. 21.

    Case C-110/05, Commission v Italy, ECLI:EU:C:2009:66.

  22. 22.

    Case 120/78, Rewe-Zentral, ECLI:EU:C:1979:42.

  23. 23.

    Case C-142/05, Mickelsson and Roos, ECLI:EU:C:2009:336. See on the same matter, Case C-433/05, Sandström, ECLI:EU:C:2010:184; and the judgment of the Danish Supreme Court in Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen 2011.539 H.

  24. 24.

    For a critique of the Kokott’s reasoning, see Oliver 2010, pp. 127–128.

  25. 25.

    Case C-110/05, Commission v Italy, ECLI:EU:C:2009:66, para 37, and Case C-142/05, Mickelsson and Roos, ECLI:EU:C:2009:336, para 24.

  26. 26.

    As to dual use see Sect. 5.6.

  27. 27.

    Case C-428/12, Commission v Spain, ECLI:EU:C:2014:218.

  28. 28.

    Para 67 of the Opinion.

  29. 29.

    Paras 16–17 in Keck.

  30. 30.

    Oliver 1999a, pp. 797–799, who commends the Court for this approach and warns against an economic assessment on a case-by-case basis. See also Case C-98/01, Commission v UK, ECLI:EU:C:2003:273.

  31. 31.

    On this issue, see Weatherill 1996, pp. 887, 894 and 896–898; Straetmans 2002, pp. 1407, 1415.

  32. 32.

    Case C-405/98, Gourmet International Products, ECLI:EU:C:2001:135.

  33. 33.

    Case C-239/02, Douwe Egberts, ECLI:EU:C:2004:445 (but compare paras 71–75 of the Opinion of AG Geelhoed); Case C-322/01, Deutscher Apothekerverband, ECLI:EU:C:2003:664 (but compare paras 74–96 of the Opinion of AG Stix-Hackl); Case C-254/98, TK-Heimdienst, ECLI:EU:C:2000:12; and Case C-34/95, De Agostini, ECLI:EU:C:1997:344.

  34. 34.

    C-141/07, Commission v Germany, ECLI:EU:C:2008:492; Case C-244/06, Dynamic Medien, ECLI:EU:C:2008:85; Case C-158/04, Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos, ECLI:EU:C:2006:562, and Case C-71/02, Karner, ECLI:EU:C:2004:181. As will be explained in Sect. 5.5, this remains the legal position.

  35. 35.

    See also Wennerås and Moen 2010, pp. 389, 393 and 399. Somewhat surprisingly the two authors read Trailers and Mickelsson as confirming their view that the test in Keck is not restricted to selling arrangements, but rather of general application and that the delimitation of ‘certain selling arrangements’ therefore is redundant as it is only necessary to distinguish between products requirements and other types of possible restrictions.

  36. 36.

    For example, Cases C-434/04, Ahokainen and Leppik, ECLI:EU:C:2006:609; Case C-320/03, Commission v Austria, ECLI:EU:C:2005:684; and Case C-323/93, Crespelle, ECLI:EU:C:1994:368. The Court has continued taking this approach after the judgments in Trailers and Mickelsson, cf. e.g. Case C-456/10, ANETT, ECLI:EU:C:2012:241; and Case C-333/14, Scotch Whisky Association, ECLI:EU:C:2015:845.

  37. 37.

    See, for example, Moore 1994, p. 195; Reich 1994, p. 459; Gormley 2007, p. 189, and Gormley 2008, p. 1637.

  38. 38.

    For such criticism, see Oliver 2011, p. 1456, and Spaventa 2009, pp. 922–924.

  39. 39.

    Such an alignment of the different freedoms was proposed by AG Maduro in paras 37–40 of his Opinion in Case C-158/04, Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos, ECLI:EU:C:2006:212. See also Oliver 1999a, b, p. 1377; O’Keeffe and Bavasso 2000, p. 541; Barnard 2001, p. 35; Straetmans 2002, p. 1407; and Snell 2002.

  40. 40.

    Case C-212/09, Commission v. Portugal, ECLI:EU:C:2011:717; Case C-169/07, Hartlauer, ECLI:EU:C:2009:141; Case C-500/06, Corporación Dermoestética, ECLI:EU:C:2008:421; Case C-452/04, Fidium Finanz, ECLI:EU:C:2006:631; Case C-451/03, Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti, ECLI:EU:C:2006:208; Case C-442/02, CaixaBank France, ECLI:EU:C:2004:586; and Case C-384/93, Alpine Investments, ECLI:EU:C:1995:126.

  41. 41.

    Case C-400/08, Commission v Spain, ECLI:EU:C:2011:172.

  42. 42.

    Pecho 2009, p. 264.

  43. 43.

    Case 544/03, Mobistar, ECLI:EU:C:2005:518; Case C-442/02, CaixaBank France, ECLI:EU:C:2004:187, Opinion of AG Tizzano, para 66; and Case C-415/93, Bosman, ECLI:EU:C:1995:463.

  44. 44.

    Concerning Article 39 EC, see Case C-190/98, Graf, ECLI:EU:C:2000:49. With regard to Article 49 EC, see Case C-134/03, Viacom Outdoor, ECLI:EU:C:2004:676, Opinion of AG Lenz, para 205.

  45. 45.

    See, for example, Lianos 2014, p. 24, according to whom ‘the broad market access concept seems to indicate a tectonic shift in the governance of the EU Internal Market and, in particular the law on the free movement of goods’. See also Pecho 2009, p. 262. In Case C-61/12, Commission v Lithuania, ECLI:EU:C:2014:172; Case C-639/11, Commission v Poland, ECLI:EU:C:2014:173; and Case C-385/10, Elenca Srl, ECLI:EU:C:2012:634, the Court used the ‘market access’ terminology to product related national legislations. See also Case C-443/10, Bonnarde, ECLI:EU:C:2011:641, where the market access test was applied to a national rule requiring, for the award of the subsidy to imported demonstration motor vehicles, that the first registration document of those vehicles bear the words ‘demonstration vehicle’. In Case C-456/10, ANETT, ECLI:EU:C:2012:241, the market access test implied that a national legislation prohibiting tobacco retailers from importing tobacco products was caught by Article 34.

  46. 46.

    Ibid.

  47. 47.

    Case C-531/07, Fachverband, ECLI:EU:C:2009:276.

  48. 48.

    Case C-108/09, Ker-Optika, ECLI:EU:C:2010:725.

  49. 49.

    Case C-198/14, Visnapuu, ECLI:EU:C:2015:751.

  50. 50.

    Oliver 2010, p. 130, and Snell 2010, p. 456.

  51. 51.

    Joined Cases 51-54/71, International Fruit Company, ECLI:EU:C:1971:128.

  52. 52.

    See also Case C-421/09, Humanplasma, ECLI:EU:C:2010:760 concerning a rule prohibiting the importation of blood products derived from donations which were not entirely unpaid. Although the national legislation in question was neither a selling arrangement nor a product requirement, the Court did not refer to the market access test in Trailers, but cited instead the old Dasonville test. Another issue is whether these so-to-speak pre-decided subgroups correctly reflect the restrictive effects that they generally have. As noted by Spaventa 2009, p. 922, one might question, e.g., whether an obligation to provide statistics (which has been and probably continues to be assessed under the Dassonville test, cf. Case C-114/96, Kieffer and Thill, ECLI:EU:C:1997:316) really hampers market access more than certain types of non-discriminatory advertising restrictions that, according to Keck, fall outside the scope of Article 34 altogether.

  53. 53.

    Case C-291/09, Guarnieri & Cie, ECLI:EU:C:2011:217.

  54. 54.

    Para 28 in Mickelsson and broadly similarly para 32 in Trucks.

  55. 55.

    Para 57 in Trailers, para 27 in Mickelsson, and para 31 in Trucks respectively. See similarly Case C-265/06, Commission v Portugal, ECLI:EU:C:2008:210.

  56. 56.

    See Sect. 5.1.

  57. 57.

    Oliver 2011, pp. 1456–1457 and 1467.

  58. 58.

    Gormley 2010, pp. 1599 and 1624–1626.

  59. 59.

    Similarly Prete 2008, p. 141.

  60. 60.

    See also Weatherill 2012, p. 542, according to whom the restriction should be ‘considerable’.

  61. 61.

    Case C-265/06, Commission v Portugal, ECLI:EU:C:2008:210.

  62. 62.

    Case C-65/05, Commission v Greece, ECLI:EU:C:2006:673. Case C-142/09, Lahousse, ECLI:EU:C:2010:694, concerned a general prohibition on the sale or use of equipment designed to increase the power and/or speed of mopeds and, therefore, obviously constituted a measure of equivalent effect. In Case C-443/10, Bonnarde, ECLI:EU:C:2011:641 the Court seems to imply that Article 34 TFEU may encompass rules that ‘may influence the behaviour of consumers and, consequently, affect the access of those [products] … to the market’ of the regulating State‘. The case did not, however, concern use restrictions and should probably not be read to imply that any use restriction having a slight impact on consumer behaviour constituted a trade restriction.

References

  • Barnard C (2001) Fitting the remaining pieces in the goods and persons jigsaw. 26 ELRev: 35

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies G (2014) The Court’s jurisprudence on free movement of goods: Pragmatic presumptions, not philosophical principles. European Journal of Consumer Law 2: 25

    Google Scholar 

  • Enchelmaier S (2007) The ECJ’s Recent Case Law on the Free Movement of Goods: Movement in All Sorts of Directions. 26 YEL: 115

    Google Scholar 

  • Gormley L (2007) The Definition of Measures Having Equivalent Effect. In: Arnull A et al (eds) Continuity and EU Law: Essays in Honour of Sir Francis Jacobs. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 189

    Google Scholar 

  • Gormley L (2008) Silver Threads Among the Gold … 50 Years of the Free Movement of Goods. 31 Fordham Int’l L.J: 1637

    Google Scholar 

  • Gormley L (2010) Free Movement of Goods and their Use – What is the Use of it? 33 Fordham Int’l L.J:.1589

    Google Scholar 

  • Horsley T (2009) Anyone for Keck? 46 CMLRev: 2001

    Google Scholar 

  • Lianos I (2014) In Memoriam Keck, The Reformation of the EU Law on the Free Movement of Goods. CLES Research Paper Series, 5: 24

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore S (1994) Quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect: Re-visiting the limits of Article 30 EEC. 19 ELRev: 195

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keeffe D, Bavasso A (2000) Four Freedoms, One Market and National Competence. In: Andenas M, Fairgrieve D (eds) In Search of a Dividing Line. Liber Amicorum in Honour of Lord Slynn of Hadley, vol. 1. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn/New York, p 541

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver P (1999a) Some Further Reflections on the Scope of Articles 28–30 (ex. 30-36) EC. 36 CMLRev: 783

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver P (1999b) Goods and Services: Two Freedoms Compared. In: Dony M, de Walsche A (eds) Mélanges en l’honneur de Michel Waelbroeck, Vol. 2. Bruylant, Brussels, p 1377

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver P (2010) Oliver on Free Movement of Goods in the European Union, 5th edn. Hart, Oxford/Portland, Oregon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver P (2011) Of Trailers and Jet-Skis: Is the Case Law on Article 34 TFEU Hurtling in a New Direction? 33 Fordham Int’l L.J.: 1423

    Google Scholar 

  • Pecho P (2009) Good-Bye Keck? A Comment on the Remarkable Judgment in Commission v Italy, C-110/05. 36 LIEI: 257

    Google Scholar 

  • Prete L (2008) Of Motorcycle Trailers and Personal Watercrafts: The Battle over Keck. 35 LIEI: 133

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich N (1994) The November Revolution of the European Court of Justice: Keck, Meng and Audi Revisited. 31 CMLRev: 459

    Google Scholar 

  • Snell J (2002) Goods and Services in EC Law: A Study of the Relationship between the Freedoms. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Snell J (2010) The notion of market access: A concept or a slogan? 47 CMLRev 437

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaventa E (2009) Leaving Keck Behind? The Free Movement of Goods after the Rulings in Commission v Italy and Mickelsson and Roos. 34 ELRev: 914

    Google Scholar 

  • Straetmans G (2002) Case C-405/98 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v Gourmet International Products AB (GIP). 39 CMLRev: 1407

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (1996) After Keck: Some Thoughts on How to Clarify the Clarification. 33 CMLRev: 885

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2012) Free Movement of Goods. ICLQ vol. 61, p 541

    Google Scholar 

  • Wennerås P, Moen K (2010) Selling Arrangements, Keeping Keck. 35 ELRev 387

    Google Scholar 

  • White E (1989) In Search of the limits to Article 30 of the EEC Treaty. 26 CMLRev: 235

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Niels Fenger

Authors
  1. Niels Fenger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niels Fenger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Mads Andenas

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Tarjei Bekkedal

  3. Faculty of Public Management, Law and Safety, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Luca Pantaleo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fenger, N. (2017). To Use or Not to Use—That’s the Question. On Article 34 and National Rules Restricting the Use of Lawfully Marketed Products. In: Andenas, M., Bekkedal, T., Pantaleo, L. (eds) The Reach of Free Movement. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-195-1_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-195-1_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-194-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-195-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation