Odbor kompatibility s právem ES Úřad vlády ČR	I S A P Informační Systém pro Aproximaci Práva
	Databáze č. 17 : Databáze judikatury

ă Odbor kompatibility s právem ES, Úřad vlády ČR - určeno pouze pro potřebu ministerstev a ostatních ústředních orgánů


	Číslo (Kód CELEX): Number (CELEX Code):		61995J0240

	Název: Title:		ECJ Judgement of 27 June 1996 Case C-240/95 Criminal proceedings against Rémy Schmidt Preliminary Proceedings [1996] ECR I-3179 “Rémy Schmidt”

	Publikace: Publication:		European Court Reports 1996 page I-3179

	Předmět (klíčová slova): Keywords

	Související předpisy: Corresponding acts:

	Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty: Corresponding Judgements:		· [85] Dassonville Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v Dassonville [1974] ECR 837 · [179] Cassis de Dijon Case 120/78 Rewe Zentral v Bundesmonopolverwaltung [1979] ECR 649


	Plný text: Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:
Mr Rémy Schmidt is the manager of a company based at Yutz (France) specializing in the import and export of cars and the sale of second-hand cars. He had sold a Renault 25 GTD Beverly, which was placed on the market in Luxembourg on 13 August 1991, as having a model year of 1992. Furthermore, he had in his showroom a Volkswagen “Corrado” purporting to have a model year date of 1992 which had been registered abroad for the first time on 5 July 1991. Under French law, a car which is being sold after 30 June of a calendar year may be sold as a model of the next year, the “anticipated model year”. Such attribution of the anticipated model year is, however, subject to a certain declaration which may be made only by the manufacturer or an official importer. Consequently, the attribution of the anticipated model year is, in practice, precluded in the case of vehicles which are the subject of parallel imports or re-imports such as those in which Mr Schmidt is engaged in. In fact, a number of French manufacturers and official dealers and a dealer’s trade organization have “made advertising capital” out of this regulation and, e.g., pointed out in an advertising campaign that a vehicle purchased in France from an authorized dealer after 1 July 1994 would be of the 1995 model year, whereas the same vehicle purchased outside France would still be of the 1994 model year.
Since Mr Schmidt had not made the above-mentioned declaration and could thus not attribute the anticipated model year (i.e. 1992) to the two cars in question, he was charged with offences under the French rules on vehicle model-year dates. Under these rules it is an offence not to state the correct “model year” of a motor vehicle in the sales description, sales certificate or other commercial documents.
Mr Schmidt did not contest the substance of the charges brought against him. He contended, however, that the respective French laws were contrary to Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty. The Cour d’Appel (Court of Appeal), Metz, stayed the proceedings and under Article 177 of the Treaty referred to the Court the question whether the French legislation in question was compatible with Article 30 of the Treaty.

Názor soudu a komentář:
At the outset, the Court emphasizes that, under Article 30 of the Treaty, the place where the vehicles in question are manufactured is irrelevant. “Under Article 30, a vehicle manufactured in the national territory which is then exported and reimported through parallel channels constitutes an imported product in the same way as a vehicle manufactured in another Member State which is then directly introduced into the national territory.” The Court therefore examines the French legislation under its
Dassonville
( [85]) formula.
The Court rejects the argument put forward by the French Government that the legislation could not constitute a measure having an equivalent effect to import restrictions because, pursuant to a decision of the Tribunal de Grande Instance, it was indistinctly applicable to domestic and national products. Firstly, “[t]he reference to a single decision does not enable that interpretation to be regarded as established”. Furthermore, the Court finds that, in any event, the rules in question did not affect in the same way the marketing, on the one hand, of motor vehicles manufactured in France and intended for the home market or of vehicles imported by approved distributors and, on the other hand, of vehicles imported or reimported through parallel channels: In fact, the necessary declaration could only be made by the former but not by the latter. The rules in question thus have the effect of impeding imports.
The French Government, secondly, argued that the legislation was justified on the ground that it was designed to guarantee fair transactions between purchasers and sellers and to protect consumers (for such justification see [179]
Cassis de Dijon
). The Court rejects this justification on the ground that the legislation in question was inappropriate to attain these objects. In particular, the determination of the model year pursuant to this regulation “does not enable the consumer to determine the differences in characteristics of vehicles depending on their model year, since two vehicles of the same model sold during the second half of the calendar year may have a different model year, and conversely, two vehicles of a different model sold during the first half of the year may have the same the same model year. On the other hand, the system affords the consumer no guarantee as to the date of the manufacture of the vehicle, since it does not prevent the manufacturer from marketing under a new model year a vehicle which has virtually been unmodified from one year to the next, or conversely, from modifying a vehicle in the course of a year. Accordingly, in the result, the consumer cannot be sure that two vehicles of a different model year will have different characteristics or that two vehicles of the same model year will be identically manufactured.”

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):