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):		61980J0113

	Název: Title:		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 17 JUNE 1981. COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES V IRELAND. FAILURE TO FULFIL OBLIGATIONS - MEASURES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS. CASE 113/80.

	Publikace: Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1981 PAGES 1625 - 1642

	Předmět (klíčová slova): Keywords		FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS;QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS;MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT;CONSUMER PROTECTION;

	Související předpisy: Corresponding acts:		157E030

	Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty: Corresponding Judgements:		[085] Dassonville Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v Dassonville [1974] ECR 837 · [179] Cassis de Dijon Case 120/78 Rewe [1979] ECR 649


	Plný text: Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:
The Commission initiated proceedings before the Court of Justice against Ireland under Article 169 of the Treaty, seeking a declaration that it had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EEC Treaty by requiring that certain imported goods bear an indication of origin or the word “foreign”. Under two sales orders, such indication was to be affixed to certain types of souvenirs. The Commission argued that this requirement amounted to a measure having an effect equivalent to import restrictions and was thus incompatible with Article 30 of the Treaty.
The Irish Government contended that this requirement was justified under Article 36 of the Treaty because it was mandated on grounds of consumer protection and of fairness in commercial transactions between producers.

Názor soudu a komentář:
Following the analysis established by the Court in
Dassonville
([085] ) and
Cassis de Dijon
([179] ), three issues have to be addressed in order to ascertain whether the origin-marking requirement constitutes a measure having an equivalent effect to import restrictions prohibited by the Treaty: (1) whether the measure comes within the scope of Article 30 (
Cassis de Dijon
); if so, (2) whether it constitutes a measure having an equivalent effect (
Dassonville
); and if so, (3) whether it can be justified.
In
Cassis de Dijon
the Court had stated that “in the absence of common rules relating to the production and marketing of the product in question, it is for the Member States to regulate all matters relating to its production, distribution and consumption on their own territory subject, however, to the condition that those rules do not present an obstacle to intra-Community trade”. Such rules may constitute an “exception to the requirements arising under Article 30” if they are indistinctly applicable to domestic and imported products and if they are “necessary in order to satisfy imperative requirements relating in particular to … the fairness of commercial transactions and the defence of the consumer”. The rules presently in issue could not, however, be exempted from the requirements of Article 30 under said formula because they did not apply indistinctly but were discriminatory in nature. The Court rejects the contention that the rules could not be regarded as discriminatory on the ground that they corresponded to a material difference between souvenirs produced in Ireland and abroad. According to the Court’s case-law, such origin-markings can only be accepted if the origin implies a certain quality, basic materials or process of a manufacture or a particular place in the folklore or tradition of the region in question: “The essential characteristic of the souvenirs in question is that they constitute a pictorial reminder of the place visited which does not itself mean that the souvenir … must necessarily be manufactured in the country.” The sales orders in question are therefore discriminatory because they require an origin-marking although the origin does not constitute an essential feature of the product.
The requirement of origin-markings on souvenirs constitutes a measure having an equivalent effect under the
Dassonville
formula

which covers “all trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade”. The origin-marking is capable of thus hindering intra-Community trade because, as the Commission had pointed out with reference to Articles 2(3)(f) of Council Directive 70/50/EEC
Of 22 December 1969, based on the provisions of Article 33(7) of the Treaty, on the abolition of measures which have an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports and are not covered by other provisions adopted in pursuance of the EEC Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p 17).
, they “lower the value of an imported product, in particular by causing a reduction in its intrinsic value, or increase its costs”.
Contrary to the opinion of the Irish Government, the sales orders could not be justified under Article 36 of the Treaty. That provision, which, constituting a derogation of the basic principle of free movement, is to be interpreted strictly ( [132]
Bauhuis
). “in view of the fact that neither the protection of consumers nor the fairness of commercial transactions is included amongst the exceptions set out in Article 36, those grounds cannot be relied upon as such in connexion with that article.”

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1. SINCE IT CONSTITUTES A DEROGATION FROM THE BASIC RULE THAT ALL OBSTACLES TO THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES ARE TO BE ELIMINATED, ARTICLE 36 OF THE EEC TREATY MUST BE CONSTRUED NARROWLY; THE EXCEPTIONS LISTED THEREIN CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO CASES OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFICALLY LAID DOWN. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NEITHER THE PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS NOR THE FAIRNESS OF COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS IS INCLUDED AMONGST THE EXCEPTIONS SET OUT IN ARTICLE 36, THOSE GROUNDS CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AS SUCH IN CONNEXION WITH THAT ARTICLE.

2. NATIONAL LEGISLATION REQUIRING ALL SOUVENIRS AND ARTICLES OF JEWELLERY IMPORTED FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES TO BEAR AN INDICATION OF ORIGIN OR THE WORD'' FOREIGN'' CONSTITUTES A MEASURE HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 30 OF THE EEC TREATY.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):