Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2006:562
Date: 2006-09-14
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Measures having equivalent effect;Quantitative restrictions
Concepts: Rules concerning the production, denomination and marketing of products
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Greece

summary set out in point 18 of the Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Case C-416/00 Morellato [2003] ECR I-9343, or that set out in point 61 et seq. of the Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl in Case C-322/01 Deutscher Apothekerverband [2003] ECR I-14887. 10 – See thus Case C-412/93 Leclerc-Siplec [1995] ECR I-179, paragraph 22, and Case C-6/98 ARD [1999] ECR I-7599, paragraph 46. 11 – See, to that effect, Joined Cases C-401/92 and C-402/92 Tankstation ’t Heukske and Boermans [1994] ECR I-2199, paragraph 14, and Case C-391/92 Commission v Greece [1995] ECR I-1621, paragraph 15. 12 – See, to that effect, Case C-470/93 Mars [1995] ECR I-1923, paragraph 13, and Case C-368/95 Familiapress [1997] ECR I-3689, paragraph 11. 13 – See thus Case C-389/96 Aher-Waggon [1998] ECR I-4473, paragraph 18, and Case C-390/99 Canal Satélite Digital [2002] ECR I-607, paragraph 29. 14 – In Morellato, cited above at footnote 9, paragraph 32, the Court acknowledges to that effect that this type of product may have been imported although ‘its production process was not yet finished’. 15 – Case 20/87 [1987] ECR 4879. 16 – However, the absence of any factor going beyond the purely national context made that principle inapplicable in that case. 17 – Paragraph 20 (emphasis added). 18 – Paragraph 17. 19 – Case C-194/94 [1996] ECR I-2201. 20 – Paragraph 58. 21 – See the Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed in Case C-366/04 Schwarz [2005] ECR I-10139, footnote 11, where a similar interpretation is adopted. 22 – Paragraphs 34 and 35. 23 – Paragraph 36. 24 – See point 24 et seq. of this Opinion. 25 – See, to similar effect, the Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Morellato, cited above at footnote 9, point 20. 26 – Case C-136/03 Dörr and Ünal [2005] ECR I-4759, paragraph 52. 27 – Mars, cited above at footnote 12, paragraph 13. 28 – Ibid., paragraph 13. 29 – Paragraph 36. 30 – To that effect, see also the Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl in Deutscher Apothekerverband, cited above at footnote 9, point 77. 31 – Case C-323/93 Centre d’insémination de la Crespelle [1994] ECR I-5077, paragraph 29. 32 – Case C-189/95 Franzén [1997] ECR I-5909, paragraph 71. 33 – See, to that effect, the Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Leclerc-Siplec, cited above at footnote 10, point 38. See also Weatherill, S., ‘After Keck: Some Thoughts on How to Clarify the Clarification’, Common Market Law Review, 1996, p. 885. 34 – See, to that effect, Picod, F., ‘La nouvelle approche de la Cour de justice en matière d’entraves aux échanges’, Revue trimestrielle de droit européen, 1998, p. 169. 35 – Significant in that connection are, for example, Joined Cases C-34/95 to C-36/95 De Agostini and TV-Shop [1997] ECR I-3843; Morellato, cited above at footnote 9; and Case C-20/03 Burmanjer and Others [2005] ECR I-4133. 36 – See, most recently, Case C-442/02 CaixaBank France [2004] ECR I-8961, paragraph 11, a formulation which finds its origin in Case C-55/94 Gebhard [1995] ECR I-4165, paragraph 37. 37 – See, in that connection, Joined Cases C-418/93 to C-421/93, C-460/93 to C-462/93, C-464/93, C-9/94, C-11/94, C-14/94, C-15/94, C-23/94, C-24/94 and C-332/94 Semeraro Casa Uno and Others [1996] ECR I-2975, and Case C-120/95 Decker [1998] ECR I-1831 and Case C-158/96 Kohll [1998] ECR I-1931, with the single Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro. 38 – Case C-292/92 [1993] ECR I-6787. 39 – Paragraph 14. To the same effect, see the Opinion of Advocate General Fennelly in Case C‑190/98 Graf [2000] ECR I-493, points 31 and 32. 40 – Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I-6193, paragraph 31. 41 – Paragraphs 73 and 74. 42 – See, to that effect, my Opinion in Case C-446/03 Marks & Spencer [2005] ECR I-10837, points 37 to 40, and my Opinion of 1 February 2006 in Case C-94/04 Cipolla and Case C-202/04 Macrino and Capodarte, pending before the Court, points 55 and 56. 43 – Case C-249/81 Commission v Ireland [1982] ECR 4005. 44 – Franzén, cited above at footnote 32, paragraph 71. See also, most recently, Schwarz, cited above at footnote 21, paragraph 29. 45 – See, for example, CaixaBank France, cited above at footnote 36, paragraph 13. 46 – See, for example, concerning the freedom to provide services, Case C-70/99 Commission v Portugal [2001] ECR I-4845, paragraphs 25 to 27, and Case C-92/01 Stylianakis [2003] ECR I-1291, paragraph 26. 47 – Deutscher Apothekerverband, cited above at footnote 9, paragraph 74. 48 – See, to that effect, the Opinion of Advocate General Fennelly in Graf, concerning freedom of movement for workers, cited above at footnote 39, point 18, where he states that ‘persons are not products and the process of migration for the purposes of employment or establishment abroad, including preparation therefor, cannot be so neatly divided into (mass) production and marketing stages’. See also, concerning the freedom to provide services, Case C-384/93 Alpine Investments [1995] ECR I-1141, and De Agostini and TV-Shop, cited above at footnote 35. 49 – See, most recently, concerning the freedom to provide services, Joined Cases C-544/03 and C‑545/03 Mobistar and Belgacom Mobile [2005] ECR I-7723, paragraph 31. 50 – See Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R [2002] ECR I-7091. 51 – Concerning freedom of movement for persons, the Court has already had the opportunity to compare the principle of freedom of movement for workers with the freedom of movement conferred on every citizen of the Union. See, to that effect, Case C-135/99 Elsen [2000] ECR I‑10409, paragraph 33. For a similar formulation common to all the freedoms of movement, see Gebhard, cited above at footnote 36. 52 – See, most recently, Schwarz, cited above at footnote 21, paragraph 30. 53 – See Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1), and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 of 14 July 1992 on certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 9). 54 – Commission v Germany, cited above at point 6, paragraph 25. 55 – Joined Cases C-1/90 and C-176/90 Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior and Publivía [1991] ECR I-4151, paragraph 11. 56 – Case C-205/89 Commission v Greece [1991] ECR I-1361, paragraph 9. 57 – Case C-270/02 Commission v Italy [2004] ECR I-1559, paragraph 22. 58 – See, by analogy, Case C-212/03 Commission v France [2005] ECR I-4213, paragraph 45. 59 – Cassis de Dijon, cited above at footnote 7, paragraph 8. 60 – See, for example, Case 261/81 Rau [1982] ECR 3961, paragraph 17. 61 – Case C-82/05.