Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2000:663
Date: 2000-12-05
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Full Court
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: France

Summary of the Judgment 
Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent 
effect — National rule prohibiting the marketing of a cheese without rind under the 
designation 'Emmenthal' — Application to products imported from another Member 
State — Not permissible — Justification — None 
(EC Treaty, Art. 30 (now, after amendment, Art. 28 EC)) 
I - 10663 
SUMMARY — CASE C-448/98 
Article 30 of the Treaty (now, after amend­
ment, Article 28 EC) precludes a Member 
State from applying to products imported 
from another Member State, where they 
are lawfully produced and marketed, a 
national rule prohibiting the marketing of 
a cheese without rind under the designation 
'Emmenthal' in that Member State. 
In so far as it is applied to imported 
products, such legislation is likely to make 
their marketing more difficult and thus 
impede trade between Member States. It is 
true that Member States may, for the 
purpose of ensuring fair trading and the 
protection of consumers, require the per­
sons concerned to alter the description of a 
foodstuff where a product offered for sale 
under a particular name is so different, in 
terms of its composition or production, 
from the products generally understood as 
falling within that description within the 
Community that it cannot be regarded as 
falling within the same category. However, 
where the difference is of minor import­
ance, appropriate labelling should be suffi­
cient to provide the purchaser or consumer 
with the necessary information. Even if the 
difference in the maturing method between 
Emmenthal with rind and Emmenthal 
without rind were capable of constituting 
a factor likely to mislead consumers, it 
would be sufficient, whilst maintaining the 
designation 'Emmenthal', for that designa­
tion to be accompanied by appropriate 
information concerning that difference. In 
those circumstances, the absence of rind 
cannot be regarded as a characteristic 
justifying refusal of the use of the 'Emmen­
thal' designation. 
(see paras 25-26, 30-31, 33-35 
and operative part) 
I - 10664