Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1997:495
Date: 1997-10-16
Language of the case: French
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Measures having equivalent effect;Quantitative restrictions
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment
Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect —
National legislation reserving certain trade descriptions to preparations with foie gras as a base
possessing certain qualities — No mutual recognition clause for products from other Member States
— Not permissible —Justification — Consumer protection — Prevention of off offences with respect
to false descriptions — No justification
(EC Treaty, Art. 30)
A Member State which adopts legislation
relating to preparations with foie gras as a
base, reserving certain trade descriptions to
products possessing particular qualities and
without including a mutual recognition clause
for products coming from other Member
States and complying with the rules enacted
by those States, fails to fulfil its obligations
under Article 30 of the Treaty.
I-6197
SUMMARY — CASE C-184/96
Such legislation prohibiting a product from a
Member State which complies with the rules
laid down by that State but which does not
fully satisfy the requirements imposed by that
legislation from being marketed under a given
trade description must be regarded as capable
of hindering, at least potentially, inter-State
trade.
That legislation cannot be justified by the
imperative requirements of consumer protec­
tion and the prevention of offences with
respect to false descriptions. First, while it is
legitimate to ensure that consumers are effec­
tively protected by enabling them to know
the real nature of products, that objective may
be attained by means, other than the reserva­
tion of certain trade descriptions to products
possessing particular qualities, which would
be less restrictive of the marketing of prod­
ucts, such as affixing suitable labels con­
cerning the nature and characteristics of the
product for sale.
Second, that legislation is not proportionate
to the need to prevent offences with respect
to false descriptions. The mere fact that a
product does not wholly conform to the
requirements laid down in national legislation
on the composition of certain foodstuffs with
a particular denomination does not mean that
its marketing can be prohibited. While the
competent national authorities are entitled to
monitor preparations in order to establish
whether the raw materials used and the pro­
duction methods are in accordance with the
information on the labels and in order to
bring proceedings against those responsible
for selling foodstuffs which bear descriptions
identical to those provided for by national
legislation, but which are so different in con­
tent as to give rise to suspicion of deceit, that
possibility applies only to situations in which
the foodstuff coming from a Member State
and complying with the rules enacted by that
State departs markedly from the requirements
imposed by the legislation of the State con­
cerned.
I-6198