Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2010:531
Date: 2010-09-16
Language of the case: Greek
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Measures having equivalent effect;Quantitative restrictions
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Greece

Summary of the Judgment 1. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions on exports – Measures having equivalent effect – Article 29 EC – Direct effect – Scope (Art. 29 EC) 2. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions on exports – Measures having equivalent effect – Concept (Art. 29 EC) 3. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions on exports – Measures having equivalent effect (Arts 29 EC and 30 EC) 4. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions on exports – Measures having equivalent effect (Art. 29 EC) 1. An undertaking whose business entails processing and packing dried grapes for export to other Member States, which is established in a particular area of a Member State and is prohibited under national law from bringing into that area all varieties of dried grapes from other areas of that State for the purpose of processing and packing them, so that it is impossible for it to export dried grapes originating from those areas, may legitimately rely on Article 29 EC before a national court. (see para. 23) 2. National legislation which prohibits an economic operator from obtaining supplies of dried grapes from national geographical areas other than that in which that operator is established undoubtedly has an impact on that operator’s volume of exports, given that the operator concerned can process and pack only dried grapes cultivated in the area in which it is itself established. It follows that such national legislation is likely to hamper, at the very least potentially, intra‑Community trade and therefore constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports, which is, in principle, prohibited by Article 29 EC. (see paras 28-29) 3. Article 29 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which lays down an absolute prohibition on bringing in, storing, processing and packing for export dried grapes covered by the ‘Vostizza’ protected designation of origin as between the two sub-areas of geographical area A, since such legislation does not enable the legitimate objectives pursued to be met consistently and goes beyond what is necessary to ensure the attainment of those objectives. It is quite possible to envisage a solution less restrictive of the free movement of goods, such as that requiring producers to have separate production lines, or even separate warehouses, in which only dried grapes of the same geographical origin can be stored, processed and packed. Moreover, since the national legislation at issue establishes different rules for the different dried grape‑producing areas, in that producers in Area B cultivating dried grapes of considerably lower quality than those cultivated in Area A are permitted to process, store, pack and export dried grapes from the whole of area A, including the first sub‑area of area A, in which the ‘Vostizza’ variety is grown, it is not clear why a much more restrictive measure is imposed on producers in the second sub‑area of area A, in that they are quite simply prohibited from processing dried grapes from the first sub‑area of area A, in which the ‘Vostizza’ variety is grown. It follows that an absolute prohibition on movement of dried grapes between the two sub‑areas of area A, such as that imposed in the legislation at issue, cannot be regarded as objectively justified on grounds of the protection of industrial and commercial property for the purpose of Article 30 EC. (see paras 40, 44-46, 49, 62, operative part) 4. Article 29 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which lays down an absolute prohibition on bringing in, storing, processing and packing for export dried grapes as between the second sub-area of geographical area A and another geographical area – area B, since such legislation does not enable the legitimate objectives pursued to be met consistently and goes beyond what is necessary to ensure the attainment of those objectives. It would be contrary to the spirit of the Treaty provisions on the free movement of goods for Member States to set up insuperable internal borders within their territory in order to protect the purported superior quality of certain products, especially since European Union law provides the mechanisms necessary for protecting the quality of products with characteristics which merit special protection. Thus, first, the national legislation at issue is inconsistent in so far as the mixing of different varieties of dried grapes is permitted in area B, whereas any form of mixing is prohibited throughout area A, including in the second sub‑area of area A, which is not protected by a protected designation of origin. It follows that that legislation does not impose an absolute prohibition on any mixture of different varieties of dried grapes and that the decisive criterion for the national legislature does not appear to have been the quality of the product. Second, since there are other measures less restrictive of the free movement of dried grapes produced in the territory of the Member State concerned, such as the possibility of requiring the operators concerned to have separate production lines and/or storage facilities and that of requiring appropriate labels to be used according to the geographical origin of the processed dried grapes, as well as the possibility of ensuring that those requirements are complied with by means of spot checks and appropriate penalties, an absolute prohibition of the movement of dried grapes between the second sub‑area of area A and area B, such as that laid down by the legislation at issue, cannot be regarded as justified on grounds of consumer protection and the prevention of fraud, since it does not pursue that objective consistently and is not compatible with the requirements of the principle of proportionality. (see paras 55, 57-58, 60-62, operative part)