Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2007:498
Date: 2007-09-11
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 - unfounded
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect (Art. 28 EC; Council Directive 91/414) A Member State which restricts the simplified authorisation procedure for the parallel importation of plant protection products only to cases where the imported product and the reference product have a common origin, in the sense that they have been manufactured according to the same formulation by the same company or by an associated undertaking or under licence does not fail to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC. A plant protection product introduced into the territory of a Member State as a parallel import cannot, automatically or absolutely and unconditionally, have the benefit of a marketing authorisation issued to a plant protection product already on the market of that State. Therefore, it is for the competent authorities of the Member State of importation to ascertain whether the product has indeed been imported in parallel and whether it may have the benefit of the marketing authorisation issued in favour of a plant protection product already on the market of that State. To that end, the notion of common origin allows parallel imports to be distinguished from other situations in which the importer of a product authorised in another Member State seeks to benefit from a marketing authorisation already granted in the Member State of importation. Furthermore, a common origin constitutes an important indication that the products at issue are identical, which would show that the marketing authorisation for the reference product may be used for the imported product. (see paras 30, 36-38, 43, 45)