Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2002:769
Date: 2002-12-12
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Measures having equivalent effect;Approximation of laws;Quantitative restrictions;Telecommunications
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Approximation of laws — Electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage 
limits Directive 73/23 — Electromagnetic compatibility — Directive 89/336 — 
Radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual 
I -4431 
SUMMARY — CASE C-14/02 
recognition of their conformity — Directive 1999/5 — Complete harmonisation — 
National provisions making the placing on the market of alarm systems and networks, 
despite their conformity with the directive, subject to a prior approval procedure — 
Not permissible 
(Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 1999/5, Arts 6 and 8; 
Council Directives 73/23, Art. 3, and 89/336, Art. 5) 
2. Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent 
effect — National legislation imposing additional controls on goods lawfully manu­
factured and marketed in another Member State — Justification — Conditions and 
limits 
(Arts 28 EC and 30 EC) 
1. It is clear from the wording and the 
objective of Directive 73/23 on the 
harmonisation of the laws of Member 
States relating to electrical equipment 
designed for use within certain voltage 
limits, of Directive 89/336 on the 
approximation of the laws of the 
Member States relating to electro­
magnetic compatibility, and of Direc­
tive 1999/5 on radio equipment and 
telecommunications terminal equip­
ment and the mutual recognition of 
their conformity, that they each pursue 
complete harmonisation in their 
respective fields of application. It fol­
lows that, in the fields covered by those 
directives, the Member States must 
conform to them in their entirety and 
cannot maintain national provisions to 
the contrary. 
Thus Article 3 of Directive 73/23, 
Article 5 of Directive 89/336 and 
Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 1999/5 
preclude national provisions which 
make subject to a prior approval pro­
cedure the placing on the market of 
alarm systems and networks, in par­
ticular those using radio transmission, 
which satisfy the requirements of those 
directives and which bear the appropri­
ate CE marking. 
(see paras 44-45, 60, operative part 1-2) 
2. Articles 28 EC and 30 EC must be 
interpreted as meaning that, even in the 
absence of harmonising Community 
measures, products lawfully produced 
and marketed in one Member State 
must be able to be marketed in another 
Member State without being subject to 
additional controls. In order to be 
justified, national legislation imposing 
I - 4432 
ATRAL 
such controls must be covered by one 
of the exceptions provided for in 
Article 30 EC or one of the overriding 
requirements recognised by the case-
law of the Court and, in either case, 
must be appropriate for securing the 
attainment of that objective and not go 
beyond what is necessary in order to 
attain it. It is for the Member State 
which claims to have a reason justify­
ing a restriction on the free movement 
of goods to demonstrate specifically the 
existence of a reason relating to the 
public interest, the necessity for the 
restriction in question and that the 
restriction is proportionate in relation 
to the objective pursued. 
(see paras 65, 69, operative part 3-4) 
I - 4433