Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2001:111
Date: 2001-02-22
Language of the case: English
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: Ireland

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent 
effect — National legislation prohibiting the marketing of imported articles of 
precious metal not complying with national provisions on standards of fineness — 
justification — Consumer protection — Fair trading — Condition 
(EC Treaty, Art. 30 (now, after amendment, Art. 28 EC)) 
I - 4 6 1 9 
SUMMARY — CASE C-30/99 
2. Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent 
effect — National legislation requiring imported articles of precious metal to bear a 
national sponsor's mark — justification — Consumer protection •— Fair trading — 
Condition 
(EC Treaty, Art. 30 (now, after amendment, Art. 28 EC)) 
3. Free movement of goods —• Quantitative restrictions —· Measures having equivalent 
effect •—· National legislation requiring imported articles of precious metal lawfully 
struck with a hallmark to bear an approved hallmark struck by a body appointed by a 
national corporation of gold- and silversmiths or an international hallmark — 
Hallmark lawfully struck by a body which offers guarantees of independence, and 
which offers appropriate information to consumers — Not permissible 
(EC Treaty, Art. 30 (now, after amendment, Art. 28 EC)) 
4. Free movement of goods —· Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent 
effect — National legislation which establishes differences between approved hall­
marks struck on national articles and hallmarks of the same type struck on imported 
articles •—· Not permissible — Justification •— None 
(EC Treaty, Art. 30 (now, after amendment, Art. 28 EC)) 
1. Legislation of a Member State on 
standards of fineness for articles of 
precious metals which prohibits the 
marketing in that Member State, with 
the description and indication of fine­
ness which they bear in their country of 
origin, of articles made from precious 
metals (gold, silver or platinum) law­
fully manufactured and marketed in 
other Member States but not comply­
ing with the national provisions con­
cerning standards of fineness, unless 
the hallmarks struck on those imported 
articles are replaced by those for the 
appropriate lower official national 
standard of fineness, constitutes a 
measure having equivalent effect to a 
quantitative restriction on imports 
within the meaning of Article 30 of 
the Treaty (now, after amendment, 
Article 28 EC). 
Such an obstacle to intra-Community 
trade cannot be justified as a means of 
protecting consumers and ensuring fair 
trading, since a consumer familiar with 
the Irish system of indicating standards 
of fineness for articles of precious 
I - 4620 
COMMISSION V IRELAND 
metal is given equivalent and intelligi­
ble information by a hallmark struck 
on an article of precious metal from 
another Member State. 
(see paras 28-29, 33, 76 
and operative part) 
2. Legislation of a Member State on the 
hallmarking of articles of precious 
metal which requires that articles of 
precious metal imported from another 
Member State, and marketed in Ire­
land, bear a sponsor's mark indicative 
of the maker, worker or dealer in such 
articles, registered by a national cor­
poration of gold- and silversmiths 
which appoints the body by which 
these articles are intended to be struck 
with the approved hallmark, when 
these articles already bear a sponsor's 
mark conforming to the legislation of 
the Member State of origin constitutes 
a measure having equivalent effect to a 
quantitative restriction on imports 
within the meaning of Article 30 of 
the Treaty (now, after amendment, 
Article 28 EC). 
Such an obstacle to intra-Community 
trade is justified as a means of protect­
ing consumers and ensuring fair trad­
ing only if the articles of precious metal 
from other Member States do not 
already bear hallmarks which fulfil 
the same purpose, that is to say, in this 
case, the identification of the person 
who is responsible. In that connection, 
identification of the person responsible 
for an article of precious metal is as a 
rule possible if that article bears a 
sponsor's mark struck in accordance 
with the legislation of another Member 
State. 
(see paras 46, 49-51, 76 
and operative part) 
3. A Member State fails to fulfil its 
obligations under Article 30 of the 
Treaty (now, after amendment, Arti­
cle 28 EC) where it requires articles 
made from precious metals imported 
from another Member State, and mar­
keted in Ireland, which have been 
lawfully struck in another Member 
State with a hallmark stamped by a 
body which offers guarantees of inde­
pendence, and which offers appropri­
ate information to consumers, to bear 
an approved hallmark struck by a body 
which is appointed by a national cor­
poration of gold-and silversmiths or an 
international hallmark notified in 
accordance with the Convention on 
the Control and Marking of Articles of 
Precious Metals. 
(see para. 76 and operative part) 
I-4621 
SUMMARY — CASE C-30/99 
4. A Member State fails to fulfil its 
obligations under Article 30 of the 
Treaty (now, after amendment, Arti­
cle 28 EC) where it establishes differ­
ences between approved hallmarks 
struck on articles manufactured within 
its territory and those hallmarks of the 
same type struck on articles imported 
from other Member States. The 
requirement that different hallmarks 
must be struck on certain articles of 
precious metal depending on whether 
they are of national origin or are 
imported constitutes a measure having 
equivalent effect to a quantitative 
restriction on imports, which cannot 
be justified in the light of the provisions 
of the Treaty on the free movement of 
goods. 
(see paras 74, 76 and operative part) 
I - 4622