Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2016:534
Date: 2016-07-07
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Free movement of goods
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 27 October 2016 1. Approximation of laws — Placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles — Directive 2007/23 — Free movement of pyrotechnical articles compliant with the requirements of the directive — Possibility for Member States to impose additional requirements — Limits — National legislation imposing an obligation to make a prior notification before a national body entitled to review and modify instructions for use of pyrotechnic article — Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Directive 2007/23, Recitals 2, 16 and 19 and Arts 1(1), 2(2), 5(1), 6(1) and (2), 8(3), 14(6) and 16) 2. EU law — Interpretation — Methods — Literal, systematic and teleological interpretation — Consideration of origins of a provision — Lawfulness 3. Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Measures capable of hindering imports — Not permissible — Slight hindrance — No effect (Arts 34 TFEU and 35 TFEU) 1. Following the first placing of an article on the EU market, that is to say, once it has been made available in the territory of one of the Member States in accordance with the requirements of Directive 2007/23 on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles, the other Member States, in principle, can no longer prevent the marketing and distribution of that article on their territory, notably by imposing additional obligations or formalities which go beyond the requirements laid down by that directive. Indeed, there can be no question of placing an individual product on the market, within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Directive 2007/23, if that product is not able to move freely throughout the EU market. It is apparent from recitals 2 and 19 as well as from Article 1(1) of Directive 2007/23 that the main purpose of that directive is to counter barriers to trade within the Union that arise due to differences in the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles, which it defines, and thus guarantee the free movement of such articles in the internal market, while ensuring a high level of protection of human health and public security and the protection and safety of consumers and professional users. Thus, pursuant to Article 5(1) and Article 8(3) of Directive 2007/23, read in the light of recitals 16 and 19 of that directive, Member States are to presume that, for the purpose of their being placed on the market, pyrotechnic articles bearing the CE marking are compliant with the essential requirements set out in Annex I of Directive 2007/23. It follows that pyrotechnic articles bearing the CE marking as evidence of their conformity with the essential requirements laid down in Directive 2007/23 should in principle be able to move throughout the Union without barriers or obstacles following their first placing on the market in one of the Member States, without prejudice to such measures as Member States may adopt on grounds of public order, security or safety, or environmental protection pursuant to Article 6(2) of that directive or, provisionally, in the context of their market surveillance activity pursuant to Article 14(6) and in conformity with the provisions of Article 16 of the directive. Therefore, Article 6(1) of Directive 2007/23 cannot be interpreted as guaranteeing only the first placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles compliant with the requirements set out in that directive, notwithstanding the definition contained in Article 2(2) of that directive. In that regard, national legislation that, in the first place, submits the sale of pyrotechnic articles on the national market to formalities which (i) are in addition to the various requirements laid down in Directive 2007/23, especially the conformity assessment procedure which such articles must undergo in order to be placed on the market, and (ii) may result in processing fees; and, in the second place, grants a national body the power to restrict or complete, and therefore systematically assess, the instructions on use adopted by the manufacturer, even a posteriori, constitutes a restriction on the free movement of pyrotechnic articles as guaranteed by Article 6(1) of Directive 2007/23. (see paras 36, 40, 42, 44, 45, 49-51, 61, 62) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 39) 3. A measure capable of hindering imports must be classified as an obstacle to the free movement of goods even where the hindrance is slight. (see para. 53)