Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2007:659
Date: 2007-11-08
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Plant health legislation
Concepts: Protection of public health and protection of plants
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect (Arts 28 EC and 30 EC; Council Directive 91/414) A Member State may apply a simplified marketing authorisation procedure to the parallel import of a plant protection product from another Member State in which it already has the benefit of such an authorisation, where the importation is made by a farmer solely for the needs of his own farm, and the marketing authorisation thus granted is personal to each operator. In order to protect the free movement of goods, however, the proportionality principle requires that the legislation on the marketing of plant protection products be applied within the limit of what is necessary in order to achieve the aim of protection of the environment and of human and animal health that is legitimately being pursued. It cannot, therefore, be made a condition of that authorisation that the imported product be named with the brand name belonging to the operator concerned where he is a farmer who is making the parallel importation solely for the needs of his own farm. Nor can that authorisation be subject to payment of a charge which bears no relation to the costs incurred by the control or the administrative steps needed for examination of the application. An appraisal of such costs as a fixed sum is, however, permissible provided the principle of proportionality is observed (see paras 37, 50, operative part)