Case C‑108/13

Mac GmbH

v

Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France))

‛Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Plant protection products — Marketing authorisation — Parallel import — Requirement for a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC in the exporting State’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 6 November 2014

Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — National legislation under which the grant of a parallel import authorisation for a plant protection product is subject to the requirement that the product has a marketing authorisation granted in the exporting Member State in accordance with Directive 91/414 — Not permissible

(Arts 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU; Council Directive 91/414)

Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a parallel import authorisation may not be granted for a plant protection product which does not have, in the exporting Member State, a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, even though that product has a parallel import authorisation and may be regarded as identical to a product covered by a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with that directive in the importing Member State.

While it is for the national authorities to ensure that the primary objective of EU legislation, namely the safeguarding of human and animal health and the environment, is strictly observed, the principle of proportionality nevertheless requires that, in order to protect the free movement of goods, the legislation in question be applied within the limits 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. As a consequence, a total prohibition on parallel imports of plant protection products which have been imported into the exporting Member State as parallel imports, based on an alleged systemic inadequacy in the information that can be made available to the importing Member State, or on the mere possibility of such inadequacy, cannot be justified in cases of parallel re‑importation.

(see paras 39, 40, 42, operative part)

Case C‑108/13

Mac GmbH

v

Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France))

‛Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Plant protection products — Marketing authorisation — Parallel import — Requirement for a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC in the exporting State’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 6 November 2014

Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — National legislation under which the grant of a parallel import authorisation for a plant protection product is subject to the requirement that the product has a marketing authorisation granted in the exporting Member State in accordance with Directive 91/414 — Not permissible

(Arts 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU; Council Directive 91/414)

Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a parallel import authorisation may not be granted for a plant protection product which does not have, in the exporting Member State, a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, even though that product has a parallel import authorisation and may be regarded as identical to a product covered by a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with that directive in the importing Member State.

While it is for the national authorities to ensure that the primary objective of EU legislation, namely the safeguarding of human and animal health and the environment, is strictly observed, the principle of proportionality nevertheless requires that, in order to protect the free movement of goods, the legislation in question be applied within the limits 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. As a consequence, a total prohibition on parallel imports of plant protection products which have been imported into the exporting Member State as parallel imports, based on an alleged systemic inadequacy in the information that can be made available to the importing Member State, or on the mere possibility of such inadequacy, cannot be justified in cases of parallel re‑importation.

(see paras 39, 40, 42, operative part)