Case C‑95/14

Unione Nazionale Industria Conciaria (UNIC)

and

Unione Nazionale dei Consumatori di Prodotti in Pelle, Materie Concianti, Accessori e Componenti (Uni.co.pel)

v

FS Retail and Others

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of goods — Articles 34, 35 and 36 TFEU — Measures having equivalent effect — Directive 94/11/EC — Articles 3 and 5 — Exhaustive harmonisation — Bar on impeding the placing on the market of footwear which complies with the labelling requirements of Directive 94/11 — National legislation requiring the country of origin to be shown on the labelling of products manufactured abroad which use the Italian term ‘pelle’ — Products in free circulation’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 16 July 2015

Approximation of laws — Labelling of footwear — Directive 94/11 — National legislation requiring the country of origin to be shown on the labelling of products manufactured abroad and already marketed in the European Union — Unlawful

Approximation of laws — Labelling of footwear — Directive 94/11 — Exhaustive harmonisation — Assessment of the compatibility of national legislation in the same area on the sole basis of the harmonising measure

Approximation of laws — Information procedure in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services — Directive 98/34 — Obligation on Member States to notify the Commission of all draft technical regulations — Scope — Breach of that obligation — Consequences

A technical regulation cannot be applied if it has not been notified in accordance with Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, or if, though notified, it has been adopted and implemented before the end of the three month standstill period required under Article 9(1) of that directive. Consequently, it is for the national court to verify whether the national legislation entered into force without respecting the standstill period required under Article 9 of Directive 98/34. If so, the failure to respect that standstill period is a material procedural defect rendering the technical regulation at issue inapplicable. (see paras 29, 30)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 31)

Any national measure in an area which has been the subject of exhaustive harmonisation at EU level must be assessed in the light of the provisions of that harmonising measure and not those of primary law. In that respect, in order to examine whether the harmonisation brought about by a directive is exhaustive in nature, the Court must interpret those provisions taking into account not only their wording but also the context in which they occur and the objectives of the rules of which they form part. As regards Directive 94/11 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to labelling of the materials used in the main components of footwear for sale to the consumer, it follows from a literal interpretation of Articles 3 and 5 of that directive, read in the light of the objectives thereof, that that directive brings about an exhaustive harmonisation as regards the content of the requirements for the labelling of materials used in the main components of footwear, which, once fulfilled, preclude the Member States from impeding the marketing of those products. In those circumstances, national legislation concerning the labelling of leather components of footwear coming from other Member States or already in free circulation within the European Union must be assessed solely with regard to the provisions of Directive 94/11, and not those of primary law. (see paras 33-35, 39, 40)

Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 94/11 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to labelling of the materials used in the main components of footwear for sale to the consumer must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State prohibiting, inter alia, the marketing of leather components of footwear coming from other Member States, or coming from non-member countries and already marketed in another Member State or in the Member State concerned, when those products do not bear a label indicating their country of origin. The purpose of indications of origin or origin-marking is to enable consumers to distinguish between domestic and imported goods and thus enables them to assert any prejudices which they may have against foreign goods. Within the internal market, the origin-marking requirement not only makes the marketing in a Member State of goods produced in other Member States in the sectors in question more difficult, it also has the effect of slowing down economic interpenetration in the European Union by handicapping the sale of goods produced as the result of a division of labour between Member States. Furthermore, language requirements constitute a barrier to intra-Community trade in so far as goods coming from other Member States have to be given different labelling involving additional packaging costs. (see paras 44-46, operative part)