Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2003 in Case C-14/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État): ATRAL SA v Belgian State, (Free movement of goods — Alarm systems and networks — Interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Interpretation of Directives 73/23/EEC, 89/336/EEC and 1999/5/EEC — Compatibility of national legislation making marketing subject to a prior approval procedure)
Date: 2003-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, EC conformity marking, approximation of laws, electrical equipment, free movement of goods, harmonisation of standards, interpretation of the law

C 146/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1.

(Sixth Chamber)

of 8 May 2003

in Case C-14/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil d’État): ATRAL SA v Belgian State, (1)

(Free movement of goods — Alarm systems and networks —
Interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Interpretation
of Directives 73/23/EEC, 89/336/EEC and 1999/5/EEC —
legislation making marketing
Compatibility of national

subject to a prior approval procedure)

(2003/C 146/20)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-14/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Conseil d’État (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between ATRAL SA
and Belgian State, on the interpretation of Articles 28 and 30
EC, of Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on
the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to
electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage
limits (OJ 1973 L 77, p. 29), as amended by Council Directive
93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993 amending Directives 87/404/EEC
(simple pressure vessels), 88/378/EEC (safety of toys), 89/106/
EEC (construction products), 89/336/EEC (electromagnetic
compatibility), 89/392/EEC (machinery), 89/686/EEC (per-
sonal protective equipment), 90/384/EEC (non-automatic
weighing instruments), 90/385/EEC (active implantable med-
icinal devices), 90/396/EEC (appliances burning gaseous fuels),
91/263/EEC (telecommunications terminal equipment), 92/
42/EEC (new hot-water boilers fired with liquid or gaseous
fuels) and 73/23/EEC (electrical equipment designed for use
within certain voltage limits) (OJ 1993 L 220, p. 1), of Council
Directive 89/336/EEC of 3 May 1989 on the approximation
of the laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic
compatibility (OJ 1989 L 139, p. 19), as amended by Directive
93/68, and of Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment
and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual
recognition of their conformity (OJ 1999 L 91, p. 10), the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it
has ruled:

Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the
harmonisation of
the laws of Member States relating to
electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage
limits, as amended by Council Directive 93/68/EEC of 22 July
1993 amending Directives 87/404/EEC (simple pressure
vessels), 88/378/EEC (safety of toys), 89/106/EEC (construc-
tion products), 89/336/EEC (electromagnetic compatibility),
89/392/EEC (machinery), 89/686/EEC (personal protective
equipment), 90/384/EEC (non-automatic weighing instru-
ments), 90/385/EEC (active implantable medicinal devices),
90/396/EEC (appliances burning gaseous fuels), 91/263/EEC
(telecommunications terminal equipment), 92/42/EEC (new
hot-water boilers fired with liquid or gaseous fuels) and 73/
23/EEC (electrical equipment designed for use within certain
voltage limits), Council Directive 89/336/EEC of 3 May 1989
on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
to electromagnetic compatibility, as amended by Directive 93/
68, and Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and
of
the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment
and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual
recognition of their conformity are applicable to alarm systems
and networks, in particular to those which use radio trans-
mission. In the fields covered by those directives, national
provisions governing the same field must necessarily conform to
the abovementioned directives.

2. Article 3 of Directive 73/23, as amended, Article 5 of Directive
89/336, as amended, and Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 1999/
5 preclude national provisions, such as those at issue in the
main proceedings, which make subject to a prior approval
procedure the placing on the market of alarm systems and
networks which satisfy the requirements of those directives and
which bear the appropriate ‘CE’ marking.

3. Articles 28 EC and 30 EC must be interpreted as meaning that
even in the absence of harmonising Community measures,
products lawfully produced and marketed in a Member State
must be able to be marketed in another Member State without
being subject to additional controls. In order to be justified,
national legislation imposing such controls must be covered by
one of the exceptions provided for in Article 30 EC or one of
the overriding requirements recognised by the case-law of the
Court and, in either case, must be appropriate for securing the
attainment of that objective and not go beyond what is necessary
in order to attain it.

4.

It is for the Member State which claims to have a reason
justifying a restriction on the free movement of goods to
demonstrate specifically the existence of a reason relating to the
public interest, the necessity for the restriction in question and
that the restriction is proportionate in relation to the objective
pursued.

(1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.