CELEX: C2003/146/20
Language: en
Date: 2003-06-21 00:00:00
Title: 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)

C 146/12                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               21.6.2003
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1.    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
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                           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-
                           of 8 May 2003                                           tion products), 89/336/EEC (electromagnetic compatibility),
                                                                                   89/392/EEC (machinery), 89/686/EEC (personal protective
                                                                                   equipment), 90/384/EEC (non-automatic weighing instru-
in Case C-14/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                           ments), 90/385/EEC (active implantable medicinal devices),
     the Conseil d’État): ATRAL SA v Belgian State, ( 1)                           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/
(Free movement of goods — Alarm systems and networks —                             23/EEC (electrical equipment designed for use within certain
Interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Interpretation                        voltage limits), Council Directive 89/336/EEC of 3 May 1989
of Directives 73/23/EEC, 89/336/EEC and 1999/5/EEC —                               on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
Compatibility of national legislation making marketing                             to electromagnetic compatibility, as amended by Directive 93/
             subject to a prior approval procedure)                                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
                          (2003/C 146/20)                                          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
                    (Language of the case: French)                                 provisions governing the same field must necessarily conform to
                                                                                   the abovementioned directives.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                            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
In Case C-14/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                       networks which satisfy the requirements of those directives and
by the Conseil d’État (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the                    which bear the appropriate ‘CE’ marking.
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                    3.    Articles 28 EC and 30 EC must be interpreted as meaning that
the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to                         even in the absence of harmonising Community measures,
electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage                       products lawfully produced and marketed in a Member State
limits (OJ 1973 L 77, p. 29), as amended by Council Directive                      must be able to be marketed in another Member State without
93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993 amending Directives 87/404/EEC                           being subject to additional controls. In order to be justified,
(simple pressure vessels), 88/378/EEC (safety of toys), 89/106/                    national legislation imposing such controls must be covered by
EEC (construction products), 89/336/EEC (electromagnetic                           one of the exceptions provided for in Article 30 EC or one of
compatibility), 89/392/EEC (machinery), 89/686/EEC (per-                           the overriding requirements recognised by the case-law of the
sonal protective equipment), 90/384/EEC (non-automatic                             Court and, in either case, must be appropriate for securing the
weighing instruments), 90/385/EEC (active implantable med-                         attainment of that objective and not go beyond what is necessary
icinal devices), 90/396/EEC (appliances burning gaseous fuels),                    in order to attain it.
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                  4.    It is for the Member State which claims to have a reason
within certain voltage limits) (OJ 1993 L 220, p. 1), of Council                   justifying a restriction on the free movement of goods to
Directive 89/336/EEC of 3 May 1989 on the approximation                            demonstrate specifically the existence of a reason relating to the
of the laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic                       public interest, the necessity for the restriction in question and
compatibility (OJ 1989 L 139, p. 19), as amended by Directive                      that the restriction is proportionate in relation to the objective
93/68, and of Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament                       pursued.
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              (1 ) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
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: