CELEX: C2006/131/32
Language: en
Date: 2006-06-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-441/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  23 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt) — A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH v Claudia Schmidt (Free movement of goods — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Measures having equivalent effect — Doorstep selling — Sale of silver jewellery — Prohibition)

3.6.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 131/18
            
         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt) — A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH v Claudia Schmidt
   (Case C-441/04) (1)
   
   (Free movement of goods - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Measures having equivalent effect - Doorstep selling - Sale of silver jewellery - Prohibition)
   (2006/C 131/32)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Austria)
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH
   
      Defendant: Claudia Schmidt
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Klagenfurt — Interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — National legislation prohibiting the door-to-door sale of gold, silver and platinum jewellery
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 28 EC does not preclude a national provision by which a Member State prohibits in its territory the selling of, and collecting of orders for, silver jewellery in a doorstep-selling situation where such a provision applies to all relevant traders in so far as it affects in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and that of products from other Member States. It is for the national court to ascertain whether, having regard to the circumstances in the main proceedings, the application of the national provision is liable to prevent the access to the market of products from other Member States or to impede that access more than it impedes the access to the market of domestic products and, if that is the case, to determine whether the measure concerned is justified by an objective in the general interest within the meaning given to that concept in the Court's case-law or by one of the objectives listed in Article 30 EC, and whether that measure is proportionate to that objective.
   
      (1)  OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.