Roby Profumi Srl v Comune di Parma.
Date: 2008-01-24
11. First, it must be borne in mind that, in accordance with settled case-law, although in a reference for a preliminary ruling the Court cannot give a ruling either on questions which fall within the national law of the Member States or on the compatibility of national provisions with Community law, it can, however, supply a ruling on the interpretation of Community law so as to enable the national court to decide the case before it (see, inter alia, Case C-150/88 Eau de Cologne & Parfümerie-Fabrik 4711  [1989] ECR 3891, paragraph 12, and Case C-124/99 Borawitz  [2000] ECR I-7293, paragraph 17).
13. Secondly, it must also be borne in mind that Directive 76/768 provided exhaustively for the harmonisation of national rules on the packaging and labelling of cosmetic products (see, inter alia, Case C-77/97 Unilever [1999] ECR I-431, paragraph 24; Case C-220/98 Estée Lauder [2000] ECR I-117, paragraph 23, and Case C-99/01 Linhart and Biffl [2002] ECR I-9375, paragraph 17).
14. As the Court has already held, when the question referred concerns harmonisation at Community level, the national measures relating thereto must be assessed in the light of the provisions of that harmonising measure and not those of the EC Treaty (see, to that effect, Eau de Cologne & Parfümerie-Fabrik 4711 , paragraph 28; Case C-37/92 Vanacker and Lesage [1993] ECR I-4947, paragraph 9, and Case C-324/99 DaimlerChrysler [2001] ECR I-9897, paragraph 32).
16. It should, first, be stated that, in adopting Directive 76/768, the Community legislature sought to reconcile the objective of achieving the free movement of cosmetic products and that of safeguarding public health (see Case C-169/99 Schwarzkopf [2001] ECR I-5901, paragraph 27).
17. As is clear from the second and third recitals in the preamble to Directive 76/768, the Community legislature, although finding that the differences between national laws on cosmetic products obliged Community cosmetic producers to vary their production according to the Member State for which the products were intended and that those differences impeded free movement of those products, concluded that those national provisions had the aim of safeguarding public health and that, consequently, Community harmonisation in that area must pursue the same objective.  The amendments subsequently made to Directive 76/768 were guided by those same considerations (see Schwarzkopf , paragraph 28).
19. Next, under Article 7(3) of the directive a Member State may require, for purposes of prompt and appropriate medical treatment in the event of difficulties, that adequate and sufficient information regarding substances contained in cosmetic products be made available to the competent authority (see Case C-246/91 Commission  v France  [1993] ECR I‑2289, paragraph 9).
20. That provision, which is incorporated in a directive primarily designed (according to, in particular, the second and third recitals in its preamble) to ensure freedom of trade in cosmetic products, also seeks to protect human health, within the meaning of Article 30 EC (see, to that effect, Estée Lauder , paragraph 25).
21. The measures which the Member States are required to take for the implementation of Article 7(3) of Directive 76/768 must however be consistent with the principle of proportionality (see, to that effect, Unilever , paragraph 27; Estée Lauder , paragraph 26, and Linhart and Biffl , paragraph 26).