Administration des douanes et droits indirects v Rioglass SA and Transremar SL.
Date: 2003-10-23
18.  Given that, as is apparent from the file, the present case involves goods lawfully manufactured in one Member State in transit within another Member State, it must be pointed out that, according to settled case-law, the Customs Union established by the EC Treaty necessarily implies that the free movement of goods between Member States should be ensured. That freedom could not itself be complete if it were possible for Member States to impede or interfere in any way with the movement of goods in transit. It is therefore necessary, as a consequence of the Customs Union and in the mutual interest of the Member States, to acknowledge the existence of a general principle of freedom of transit of goods within the Community. That principle is, moreover, confirmed by the reference to transit in Article 30 EC (see, to that effect, Case 266/81   SIOT   [1983] ECR 731, paragraph 16, and Case C-367/89   Richardt and   "Les Accessoires Scientifiques"   [1991] ECR I-4621, paragraph 14).
21.  The Court is bound to conclude in that connection, firstly, that a measure of detention under customs control such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which delays the movement of goods and, if the competent court rules that they are to be confiscated, may block their movement completely, has the effect of restricting the free movement of goods and therefore constitutes an obstacle to that freedom (on the same French legislation, see   Commission   v   France  , paragraphs 22 and 23).
23.  In order to answer that question it is necessary to take account of the purpose of that exception, which is to reconcile the requirements of the free movement of goods and the right of industrial and commercial property, by avoiding the maintenance or establishment of artificial barriers within the common market. Article 30 EC allows derogations from the fundamental principle of the free movement of goods within the common market only to the extent to which such derogations are justified for the purpose of safeguarding rights which constitute the specific subject-matter of such property (see, inter alia, Case C-10/89   Hag GF   [1990] ECR I-3711, paragraph 12, Case C-61/97   FDV   [1998] ECR I-5171, paragraph 13, and   Commission   v   France  , paragraph 37).
25.  With respect to trade marks, it is settled case-law that the specific subject-matter of a trade mark is, in particular, to guarantee to the owner that he has the exclusive right to use that mark for the purpose of putting a product on the market for the first time and thus to protect him against competitors wishing to take unfair advantage of the status and reputation of the trade mark by selling products illegally bearing it (see, in particular, Case 16/74   Centrafarm   [1974] ECR 1183, paragraph 8, Case 102/77   Hoffmann-La Roche   [1978] ECR 1139, paragraph 7, and Case C-349/95   Loendersloot   [1997] ECR I-6227, paragraph 22).
27.  Transit, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which consists in transporting goods lawfully manufactured in a Member State to a non-member country by passing through one or more Member States, does not involve any marketing of the goods in question and is therefore not liable to infringe the specific subject-matter of the trade mark.