A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH v Claudia Schmidt.
Date: 2006-02-23
12. As is apparent from the case-law of the Court, the Member States can, for that purpose, maintain or introduce a total or partial prohibition on the conclusion of contracts away from business premises (see Case 382/87 Buet and EBS  [1989] ECR 1235, paragraph 16, and Case C-361/89 Di Pinto  [1991] ECR I-1189, paragraph 21). That power must, however, be exercised in a way which is consistent with the fundamental principle of the free movement of goods, as expressed in the prohibition contained in Article 28 EC on quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect between Member States (see, to that effect, Case C-71/02 Karner  [2004] ECR I-3025, paragraph 34).
13. The Court has already given judgment on the compatibility of various national provisions regulating marketing methods with Article 28 EC (see, inter alia, Case C‑20/03 Burmanjer and Others  [2005] ECR I‑4133, paragraph 22).
14. As the Court has ruled on many occasions, all trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade are to be regarded as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions and are thus prohibited by that article (see, inter alia, Case 8/74 Dassonville  [1974] ECR 837, paragraph 5; Case C‑420/01 Commission  v Italy  [2003] ECR I-6445, paragraph 25, and Karner , paragraph 36).
15. However, the Court specified in Joined Cases C‑267/91 and C‑268/91 Keck and Mithouard  [1993] ECR I‑6097, paragraph 16, that national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements are not such as to hinder trade between Member States within the meaning of the line of case-law initiated by Dassonville , as long as those provisions apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States (see, also, Case C-254/98 TK‑Heimdienst  [2000] ECR I-151, paragraph 23; Case C‑322/01 Deutscher Apothekerverband  [2003] ECR I‑14887, paragraph 68; Karner , paragraph 37, and Burmanjer and Others , paragraph 24).
16. The Court subsequently found that provisions concerning certain marketing methods were provisions concerning selling arrangements within the meaning of Keck and Mithouard  (see, in particular, Joined Cases C‑401/92 and C‑402/92 Tankstation ’t Heukske and Boermans  [1994] ECR I‑2199, paragraphs 12 to 14; TK‑Heimdienst , paragraph 24, and Burmanjer and Others , paragraphs 25 and 26).
21. A national provision such as the one at issue in the main proceedings is, in principle, likely to limit the total volume of sales of the relevant products in the Member State concerned and may, consequently, affect the volume of sales of those products from other Member States. Such a finding is not, however, enough for that provision to be considered a measure having equivalent effect (see, inter alia, Keck and Mithouard , paragraph 13, and Joined Cases C‑418/93 to C‑421/93, C‑460/93 to C‑462/93, C‑464/93, C‑9/94 to C‑11/94, C‑14/94, C‑15/94, C‑23/94, C‑24/94, and C‑332/94 Semeraro Casa Uno and Others  [1996] ECR I‑2975, paragraph 24).
27. In that regard, consumer protection may constitute a justification for the prohibition at issue in the main proceedings, on the twofold condition that the prohibition is appropriate to ensure the attainment of the objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.