Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
Date: 2000-11-16
16 In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, Article 30 aims to prohibit all trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade (see Case 8/74 Dassonville [1974] ECR 837, paragraph 5). The Court has made it clear that, in the absence of harmonisation of laws, Article 30 of the Treaty prohibits, in principle, obstacles to intra-Community trade which are the consequence of applying, to goods coming from other Member States where they are lawfully manufactured and marketed, rules that lay down requirements to be met by such goods, such as those relating to presentation, labelling and packaging, even if those rules apply without distinction to domestic products and imported products (see Joined Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91 Keck and Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097, paragraph 15).
17 Although applicable without distinction to all products, an obligation such as that imposed in the present case by Article 6(1)(1) of the Royal Decree is of a nature such as to hinder intra-Community trade. It may force the importer to alter the packaging of his products on the basis of the place where they are marketed and therefore to incur additional packaging and labelling costs (see, to that effect, Case C-51/93 Meyhui v Schott Zwiesel Glaswerke [1994] ECR I-3879, paragraph 13; and Case C-33/97 Colim v Bigg's Continent Noord [1999] ECR I-3175, paragraph 36).
18 Even supposing that, as the Belgian Government contends, those extra costs are ultimately borne by Belgian consumers, the mere prospect of having to lay out those costs constitutes a barrier for traders since it is capable of acting as a disincentive to those of them who are contemplating marketing the products concerned in Belgium.
20 That argument cannot be accepted. First, the fact that other Member States fail to fulfil their obligations under the Treaty does not justify the failure of a Member State, against which infringement proceedings have been brought, to comply with a requirement imposed on it by Community law (see, to that effect, Case C-265/95 Commission v France [1997] ECR I-6959, paragraph 63). Second, the fact that the notification number might prove useful at the time when the products at issue are marketed in other Member States does not prevent the measure at issue from acting as a barrier to placing the products at issue on the Belgian market. The infringement, in respect of which the Commission is seeking a declaration in the present case, does not concern the marketing of those products in other Member States but their introduction into the domestic market.
29 In that regard, as has been found in paragraph 26 of this judgment, the presence of a notification number on the labelling only assures the consumer that the product has been notified to the Inspection Service and that number does not provide any additional information enabling the consumer's health to be more effectively protected. By contrast, the labelling includes other data such as the name of the product, the identity of the manufacturer or distributor, the nutritional content, the date of minimum durability or the recommended intake, which is equally useful information in that respect. It follows that the disputed obligation imposed by the Royal Decree is not necessary for the protection of public health.
30 In those circumstances, it must be held that, by laying down in Article 6(1)(1) of the Royal Decree an obligation to indicate on the labelling of the products to which the decree applies the notification number provided for by Article 4 thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 et seq. of the Treaty.