ATRAL SA v Belgian State.
Date: 2003-05-08
44.  It is clear from the wording and the objective of those directives that they each pursue complete harmonisation in their respective fields of application.  It follows that, in the fields covered by those directives, the Member States must conform to them in their entirety and cannot maintain national provisions to the contrary.
49.  Questions 2(a) and (b) concern matters harmonised by directives 73/23, 89/336 and 1999/5.  As the Court has consistently held, national measures relating to such matters must be assessed in the light of those directives and not of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC (see, in particular, Case C-99/01   Linhart and Biffl   [2002] ECR I-9375, paragraph 18).
50.  Article 3 of Directive 73/23, Article 5 of Directive 89/336 and Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 1999/5 ensure the free movement of apparatus which satisfy the provisions of those directives.
51.  The abovementioned directives confer a presumption of compliance on apparatus bearing the   "CE"   marking.  That marking attests the conformity of the apparatus with all the provisions of the directive concerned, including the conformity assessment procedures provided for by the directive.
52.  Under that scheme, the manufacturer may place products bearing the   "CE"   marking on the market without being obliged to subject them to a prior authorisation procedure.
58.  As is clear from case-law, during the period allowed for transposition of a directive, Member States to which it is addressed must refrain from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise achievement of the result prescribed by the directive (see, to that effect, Case C-129/96   Inter-Environnement Wallonie   [1997] ECR I-7411, paragraph 50).
59.  Accordingly, since the 1999 decree is liable seriously to compromise achievement of the result prescribed by Directive 1999/5 and since it was adopted during the period allowed for transposition of that directive, the Belgian State could not adopt it in accordance with Community law.
62.  As regards the marketing in a Member State of products lawfully manufactured and marketed in another Member State, and in the absence of harmonising Community measures, a national provision which requires that imported products undergo the same tests as products placed for the first time on the market and be approved beforehand constitutes a measure equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 28 EC (see, to that effect, Case C-390/99   Canal Satélite Digital   [2002] ECR I-607, paragraphs 12, 25 and 29).
63.  The same is true of a national provision which, for the purpose of approving alarm systems and networks imported from other Member States, where they are lawfully manufactured and marketed, accepts only certificates and test reports drawn up by a body approved or accredited in another Member State attesting that those alarm systems and networks  guarantee a level of protection equivalent to that provided by the national legislation of the Member State of importation.  To impose as a condition the attestation of conformity of imported alarm systems and networks to technical standards or rules which guarantee a level of protection equivalent to that required by the Member State of importation amounts to obliging manufacturers of other Member States to adapt their apparatus and equipment to the requirements of the Member State of importation.  Such an obligation is contrary to Article 28 EC.
64.  A national provision which is contrary to Article 28 EC may be justified only by one of the public-interest reasons laid down in Article 30 EC or by one of the overriding requirements referred to in the judgments of the Court (see, in particular, Case 120/78   Rewe-Zentral ( "Cassis de Dijon"  )   [1979] ECR 649, paragraph 8).  In either case, the national provision must be appropriate for securing the attainment of that objective and not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (see   Canal Satélite Digital  , cited above, paragraph 33, and Joined Cases C-388/00 and C-429/00   Radiosistemi  [2002] ECR I-5845, paragraphs 40  to 42).
65.  In consequence, the answer to question 2(c) must be that Articles 28 EC and 30 EC must be interpreted as meaning that even in the absence of harmonising Community measures, products lawfully produced and marketed in a Member State must be able to be marketed in another Member State without being subject to additional controls.  In order to be justified, national legislation imposing such controls must be covered by one of the exceptions provided for in Article 30 EC or one of the overriding requirements recognised by the case-law of the Court and, in either case, must be appropriate for securing the attainment of that objective and not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it.
67.  It is settled case-law that an exception to the principle of the free movement of goods may be justified under Article 30 EC only if the national authorities show that it is necessary in order to attain one or more objectives mentioned in that article and that it is in conformity with the principle of proportionality (Case 227/82   Van Bennekom   [1983] ECR 3883, paragraph 40, and Case C-358/95   Morellato   [1997] ECR I-1431, paragraph 14).  Such justification can only be specifically demonstrated by reference to the circumstances of the case.
68.  The same considerations necessarily apply to exceptions to the free movement of goods based on the overriding requirements recognised by Community case-law.  The Court adopts an equally specific approach when assessing that category of derogations (see   Cassis de Dijon  ).
69.  Accordingly, the answer to question 2(d) must be that it is for the Member State which claims to have a reason justifying a restriction on the free movement of goods to demonstrate specifically the existence of a reason relating to the public interest, the necessity for the restriction in question and that the restriction is proportionate in relation to the objective pursued.
The third question