Philippe Bonnarde v Agence de Services et de Paiement.
Date: 2011-10-06
22. Indeed, in accordance with settled case-law, a national measure in an area which has been the subject of exhaustive harmonisation at European Union level must be assessed in the light of the provisions of that harmonising measure and not in the light of those of the Treaty (Case C‑322/01 Deutscher Apothekerverband  [2003] ECR I‑14887, paragraph 64, and Case C‑205/07 Gysbrechts and Santurel Inter  [2008] ECR I‑9947, paragraph 33).
26. It must be borne in mind that, in accordance with settled case-law, the prohibition of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions which is set out in Article 34 TFEU covers all legislation of the Member States that is capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade (see, inter alia, Case C‑217/99 Commission  v Belgium  [2000] ECR I‑10251, paragraph 16; Case C‑65/05 Commission  v Greece  [2006] ECR I‑10341, paragraph 27; Case C-54/05 Commission  v Finland  [2007] ECR I‑2473, paragraph 30; and Case C‑286/07 Commission  v Luxembourg  [2008]  ECR I-63, paragraph 27). Thus, the mere fact that an importer is deterred from introducing or marketing the products in question in the Member State concerned amounts to a hindrance to the free movement of goods ( Commission  v Luxembourg , paragraph 27).
27. Furthermore, measures taken by a Member State, the aim or effect of which is to treat goods coming from other Member States less favourably and, in the absence of harmonisation of national legislation, obstacles to the free movement of goods which are the consequence of applying, to goods coming from other Member States where they are lawfully manufactured and/or marketed, rules that lay down requirements to be met by such goods, even if those rules apply to all products alike, must be regarded as ‘measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports’ for the purposes of Article 34 TFEU (see, to that effect, Deutscher Apothekerverband , paragraph 67).
28. In the case in the main proceedings, it is common ground that not all of the Member States require the registration document for demonstration motor vehicles to state expressly that it was a ‘demonstration vehicle’. Since, even where demonstration motor vehicles imported from Member States satisfy the conditions set out by French national legislation in order to be granted the ecological subsidy, that is those relating to the age and condition of the vehicle and its CO 2  emission rates, they may not be granted the subsidy in the absence of an express statement to that effect in the registration document, it must be held that such a requirement constitutes a condition governing the grant of the ecological subsidy that is likely to dissuade some interested parties resident in France from importing into France demonstration vehicles previously registered in other Member States (see, by analogy, Case C‑297/05 Commission  v Netherlands  [2007] ECR I‑7467, paragraph 73 and Case C‑170/07 Commission  v Poland  [2008] ECR I-87, paragraph 44).
29. In that regard, it must be noted that, even if the national legislation in question in the main proceedings requires the registration document for all demonstration motor vehicles, irrespective of their origin, to state that it was a ‘demonstration vehicle’ in order for those vehicles to be granted the ecological subsidy, that requirement would affect such vehicles differently according to whether or not they come from a Member State that provides for such a requirement in respect of registration documents (see, to that effect, Commission  v Luxembourg , paragraph 28).
30. Indeed, even if the national legislation in question in the main proceedings does not have the aim of treating products from other Member States less favourably, this being for the referring court to ascertain, the requirement that the registration document for demonstration vehicles must state that it was a ‘demonstration vehicle’ in order to be granted the ecological subsidy may influence the behaviour of consumers and, consequently, affect the access of those vehicles to the market of that Member State (see, to that effect, Case C‑110/05 Commission  v Italy  [2009] ECR I‑519, paragraph 56).
32. However, it is clear from settled case-law that national legislation which constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions can be justified on one of the grounds of public interest laid down in Article 36 TFEU or by imperative requirements. In either case, the national provision must be appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective pursued and not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (see, in particular, Commission  v Netherlands , paragraph 75; Commission  v Poland , paragraph 46; and Case C‑421/09 Humanplasma  [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 34).
34. According to settled case-law, national measures capable of hindering intra-Community trade may be justified by the objective of protection of the environment and combating fraud provided that the measures in question are proportionate to the aim pursued (see, in particular, Case C‑265/06 Commission  v Portugal  [2008] ECR I‑2245, paragraph 38; Commission  v Luxembourg , paragraph 38; and Case C‑142/05 Mickelsson and Roos [2009] ECR I‑4273, paragraph 32).