Case C‑110/05, Commission vs. Italian Republic, ECR 2009 p. I-519 http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&Submit=Rechercher&alldocs=alldocs&docj=docj&docop=docop&docor=docor&docjo=docjo&numaff=C-110/05&datefs=&datefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=&mots=&resmax=100

 

Identified should be:

● The parties of the case

● The subject of the case

● The structure of Free Movement cases:

-Element of EU law

-Does the case fall under EU free movement law?

-Which free movement rights are restricted?

-Is the restriction distinctive or indistinctive / discriminatory or non-discriminatory?

-Is the restriction justified? (In this case, it is important that there exist two groups of justifications - treaty-based and case law based.)

-Is the restriction necessary in a democratic society?

-Is the restriction proportionate?

● What did the ECJ decide?

 

Please note: 

35 Hence, 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 marketed, rules that lay down requirements to be met by such goods constitute measures of equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions even if those rules apply to all products alike (see, to that effect, ‘Cassis de Dijon’, paragraphs 6, 14 and 15; Case C 368/95 Familiapress [1997] ECR I-3689, paragraph 8; and Case C 322/01 Deutscher Apothekerverband [2003] ECR I-14887, paragraph 67).

36 By contrast, the application to products from other Member States of national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements is not such as to hinder directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, trade between Member States for the purposes of the case law flowing from Dassonville, on condition that those provisions apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and that they affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States. Provided that those conditions are fulfilled, the application of such rules to the sale of products from another Member State meeting the requirements laid down by that State is not by nature such as to prevent their access to the market or to impede access any more than it impedes the access of domestic products (see Keck and Mithouard, paragraphs 16 and 17).

37 Consequently, measures adopted by a Member State the object or effect of which is to treat products coming from other Member States less favourably are to be regarded as measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports within the meaning of Article 28 EC, as are the measures referred to in paragraph 35 of the present judgment. Any other measure which hinders access of products originating in other Member States to the market of a Member State is also covered by that concept.