Article 35 Case Law

Question 1

Procureur v Les Sieurs Bouhelier

Answer 1

Example of breach of Article 35

French law required exports of watches to be authorised by export licences or to accompanied b y certificates. There was no equivalent requirement for watches sold in France.

ECJ held that this was a breach of article 35

Question 2

Groenveld

Answer 2

ECJ: article 35 would not apply to indistinctly applicable measures

Facts: Dutch law which prohibited all manufactures from meat producers – irrespective of whether they are being exported was not held as a MEQR

Rationale: Exporters don’t generally incur the same disadvantage from the imposition of indistinctly applicable measures by the member state from which they were being exported (because exported goods will face the sam requirements as goods produced for domestic purposes if theres no difference between the requirements for the manufacturing of domestic goods and foreign goods)

Question 3

Gysbrechts

Answer 3

Article 35

Confirmed that indistinctly applicable measures can constitute as MEQRs when they place exported goods at a disadvantage

Facts: Belgian law permits consumers to withdraw from a distance sales contract. Gysbrechts (exporter) were convicted for requiring a deposit or payment.

Held: Belgian prohibition deprived traders of an efficient way of guarding against non-payment. The consequences of this were more significant for cross border sales than for domestic sales because of the obstacles to bringing legal proceedings in another MS. Therefore, this constitute as a MEQR under article 35