Mickelsson and Roos
Restrictions on the use of personal watercraft, such as jet skis, could be caught by article 34, but could be justified on environmental grounds if proportionate.
Facts
Mr Mickelsson and Mr Roos were prosecuted in Sweden for riding personal watercraft, or jet skis, outside designated waterways. Swedish rules allowed the use of jet skis only on general navigable waterways and on waters designated by the local authorities, but at the time no waters had been designated. They argued that the rules were contrary to the free movement of goods, because they severely restricted the use of jet skis, which were not made in Sweden.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that rules restricting the use of a product could be measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions, where they prevent users from using the product for the specific and inherent purposes for which it was intended or greatly restrict its use, so that consumers have only a limited interest in buying it. However, such rules could be justified by the aim of protecting the environment, as long as the national authorities designated waters within a reasonable time, which was for the national court to decide.
Related cases on free movement of goods
- Commission v Denmark (Danish bottles) Case 302/86, [1988] ECR 4607
- Commission v France (Spanish strawberries) Case C-265/95, [1997] ECR I-6959
- Commission v Germany (Beer purity) Case 178/84, [1987] ECR 1227
- Commission v Ireland (Buy Irish) Case 249/81, [1982] ECR 4005
- Commission v Italy (Art treasures) Case 7/68, [1968] ECR 423
- Commission v Italy (Motorcycle trailers) Case C-110/05, [2009] ECR I-519
- Conegate Ltd v HM Customs & Excise Case 121/85, [1986] ECR 1007
- Deutscher Apothekerverband eV v 0800 DocMorris NV Case C-322/01, [2003] ECR I-14887
Studying EU Law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
