Schmidberger v Austria
A Member State's decision to allow a demonstration that blocked a motorway was justified by the protection of freedom of expression and assembly.
Facts
The Austrian authorities allowed an environmental group to hold a demonstration on the Brenner motorway, a major transit route between Germany and Italy, which closed the motorway for about 30 hours, to protest against pollution caused by heavy goods vehicles. Schmidberger, a German transport company, claimed that this was a breach of the free movement of goods, and sued Austria for damages for the delay to its lorries.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that the decision to allow the demonstration was a restriction on the free movement of goods, but that it was justified. The protection of fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, is a legitimate interest which, in principle, justifies a restriction of the obligations imposed by EU law, even under a fundamental freedom such as the free movement of goods. The interests had to be balanced, and the Austrian authorities had acted reasonably, because the demonstration was limited in time and place, the public had been informed in advance, and alternative routes had been organised.
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.
