EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CA0481
Case C-481/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — UAB ‘Juvelta’ v VĮ ‘Lietuvos prabavimo rūmai’ (Free movement of goods — Article 34 TFEU — Quantitative restrictions on imports — Measures having equivalent effect — Marketing of articles made of precious metals — Hallmark — Requirements laid down in the legislation of the Member State of import)
Case C-481/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — UAB ‘Juvelta’ v VĮ ‘Lietuvos prabavimo rūmai’ (Free movement of goods — Article 34 TFEU — Quantitative restrictions on imports — Measures having equivalent effect — Marketing of articles made of precious metals — Hallmark — Requirements laid down in the legislation of the Member State of import)
Case C-481/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — UAB ‘Juvelta’ v VĮ ‘Lietuvos prabavimo rūmai’ (Free movement of goods — Article 34 TFEU — Quantitative restrictions on imports — Measures having equivalent effect — Marketing of articles made of precious metals — Hallmark — Requirements laid down in the legislation of the Member State of import)
IO C 85, 22.3.2014, p. 9–9
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
22.3.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 85/9 |
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — UAB ‘Juvelta’ v VĮ ‘Lietuvos prabavimo rūmai’
(Case C-481/12) (1)
(Free movement of goods - Article 34 TFEU - Quantitative restrictions on imports - Measures having equivalent effect - Marketing of articles made of precious metals - Hallmark - Requirements laid down in the legislation of the Member State of import)
2014/C 85/14
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Referring court
Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: UAB ‘Juvelta’
Defendant: VĮ ‘Lietuvos prabavimo rūmai’
Re:
Request for a preliminary ruling — Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Interpretation of Articles 34 and 36 TFEU — Measures having equivalent effect — Hallmarking of articles of precious metals — National legislation requiring articles to bear a specific hallmark of the authorised independent office — Consumer protection — Prohibition on the marketing of articles bearing a hallmark of the country of origin which does not conform to the national requirements — Presence of an additional mark giving the necessary information but not stamped by the authorised independent office.
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, for it to be permissible for them to be sold on the market of a Member State, articles of precious metal imported from another Member State, in which they are authorised to be put on the market and which have been stamped with a hallmark in accordance with the legislation of that second Member State, must, where the information concerning the standard of fineness of those articles provided in that hallmark does not comply with the requirements of the legislation of that first Member State, be stamped again, by an independent assay office authorised by that first Member State, with a hallmark confirming that those articles have been inspected and showing their standard of fineness in accordance with those requirements; |
|
2. |
The fact that additional marking of imported articles of precious metal, intended to provide information relating to the standard of fineness of those articles in a form intelligible to consumers of the Member State of import has not been effected by an independent assay office authorised by a Member State has no effect on the answer to the first question, since a hallmark of the standard of fineness had already been stamped on those articles by an independent assay office authorised by the Member State of export and the information provided by that marking is compatible with that on that hallmark. |