Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.

JurisdictionEuropean Union
Celex Number62007CJ0088
ECLIECLI:EU:C:2009:123
CourtCourt of Justice (European Union)
Docket NumberC-88/07
Procedure TypeRecours en constatation de manquement - fondé
Date05 March 2009

Case C-88/07

Commission of the European Communities

v

Kingdom of Spain

(Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – Free movement of goods – Directive 2001/83/EC – Products based on medicinal herbs – Products classified as medicinal products – Products lawfully produced or marketed as food supplements or dietary products in other Member States – Meaning of ‘medicinal product’ – Marketing authorisation – Restriction – Justification – Public health – Consumer protection – Proportionality – Decision No 3052/95/EC – Procedure for the exchange of information on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Approximation of laws – Medicinal products for human use – Directive 2001/83

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, Art. 1(2)(b))

2. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect

(Arts 28 EC and 30 EC)

3. Free movement of goods – Exceptions – Procedure for the exchange of information on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods – Concept of a measure hindering the free movement or marketing of goods

(Art. 10 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 3052/95, Arts 1 and 4)

1. In order to determine whether a product falls under the definition of medicinal product by function within the meaning of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, the national authorities, subject to review by the courts, must decide on a case‑by‑case basis, taking account of all the characteristics of the product, in particular its composition, its pharmacological, immunological and/or metabolic properties, to the extent to which they can be established in the present state of scientific knowledge, the manner in which it is used, the extent of its distribution, its familiarity to consumers and the risks which its use may entail.

However, the mere fact that one or more medicinal herbs are among the constituents of a product is not sufficient to permit the conclusion that that product contributes to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action or to making a medical diagnosis, within the meaning of Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83.

It is possible that, having regard, in particular, to the small amount of the active substance contained in it and/or the manner in which it is used, a product based on medicinal herbs will have no effect on physiological functions or that its effects will not suffice for it to be a medicinal product by function.

Accordingly, the consequence of an administrative practice in a Member State which systematically classifies as medicinal products all products based on medicinal herbs not listed in the special register of medicinal herb-based preparations may be that some of those products are classified as medicinal products even when they are not capable of restoring, correcting or modifying human physiological functions.

(see paras 72,74-76)

2. A Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC when that State, on the ground that products based on medicinal herbs, lawfully produced and/or marketed in another Member State are deemed to be medicinal products marketed without the requisite marketing authorisation, withdraws from the market, under an administrative practice, any product based on medicinal herbs not included either in that Member State’s special register of medicinal herb-based preparations or in the list of plants sale of which to the public is prohibited or restricted because of their toxicity, other than a preparation the constituents of which are exclusively one or more medicinal herbs or whole parts of such herbs, or crushed or powdered parts of such herbs.

While Community law does not, in principle, preclude a Member State requiring prior marketing authorisation before it is possible to market products based on medicinal herbs on its territory, since it is for the Member States, in the absence of harmonisation, to decide on the level of protection of human health and life they wish to ensure, the Member State must, when exercising that discretion, comply with the principle of proportionality. Such an authorisation must actually be necessary, in each case, to safeguard public health; which implies a detailed assessment, on a case‑by‑case basis, of the risk to public health which the marketing of a product based on medicinal herbs might entail.

However, the systematic nature of the administrative practice at issue which requires that marketing authorisation be obtained, solely by reason of the fact that the medicinal herb on which the manufactured product is based is not listed in the national legislation on herbal based preparations, does not allow, on the basis of the most recent scientific data, account to be taken of the actual risk to public health presented by such products, and consequently does not satisfy the condition that there be a detailed assessment, on a case‑by‑case basis, of the supposed risks to public health.

(see paras 91-95, 116, operative part)

3. A Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 4 of Decision No 3052/95 establishing a procedure for the exchange of information on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community when it does not communicate such a measure to the Commission.

The obligation to notify laid down in Article 1 of Decision No 3052/95 falls on the Member State concerned not only where products produced or marketed in another Member State are withdrawn from the market, but also where products produced in its own territory are withdrawn from the market while products of the same model or of the same type are lawfully produced and/or marketed in another Member State and would also be subject to withdrawal from the market if they were imported into the Member State concerned.

The mere existence of legislation or of a practice in a Member State applicable without distinction to domestic and imported products is likely to deter traders from importing into that Member State goods lawfully produced or marketed in another Member State and therefore has the effect of restricting the free movement of those goods.

However, that obligation falls on the Member State concerned only if it knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, that the measure adopted by it has the effect of hindering the marketing in its territory of products lawfully produced or marketed in another Member State. The onus is on the Commission to provide evidence to that effect.

When the authorities of the Member State concerned were informed that products based on medicinal herbs not included in the national register had been imported from another Member State, it was their duty, if they considered the evidence that those products were lawfully produced and/or marketed in that other Member State to be insufficient, to check the facts with the authorities of that Member State, in accordance with the duty of genuine cooperation laid down in Article 10 EC.

(see paras 107-109, 114, 116, operative part)







JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)

5 March 2009 (*)

(Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – Free movement of goods – Directive 2001/83/EC – Products based on medicinal herbs – Products classified as medicinal products – Products lawfully produced or marketed as food supplements or dietary products in other Member States – Meaning of ‘medicinal product’ – Marketing authorisation – Restriction – Justification – Public health – Consumer protection – Proportionality – Decision No 3052/95/EC – Procedure for the exchange of information on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community)

In Case C‑88/07,

ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 15 February 2007,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by S. Pardo Quintillán and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

v

Kingdom of Spain, represented by J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

THE COURT (First Chamber),

composed of P. Jann, President of Chamber, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), A. Tizzano, A. Borg Barthet and E. Levits, Judges,

Advocate General: J. Mazák,

Registrar: M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 25 June 2008,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 16 October 2008,

gives the following

Judgment

1 By its action, the Commission of the European Communities asks the Court to declare that:

– by withdrawing from the market a number of herbal products lawfully produced and/or marketed in another Member State, under an administrative practice consisting in withdrawing from the market any product with herbal constituents not included in the annex to the Ministerial Order on the creation of a special register of medicinal herb-based preparations (Orden Ministerial por la que se establece el registro especial para preparados a base de especies vegetales medicinales) of 3 October 1973 (BOE No 247 of 15 October 1973, p. 19866), as amended (‘the 1973 Order’) on the ground that it is deemed to be a medicinal product marketed without the requisite authorisation, and

– by not communicating that measure to the Commission,

the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and Articles 1 and 4 of Decision No 3052/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1995 establishing a procedure for the exchange of information on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
4 cases
  • CSF Srl v European Commission.
    • European Union
    • General Court (European Union)
    • 15 July 2015
    ...de salvaguardia contemplada en aquella disposición (véase, al respecto, y por analogía, la sentencia de 5 de marzo de 2009, Comisión/España, C‑88/07, Rec, EU:C:2009:123, apartado 89 y jurisprudencia 58 Finalmente, es preciso señalar que la existencia de un riesgo para la salud o la segurida......
  • Opinion of Advocate General Ćapeta delivered on 7 April 2022.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 7 April 2022
    ...(C‑319/05, EU:C:2007:678); del 15 gennaio 2009, Hecht-Pharma (C‑140/07, EU:C:2009:5); del 5 marzo 2009, Commissione/Spagna (C‑88/07, EU:C:2009:123); del 30 aprile 2009, BIOS Naturprodukte (C‑27/08, EU:C:2009:278), e del 15 dicembre 2016, LEK (C‑700/15, 25 Sentenza del 3 ottobre 2013, Labora......
  • Solgar Vitamin's France and Others v Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Emploi and Others.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 17 December 2009
    ...ou si la clause a vocation à s’appliquer à la suite de la fixation de maxima à un taux nul. 49 – Arrêt du 5 mars 2009, Commission/Espagne (C‑88/07, non encore publié au Recueil, point 86). 50 – Dans ses observations, le gouvernement français fait valoir que la première partie de cette quest......
  • European Commission v French Republic.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 8 September 2009
    ...paragraph 21; and Case C-366/04 Schwarz [2005] ECR I-10139, paragraph 30. 11– Cited in footnote 8, paragraphs 49 to 75. 12 – See Case C-88/07 Commission v Spain [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 86 and the case-law cited. 13 – See judgment in Commission v Spain (cited in footnote 12, paragraph 8......
1 firm's commentaries