• In the case of Aklagaren v Percy Mickelsson Joakim Roos [2009] ECR i-4273, the effect of national law restricting product use in comparison to EU law was explored.

Facts of Case C-142/05 Aklagaren v Percy Mickelsson Joakim Roos [2009] ECR i-4273

  • Swedish law restricted the use of watercraft to where the noise could not create a public nuisance, kept away from homes and away from damage to wildlife
  • 2 people were caught riding jet skis in waterways where such was prohibited by Swedish law
  • The Swedish court presented their concerns of interpreting Articles 28 and 30 EC to the European Court of Justice

Issues in Case C-142/05 Aklagaren v Percy Mickelsson Joakim Roos [2009] ECR i-4273

  • Were these Swedish laws hindering the free movement of goods under Article 28 EC?
  • If so could the Swedish law, which restricted product use, be allowed under European law?

Held by the European Court of Justice

  • The Swedish law’s effect was equivalent to an Article 34 quantitative restriction, such limited the access to the market but could be justified on grounds of protecting health, the wildlife and the environment. The measures could be justified under Article 30 EC, however this was up to the national court to see whether such conditions were satisfied.

Findings of the Court

The hinderance of free movement of goods may be allowed:

  • “according to settled case-law, national measures capable of hindering intra-Community trade may be justified by the objective of protection of the environment provided that the measures in question are proportionate to the aim pursued” [32]

Using the facts of this case, the protection of health should also be considered:

  • “the protection of health and life of humans, animals and plants … are, in the present case, closely related objectives, they should be examined together in order to assess whether regulations such as those at issue in the main proceedings are justified” [33]