Commission v Italy (Trailers) Case C-110/05 [2009] ECR I-519
Commission v Italy (Trailers) confirmed that Article 34 TFEU can apply to national rules restricting how goods are used. A use restriction may hinder market access even without regulating the product itself.
Facts
Italian road-safety rules prohibited motorcycles and similar vehicles from towing trailers. The prohibition applied without distinction to domestic and imported trailers, including trailers specially designed for motorcycles. There was, however, no significant Italian production of trailers specially designed for motorcycles, so those specially designed products were principally imported from other Member States. The European Commission brought infringement proceedings, arguing that consumers would have little reason to buy a motorcycle trailer if it could not lawfully be used for its normal purpose. Italy maintained that the rule concerned use rather than product characteristics or selling arrangements and was justified by road safety.
Legal Issue
Did the non-discriminatory prohibition hinder access to the Italian market for trailers specially designed to be towed by motorcycles, contrary to Article 34 TFEU, and could Italy justify that restriction on road-safety grounds?
Held
The Court of Justice held that for trailers specially designed to be towed by motorcycles, the prohibition fell within Article 34 because it substantially hindered access to the Italian market. The Commission had not, however, established a market-access obstacle for trailers not specially designed for motorcycles. Measures with equivalent effect include discriminatory rules, product requirements and other measures that impede access of goods from another Member State. Preventing the normal use of the product strongly reduced consumer demand and therefore obstructed market access, even though the rule did not prescribe the trailer's characteristics. Road safety was a legitimate justification, and the Court accepted the restriction as proportionate because Italy could reasonably consider motorcycle-trailer combinations a danger and less restrictive measures would not secure the chosen level of protection as effectively. The infringement action therefore failed.
⭐ Legal Principle
Article 34 TFEU can apply to a non-discriminatory rule restricting a product's use where the rule has a considerable influence on consumer behaviour and hinders access to the national market. In Trailers, that conclusion concerned trailers specially designed for motorcycles. Such a restriction may nevertheless be justified by a legitimate objective if suitable and proportionate.
Significance
Trailers is a central market-access authority following Dassonville, Cassis de Dijon and Keck and Mithouard. It confirms that free-movement scrutiny is not confined to product requirements or selling arrangements. The later decision in Mickelsson and Roos, concerning use of personal watercraft, applies similar reasoning. The case also demonstrates the two-stage analysis: a substantial market-access obstacle engages Article 34, but the Member State can still defend the measure through a legitimate objective and proportionate means. The retained relevance in UK study is primarily doctrinal and historical after Brexit.
Common exam questions about this case
Why did a rule about using trailers hinder market access?
A trailer specially designed for a motorcycle has little practical value if the law prevents it being towed by a motorcycle. The prohibition therefore discouraged consumers from buying that product and sharply reduced demand for imports. Article 34 can capture that substantial access barrier even though the rule does not alter the trailer's design or composition. The Commission did not prove a comparable obstacle for other trailers.
Was Italy liable simply because the rule engaged Article 34 TFEU?
No. Engagement begins the justification analysis rather than ending the case. Italy relied on road safety, a legitimate public-interest objective. The Court accepted that the towing combination presented risks and that the prohibition was suitable and proportionate to the level of protection Italy was entitled to choose.
How does Trailers differ from a Keck selling arrangement?
Keck concerned rules governing when, where or how goods are sold and excludes certain equal selling arrangements from Article 34. Trailers concerned whether the product could be used for its ordinary purpose after sale. That use restriction substantially altered consumer behaviour and market access, so it fell within Article 34 before justification.