National systems which make the placing on the market of goods subject to prior authorisation restrict access to the market of the importing Member State and are therefore considered to be a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU (121). The Court has laid down a number of conditions under which such prior authorisation could be justified: (122) Finally, the judgment in Mickelsson and Roos (64) concerned a request for a preliminary ruling raising the question whether Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU preclude Swedish legislation on the use of personal watercraft. Under Swedish law, the use of such vessels on waterways that are not considered general waterways and on waters on which the county administration had not authorized their use was prohibited and punishable by a fine. The Court has held that, where such legislation has the effect of preventing users of personal watercraft from using them for the specific and intrinsic purposes for which they are intended, or of significantly restricting their use, it hinders the access of those goods to the internal market. Since the actual uses of personal watercraft in Sweden were marginal, the national rules constituted measures equivalent to quantitative restrictions (65). However, the Court has held that national rules may be justified on environmental grounds if certain additional requirements are fulfilled (66). In Sandström, the Court also clarified the conditions under which the prohibition on the use of a personal watercraft on waterways other than designated waterways is permitted (67). The provisions abolishing quantitative restrictions have been essential for the development of the internal market in Europe. The free movement of goods is a very successful programme that has integrated European economies. It allows any trader or manufacturer in any part of the EU to freely export their goods to another EU Member State. For example, German sausage manufacturers in Bavaria can export their products to any other Member State without national customs duties hindering them. Article 37 TFEU of the Treaty chapter prohibiting quantitative restrictions between Member States also contains provisions relating to the adjustment of State monopolies of a commercial character. Its role and relationship with Articles 34 to 36 TFEU are briefly described in Chapter 6 of this Guide, which also covers other Treaty Articles.
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the free movement of goods in the internal market. In November 2020, the Policy Department “Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life” of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection organised a webinar[7] on this topic. It sets out the impact of restrictions imposed by Member States and at EU level on the free movement of goods, services and people. The movement of personal protective equipment (PPE) and other health-related goods was thoroughly debated and proposals were made on how EU coordination in the area of public procurement and free movement of goods should be centralised in the event of future crises. A study[8] on the same subject was published in February 2021 and presented to the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection on 22 February 2021. The study assesses the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the internal market and consumer protection, including the impact of measures put in place at national and EU level to mitigate the consequences of the pandemic. The study also analyses what further measures should be considered to strengthen the resilience of the EU Single Market in future crises. A measure may constitute a quantitative restriction if it is likely to discriminate against a parallel importer. These are traders who are not authorized by the merchant to exchange a particular product, but who legally buy it in another state where the price is lower and resell it in the first state. Subsequently, measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions shall also include all other measures which may impede market access (54).
In that regard, the Court held, in Commission v Spain, (55) that `[t]he case-law shows that a measure, even if it has neither the object nor the effect of treating goods from other Member States less favourably, falls within the concept of a measure equivalent to a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU where it hinders access to the market of a Member State. products originating in other Member States. The scope of the MEQF is broader than quantitative restrictions.