28.7.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/2

(Case C-95/14)

2014/C 245/03

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Unione Nazionale Industria Conciaria (UNIC), Unione Nazionale dei Consumatori di Prodotti in Pelle, Materie Concianti, Accessori e Componenti (Unicopel)

Defendants: FS Retail, Luna srl, Gatsby srl

Questions referred

(1)Do Articles 34, 35, and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, correctly construed, preclude the application of Article 3(2) of [Italian] Law No 8 of 14 January 2013 — under which it is compulsory, in the case of products obtained from working carried out in foreign countries but which use the Italian word ‘pelle’ [fine leather], to affix a label thereto indicating the country of origin — to products made of leather lawfully worked or placed on the market in other Member States of the European Union, since that law constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction prohibited under Article [34] TFEU and not justified by Article 36 of that Treaty?

(2)Do Articles 34, 35, and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, correctly construed, preclude the application of Article 3(2) of [Italian] Law No 8 of 14 January 2013 — under which it is compulsory, in the case of products obtained from working carried out in foreign countries but which use the Italian word ‘pelle’, to affix a label thereto indicating the country of origin — to products made of leather obtained from working carried out in non-member countries and not already lawfully placed on the market in the European Union, since that law constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction prohibited under Article [34] TFEU and not justified by Article 36 of that Treaty?

(3)Do Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 94/11/EC, correctly construed, preclude the application of Article 3(2) of [Italian] Law No 8 of 14 January 2013 — under which it is compulsory, in the case of products obtained from working carried out in foreign countries but which use the Italian word ‘pelle’, to affix a label thereto indicating the country of origin — to products made of leather lawfully worked, or lawfully placed on the market, in other Member States of the European Union?

(4)Do Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 94/11/EC, correctly construed, preclude the application of Article 3(2) of [Italian] Law No 8 of 14 January 2013, under which it is compulsory, in the case of products made of leather obtained from working carried out in non-member countries and not already lawfully placed on the market in the European Union, to affix a label thereto indicating the country of origin?

(5)Does Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013, correctly construed, preclude the application of Article 3(2) of [Italian] Law No 8 of 14 January 2013 — under which it is compulsory, in the case of products obtained from working carried out in foreign countries but which use the Italian word ‘pelle’, to affix a label thereto indicating the country of origin — to products made of leather obtained from working carried out in Member States of the European Union or not already lawfully placed on the market in the European Union?

(6)Does Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013, correctly construed, preclude the application of Article 3(2) of [Italian] Law No 8 of 14 January 2013 — under which it is compulsory, in the case of products obtained from working carried out in foreign countries but which use the Italian word ‘pelle’, to affix a label thereto indicating the country of origin — to products made of leather obtained from working carried out in non-member countries and not already lawfully placed on the market in the European Union?

Language of the case: Italian

(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ 1994 L 100, p. 37.

(<span class="super">2</span>) OJ 1994 L 100, p. 37.