- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-137/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Van Gennip BVBA, Antonius Johannes Maria ten Velde, Original BVBA, Antonius Cornelius Ignatius Maria van der Schoot (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directives 2006/123/EC, 2007/23/EC and 2013/29/EU — Placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles — Free movement of pyrotechnic articles compliant with the requirements of those directives — National legislation laying down restrictions on the storage and sale of those articles — Criminal penalties — Twofold authorisation scheme — Directive 98/34/EC — Concept of ‘technical regulation’)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CA0137
62017CA0137
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 408/17
(Case C-137/17) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directives 2006/123/EC, 2007/23/EC and 2013/29/EU - Placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles - Free movement of pyrotechnic articles compliant with the requirements of those directives - National legislation laying down restrictions on the storage and sale of those articles - Criminal penalties - Twofold authorisation scheme - Directive 98/34/EC - Concept of ‘technical regulation’))
(2018/C 408/20)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Operative part of the judgment
1.The principle of free movement of pyrotechnic articles, as provided for, inter alia, in Article 6(2) of Directive 2007/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles, does not preclude national legislation which restricts the possession or use by consumers and the sale to consumers of fireworks of which the pyrotechnic composition exceeds 1 kg, to the extent that such legislation is appropriate to guarantee public order and security and does not go beyond what is necessary to protect those fundamental interests, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.
2.Article 10 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation which makes the storage of pyrotechnic articles compliant with Directive 2007/23 and intended for the retail trade subject to dual authorisation, namely a federal authorisation and a regional environmental permit, provided that all the conditions set out in Article 10(2) of that directive are satisfied, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.
3.Article 20 of Directive 2007/23 and Article 1(5) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as meaning that Member States can adopt criminal law penalties provided that, as regards Directive 2007/23, those penalties are effective, proportionate and dissuasive and, as regards Directive 2006/123, the national rules of criminal law do not have the effect of circumventing the rules contained in that directive.
(1)
OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.