French Consumer Law is a comprehensive and comparative overview of French and EU law in this field, covering: advertising, unfair commercial practices, conditions for the validity of contracts, unfair terms, product conformity, latent defects, product safety.

French Consumer Law

Since the general obligation of conformity laid down in Article L. 411-1 (former Article L. 212-1) of the Consumer Code was not the result of a European harmonization or regulation, the question arose as to whether this provision of French law, which is found in the legislation of many other Member States, is compatible with Union law, in particular the prohibition of quantitative restrictions on  …

Free movement of goods

Since the general obligation of conformity laid down in Article L. 411-1 (former Article L. 212-1) of the Consumer Code was not the result of a European harmonization or regulation, the question arose as to whether this provision of French law, which is found in the legislation of many other Member States, is compatible with Union law, in particular the prohibition of quantitative restrictions on imports and measures of equivalent effect provided for in Article 34 TFEU. Indeed, the verification obligation imposed on importers might encourage them to favor domestic products, for which the verification obligation is incumbent not on them, but on the manufacturers.

When asked for a preliminary ruling, the Court of Justice, having noted that such an obligation was liable to impede trade between Member States, considered that the objectives of this text, i.e. the protection of human health and safety, fair trading and consumer protection, were sufficient to justify it . The obligation to check imposed on the person responsible for the market launch of a product was declared compatible with European law, subject to not going beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives pursued, “having regard, on the one hand, to the public interest in question and, on the other, to the means of proof normally available to an importer” . Thus, a national provision which provides that the importer of goods manufactured in another Member State must verify its compliance with the provisions of the directive applicable to this type of good, although the directive requires control of compliance with its provisions by the Member State of manufacture, is a measure that goes beyond what is necessary . The same applies to the national provision which requires the unnecessary performance of technical or chemical analyzes or laboratory tests, even though the same analyzes or tests have already been carried out in another Member State and the results are at the disposal of the authorities of the second Member State . On the other hand, according to the Court of Cassation, in the absence of justification of checks carried out in the Member State of origin, the French legislation which requires the importer to verify compliance with the safety rules in force does not infringe the free movement of goods . Similarly, imposing an obligation on the importer to verify the affixing of the “CE” marking on the same goods, which indicates that their conformity has been established by the Member State of manufacture, is not contrary to Union law .

 Case 25/88 Wurmser, Judgment of 11 May 1989, LawLex201700000038JBJ.

 Case 25/88, cited above. See also Cass. crim., 2 July 1997, LawLex200600000552JBJ.

 Case C-40/04 Syuichi Yonemoto, Judgment of 8 September 2005, LawLex201800000098JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 2 July 1997, LawLex200600000552JBJ.

French Consumer Law

490. Free movement of goods

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

490. Free movement of goods

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise