Luxembourg, 22/02/2000 (Agence Europe) - The Court of Justice has heard the pleas of the European Commission and France in the case opposing them regarding the transit through France of automobile parts. At the origin of the trial lies a complaint by the European Automobile Association against the fact that the French customs authorities hold back at the border parts coming from Spain and destined for Italy, whereas these parts are legally manufactured in Spain and legally marketed in Italy.
The European Commission took the case to court claiming that this retention in customs for ten days was contrary to the principle of the free movement of goods. Observers underpin the difficulties of reconciling the arguments of both parties, in what a legal experts qualifies as a dialogue of the deaf..
During the hearing it was pointed out that there is no Community legislation on automobile parts. In France, contrary to most Member States, these parts (wings, bumpers, etc.) are protected by the law on designs and models. Any part manufactured and marketed without the consent of the automobile manufacturer who holds the brand name and owns the design or model is counterfeit. During these ten days, the automobile constructor may turn to the courts.
For the European Commission, the system amounts to prohibiting transit in France, as the courts referred the cases have to apply French case law of the Appeals Court of 1990. In that ruling, the Appeals Court judged that there had been an infringement to the right to ownership of a brand or model even though the goods had been legally manufactured in another Member State and was only moving around on French territory.
For the French Government, all the Commission's reasoning rests on the argument by which the parts retained in France were not destined for the French market but for another country, Italy. Yet, it explains, the French customs must ensure that the truck entering France will not off-load its goods in France but abroad. Ten days is not an excessive or disproportionate length of time to check the destination of the parts. The French Government also recalls that the protection of industrial and commercial property is part of the exceptions to the principle of free movement.
The Commission claims that these 10 days are in fact extended as soon as an automobile manufacturer owner of the model refers the case to a French court as counterfeit. This is clearly an obstacle to the free movement of goods, it concludes. It also mentions the "Monsees" ruling of the Court of Justice in which the Court declared contrary to the free movement of goods an Austrian measure rendering "almost impossible any transit of international transport by road of animals destined for slaughter".
France considers that the Monsees ruling is not applicable as Austrian legislation rendered transit impossible, whereas the French measures only delay it by a few days. According to the Government, 10 days in customs is not discriminatory as it is the case for all goods carried on French territory. The Commission considers that France has not provided the proof and that in fact it is goods from neighbouring countries that are targeted.
The French Government further observes that some goods are not accompanied by papers proving that they are destined for another country. Examining the existing papers and checking the destination of the goods within ten days is not excessive. As for the frequency of cases where trucks have been held back, France claims that it is a question of a few isolated cases in which there were strong suspicions of counterfeiting. According to the Commission, cases are rare because manufacturers of parts now avoid France.
The French government observes that the French system as attacked by the Commission in this trial was taken on board as transitional provision in the European directive on designs and models.