Åklagaren v Mickelsson & Roos (Case C-142/05) [2009] ECR I-4273

Facts

  • The case concerned Swedish legislation restricting the use of personal watercraft (jet skis) to designated waterways.
  • This restriction significantly limited the utility of jet skis, affecting their practical value and market appeal.
  • The legislative measure did not explicitly regulate import or sale, but primarily regulated the use of such watercraft within Sweden.
  • The reduced scope for use indirectly discouraged importation and sale of jet skis in Sweden.
  • The case was referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to determine whether such use restrictions could fall within Article 34 TFEU.

Issues

  1. Whether national measures restricting the use of products, rather than their importation or sale, fall within the scope of Article 34 TFEU as measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions.
  2. Whether restricting the use of goods can substantially hinder market access, thereby breaching Article 34.
  3. Whether such restrictions can be justified and deemed proportionate in pursuit of legitimate public interests, such as environmental protection or public safety.
  4. Whether the analysis should differ depending on whether restrictions are distinctly or indistinctly applicable to products from other Member States.

Decision

  • The CJEU held that measures restricting the use of products can fall under Article 34 TFEU if they have the effect of hindering market access for goods from other Member States.
  • The Swedish legislation, by limiting the circumstances in which jet skis could be used, reduced their market attractiveness and utility, thus discouraging their importation and sale.
  • The Court confirmed that market access, not solely the formal nature of the restriction, is the central concern in determining a measure’s compatibility with Article 34.
  • National measures that hinder market access must be justified by legitimate public interests and satisfy the requirement of proportionality.
  • The Court examined whether the Swedish restrictions were objectively justified and proportionate to the aims of environmental and safety protection.

Legal Principles

  • Article 34 TFEU prohibits quantitative restrictions and all measures having equivalent effect between Member States.
  • Restrictions on product use, not just on importation or sale, can qualify as measures having equivalent effect if they hinder market access.
  • The concept of market access is central; a disincentive to purchase or use a product due to restrictive measures can constitute a barrier to trade.
  • Justifications for such restrictions are permissible only if they relate to a legitimate public interest and are proportionate to the objectives pursued.
  • These principles apply to both distinctly and indistinctly applicable measures; any significant restriction on market access must be justified on objective grounds.

Conclusion

The CJEU in Åklagaren v Mickelsson & Roos clarified that national restrictions on the use of products may breach Article 34 TFEU if they hinder market access, unless such restrictions are objectively justified and proportionate to legitimate public interests, thereby reinforcing the primacy of the free movement of goods within the EU internal market.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal