## 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.


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