## Facts

- For more than a decade, French farmer groups repeatedly engaged in violent actions targeting imported fruit and vegetables from other Member States.
- Reported conduct included destruction and damage of shipments and vehicles, threats against drivers and distributors, and obstruction of transport and retailing of imported produce.
- In 1993, incidents escalated into an organized campaign (including against Spanish strawberries) aimed at controlling the supply of imported agricultural goods in France and in transit across France.
- The Commission received persistent complaints asserting that French authorities did not respond in a manner proportionate to the gravity and persistence of the obstruction and often remained passive.
- The Commission undertook a long pre-litigation process (including earlier formal steps dating to the mid-1980s) and received repeated assurances from France that firm action would be taken, but the incidents recurred.
- The Commission brought infringement proceedings alleging that France failed to prevent private actions obstructing intra-Community trade in violation of the free movement of goods rules and obligations connected to the common organization of agricultural markets.

## Issues

1. Whether a Member State violates the prohibition on import restrictions, read with the duty of loyal cooperation, by failing to take necessary and proportionate measures to prevent serious, persistent private obstruction of imports.
2. Whether general public-order concerns, operational policing constraints, or prosecutorial discretion justify sustained under-enforcement that allows recurring private interference with intra-Community trade.

## Decision

- The Court declared that France failed to fulfill its obligations by not adopting all necessary and proportionate measures to prevent the free movement of fruit and vegetables from being obstructed by private individuals.
- The breach was found under the rules governing the common organization of agricultural markets and under the prohibition on measures equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports, read together with the duty of loyal cooperation.
- The Court rejected France’s reliance on generalized law-enforcement difficulties and public-order arguments as insufficient to excuse prolonged and ineffective protection of free movement.
- France was ordered to pay costs.

## Legal Principles

- Free-movement obligations can be breached by state inaction where private conduct seriously and persistently obstructs imports and the Member State fails to prevent or stop it through necessary and proportionate measures.
- The duty of loyal cooperation requires Member States to take appropriate general and specific measures to ensure the effectiveness of Treaty obligations and to refrain from conduct that jeopardizes Treaty objectives.
- Where authorities are aware of repeated and foreseeable private obstruction, a Member State must deploy effective prevention, policing, and deterrent enforcement measures; sporadic or delayed actions and weak sanctions may be inadequate.
- A Member State may not justify a long-term failure to safeguard free movement by invoking broad public-order concerns, resource constraints, or autonomy of police and prosecution where the result is a de facto barrier to intra-Community trade.
- In sectors governed by a common market organization, tolerating private “embargo-like” interference undermines the functioning of common rules and can constitute an independent basis for breach alongside general free-movement provisions.

## Conclusion

The Court held that France infringed EU free-movement and market-organization obligations by tolerating and inadequately countering years of organized private violence and intimidation that obstructed imports of fruit and vegetables, and that generalized policing or public-order difficulties did not excuse the failure to take effective, proportionate measures.


Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic, Case C-265/95, 1997 E.C.R. I-6959 (C.J.E.C. 1997)