New Valmar BVBA v Global Pharmacies Partner Health Srl (Case C-15/15), ECLI:EU:C:2016:465

Facts

  • The case originated in Belgium, where New Valmar BVBA challenged a regional Walloon decree prohibiting the itinerant sale of subscriptions to periodicals.
  • The decree was introduced for consumer protection against aggressive selling practices.
  • This rule effectively obstructed New Valmar’s business model, based on itinerant sales.
  • The Belgian court referred a question to the CJEU about whether such a measure falls within the scope of Article 34 TFEU, which prohibits quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect between Member States.

Issues

  1. Whether a national decree prohibiting itinerant sales of periodical subscriptions constitutes a restriction under Article 34 TFEU.
  2. Whether the prohibition, although apparently non-discriminatory and applicable to all traders, could restrict market access for goods from other Member States.
  3. Whether such restrictions may be justified for objectives such as consumer protection, and if so, whether they meet the principle of proportionality.

Decision

  • The CJEU confirmed that measures hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-EU trade are restrictions within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU.
  • The Court clarified that even non-discriminatory selling arrangements can constitute a restriction if they impede market access for goods from other Member States.
  • The Walloon decree, by prohibiting a sales method, restricted market access and thus fell within Article 34 TFEU.
  • The Court acknowledged that restrictions can be justified for legitimate objectives (e.g., consumer protection) but must be proportionate and necessary for achieving those objectives.
  • The CJEU questioned whether a total ban was proportionate or if less restrictive measures could achieve the aim of consumer protection.

Legal Principles

  • Market access is a key criterion in determining whether a national measure restricts the free movement of goods under Article 34 TFEU.
  • Even formally non-discriminatory national rules on selling arrangements may fall under Article 34 if they impede access to the market for products from other Member States.
  • The principle of mutual recognition requires Member States to accept goods lawfully marketed elsewhere in the EU unless justified by overriding requirements.
  • Measures restricting the free movement of goods may be justified for objectives such as consumer protection, but only if they are suitable and do not exceed what is necessary (proportionality).
  • The judgment clarifies the application of the test from Keck and Mithouard (C-267/91 and C-268/91), affirming that neutral rules can still restrict market access.
  • Member States must carefully assess the impact of regulations on intra-EU trade and pursue less restrictive means where possible.

Conclusion

The CJEU held that national rules, even if non-discriminatory and concerned with selling arrangements, fall within Article 34 TFEU if they hinder market access for goods from other Member States; such restrictions may only be justified if they are proportionate and necessary, reinforcing the importance of the free movement of goods and mutual recognition within the single 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