Schmidberger v Austria (Case C-112/00) [2003] ECR I-5659

Facts

  • An environmental group organized a demonstration on the Brenner motorway, a major transit route connecting Italy and Germany through Austria.
  • The Austrian authorities authorized the demonstration, which resulted in a complete blockage of the motorway for 30 hours.
  • The closure disrupted the transport of goods and caused financial losses to Schmidberger, a German company.
  • Schmidberger claimed that Austria's authorization of the demonstration violated Article 34 TFEU by imposing a restriction equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports between Member States.

Issues

  1. Whether Austria's authorization of the demonstration, resulting in the temporary blockage of a major transit route, constituted a violation of EU obligations under Article 34 TFEU.
  2. Whether restrictions on the free movement of goods can be justified by the protection of fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and assembly.
  3. Whether the measures taken by Austria satisfied the principle of proportionality when balancing competing interests.

Decision

  • The Court found that the demonstration hindered the free movement of goods within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU.
  • However, the ECJ held that the protection of fundamental rights, including freedom of expression and assembly, could justify such restrictions on free movement.
  • The Court accepted that Austria pursued a legitimate aim in protecting fundamental rights and evaluated if the restriction was proportionate.
  • The 30-hour closure was held not to be disproportionate due to the significance of the issue protested, prior notification to authorities and users, and steps taken to minimize disturbances.
  • The Court concluded that Austria had appropriately balanced the interests involved, and the restriction was justified as a proportionate measure taken in pursuit of a legitimate objective.

Legal Principles

  • Restrictions on the free movement of goods may be justified by the fundamental protection of rights such as freedom of expression and assembly.
  • The principle of proportionality requires that restrictions must pursue a legitimate objective, be suitable for achieving that objective, and be necessary—meaning no less restrictive alternative is available.
  • Measures taken must respect the balance between economic freedoms and protection of fundamental rights within EU law.

Conclusion

The Court established that Member States may restrict the free movement of goods to protect fundamental rights, provided such restrictions are proportionate, pursue legitimate aims, and are limited in scope and duration; this judgment continues to shape the balancing of fundamental freedoms and rights in EU law.

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