Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 December 2010.

Ker-Optika bt v ÀNTSZ Dél-dunántúli Regionális Intézete.

Reference for a preliminary ruling: Baranya megyei bíróság - Hungary.

Free movement of goods - Public health - Selling of contact lenses via the Internet - National legislation authorising the sale of contact lenses solely in medical supply shops - Directive 2000/31/EC - Information society - Electronic commerce.

Case C-108/09.


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
29/01/2011 Ker-Optika
View pdf documents
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2010:725
02/12/2010 Ker-Optika
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2010:725
02/12/2010 Ker-Optika
Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2010:341
15/06/2010 Ker-Optika
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Application (OJ)
20/06/2009 Ker-Optika
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

2010 I-12213

Subject-matter

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Baranya Megyei Bíróság – Interpretation of Articles 28 and 30 EC and of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1) – Marketing of contact lenses on the internet – National rules reserving the sale of contact lenses to shops selling medical equipment

Systematic classification scheme

1.
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.01 Directives concerning approximation of law
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.02 Free movement of goods
    4.02.02 Prohibition of quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect
      4.02.02.02 Measures having equivalent effect
        4.02.02.02.05 Rules concerning the production, denomination and marketing of products


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

  • EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 28 : paragraph 19
  • EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 30 : paragraph 19
  • TFEU, Article 34 : paragraphs 1, 44, , 46 - 48, 56, 77
  • TFEU, Article 36 : paragraphs 1, 44, 46, 57, 59, 77
  • Directive 98/34 -A01PT2 : paragraph 3
  • Directive 2000/31 : paragraphs 1, 19, 28, 31, 40, 41
  • Directive 2000/31 -A01P1 : paragraph 5
  • Directive 2000/31 -A01P2 : paragraphs 5, 23
  • Directive 2000/31 -A01P3 : paragraph 5
  • Directive 2000/31 -A01P5 : paragraphs 5, 27
  • Directive 2000/31 -A02LA : paragraph 23
  • Directive 2000/31 -A02LHPT2 : paragraph 29
  • Directive 2000/31 -A03 : paragraph 7
  • Directive 2000/31 -A03P4 : paragraph 76
  • Directive 2000/31 -A03P4LB : paragraph 5
  • Directive 2000/31 -A04P1 : paragraph 8
  • Directive 2000/31 -A09P1 : paragraphs 9, 26
  • Directive 2000/31 -C18 : paragraphs 4, 24, 33
  • Directive 2000/31 -C21 : paragraph 4
  • Directive 2000/31 -C34 : paragraph 4
  • Commission - COM Document (Draft Legislation) - 51998PC0586 : paragraph 25
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -8/74 : paragraphs 47, 50
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -267/91 : paragraph 51
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -271/92 : paragraph 63
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -275/92 : paragraph 43
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -322/01 : paragraphs 44, 54, 69, 73
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -20/03 : paragraph 43
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -110/05 : paragraphs 47 - 51, 57
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -570/07 : paragraph 58

Operative part

  • Interprets : TFEU, Article 34
  • Interprets : TFEU, Article 36
  • Interprets : Directive 2000/31

Opinion

  • EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 28 : points 2, 27, 53, 60, 62, 69, 70, 86, 87
  • EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 30 : points 3, 27, 53, 70, 72, 86, 87
  • EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 152 : point 72
  • Directive 93/42 : point 50
  • Directive 98/34 -A01P2 : points 4, 44
  • Directive 2000/31 : points 1, 27, 35 - 38, 42, 43, 87
  • Directive 2000/31 -A01P2 : point 34
  • Directive 2000/31 -A01P3 : point 7
  • Directive 2000/31 -A02LA : point 8
  • Directive 2000/31 -A02LH : point 9
  • Directive 2000/31 -A02LHPT1 : point 10
  • Directive 2000/31 -A02LHPT2 : points 11, 41
  • Directive 2000/31 -A04P1 : point 12
  • Directive 2000/31 -A04P2 : point 12
  • Directive 2000/31 -C18 : points 5, 40, 51
  • Directive 2000/31 -C21 : point 6
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -120/78 : point 61
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -215/87 : point 71
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -150/88 : point 47
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -347/89 : point 71
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -62/90 : point 71
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -267/91 : points 1, 28, 61, 62
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -37/92 : point 47
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -271/92 : points 55, 68
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -275/92 : point 54
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -320/93 : point 71
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -108/96 : point 72
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -324/99 : point 47
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -99/01 : point 47
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -322/01 : points 47, 59, 66, 71
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -71/02 : point 54
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -20/03 : point 54
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -140/03 : point 76
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -491/04 : points 55, 57
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -244/06 : point 47
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -244/06 : points 47, 52, 59, 76
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -141/07 : points 71, 72
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -171/07 : points 71, 72, 77


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 23/03/2009

Date of the Opinion

  • 15/06/2010

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

02/12/2010


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 141 from 20.06.2009, p.24

Judgment: OJ C 30 from 29.01.2011, p.2

Name of the parties

Ker-Optika

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Picod, Fabrice: La vente des lentilles de contact ne peut pas être réservée à des magasins spécialisés, La Semaine Juridique - édition générale 2010 nº 50 p.2344 (FR)
  2. Temmink, H.A.G.: Verbod van verkoop van contactlenzen via internet is in strijd met het EU-recht, Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht 2011 p.1-6 (NL)
  3. Castets-Renard, Céline: L'essor du commerce électronique : la CJUE autorise la vente en ligne de lentilles de contact, Recueil Le Dalloz 2011 nº6 p.419-421 (FR)
  4. Rigaux, Anne: Commercialisation par Internet, Europe 2011 Février Comm. nº 2 p.19-22 (FR)
  5. Rennuy, Nicolas ; Van Nieuwenhuyze, Ellen: Arrêt "Ker-Optika": nouvelle étape dans la jurisprudence sur la libre circulation des marchandises?, Journal des tribunaux / droit européen 2011 nº 176 p.36-38 (FR)
  6. Talos, Thomas ; Aquilina, Nicholas: The Ker-Optika Ruling: ECJ Highlights Advantages of the Internet, European Law Reporter 2011 nº 1 p.10-13 (EN)
  7. Lyčka, Martin: Ker-Optika: Pravidla obchodování zbožím po síti, Jurisprudence : specialista na komentování judikatury 2011 nº 2 p.46-52 (CS)
  8. Leupold, Andreas: EuGH: Internetvertriebsverbot verstößt gegen Art. 34, 36 AEUV, Multimedia und Recht 2011 p.163-166 (DE)
  9. Berr, Claude J.: Lentilles de contact, Journal du droit international 2011 p.527-530 (FR)
  10. Fanelli, Maria Giovanna: Vendita di lenti a contatto on line e prospettive di sviluppo dell'e-commerce nell'Unione europea, Contratto e impresa / Europa 2011 p.407-422 (IT)
  11. De Sadeleer, Nicolas: Arrêt Ker-Optika: De l'ophtalmologue à l'opticien, la réglementation de la vente en ligne des lentilles de contact au regard de la libre circulation des marchandises, Revue européenne de droit de la consommation 2011 p.437-446 (FR)
  12. Chachalis, Charalambos: Elliniki Epitheorisi Evropaïkou Dikaiou 2011 p.88-91 (EL)
  13. Schneider, Egbert: Kontaktlinsen / Internet, Zeitschrift für europäisches Sozial- und Arbeitsrecht 2011 p.438-443 (DE)
  14. Schmittmann, Michael: Systemcrash Leipzig: Online-Glücksspiele und das BVerwG - Warum der Ansatz des BVerwG spätestens nach den EuGH-Entscheidungen in Zeturf und Ker Optika nicht trägt, Computer und Recht 2011 p.805-808 (DE)
  15. Genova, Zhana ; Bandakov, Nikolay: Usloviya i vazmozhni ogranicheniya na targoviyata c meditsinski izdeliya po internet, Evropeyski praven pregled 2011 nº 1 p.167-184 (BG)
  16. Somssich, Réka: A Ker-Optika-ügy - Az Európai Bíróság legújabb ítélete az internetes értékesítés tilalmáról, Jogesetek Magyarázata 2011 nº 2 p.59-66 (HU)
  17. Caro de Sousa, Pedro: Through contact lenses, darkly: Is identifying restrictions to free movement harder than meets the eye? Comment on Ker-Optika, European Law Review 2012 p.79-89 (EN)
  18. Rutgers, J.W.: Tijdschrift voor consumentenrecht en handelspraktijken 2012 p.82-86 (NL)
  19. Anthimos, Apostolos: Armenopoulos 2012 p.847 (EL)



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Baranya Megyei Bíróság (Cour départementale de Baranya) - Hungary

Subject-matter

  • Free movement of goods
  • - Quantitative restrictions
  • - Measures having equivalent effect
  • Approximation of laws
  • Consumer protection

Procedure and result

  • Reference for a preliminary ruling

Formation of the Court

troisième chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Malenovský

Advocate General

Mengozzi

Language(s) of the Case

  • Hungarian

Language(s) of the Opinion

  • French