C-142/05, Mickelsson and Roos [2009]
![C-142/05, Mickelsson and Roos [2009]](https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1593355765170-4c7c31013922?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=M3wxMTc3M3wwfDF8c2VhcmNofDN8fGpldCUyMHNraXxlbnwwfHx8fDE3MjE1NjUyMDd8MA&ixlib=rb-4.0.3&q=80&w=1200)
1. Facts
• Issue: The case involved individuals caught riding jet skis in areas where their use was prohibited by Swedish law.
2. Outcome
• Decision: The ECJ did not reference Keck in its decision. It ruled that restrictions on the use of products are not covered by Keck.
• Opinion Influence: The opinion in Mickelsson prompted the referral of Italian Trailers to the Grand Chamber for further consideration.
3. Impact and Analysis
• Judgment in Mickelsson:
◦ Restrictions on Use: The Court ruled that restrictions on the use of goods fall under Article 34 when they involve:
1. Total Bans: Measures that completely prohibit the use of the product.
2. Prevention of Intended Use: Measures that prevent goods from being used for their intended purposes.
3. Significant Restrictions: Measures that greatly restrict the use of goods.
• Relevance: These judgments, along with Commission v Portugal and Italian Trailers, clarified that measures limiting the use of products could fall within the scope of Article 34 if they significantly impact market access.