Acceso usuarios
The European Court of Justice's (ECJ's) judgments in Moped Trailers 1 and in Mickelsson & Roos 2 concern a type of national measure that the Court had so far had few opportunities to assess under Article 34 TFEU: 3 restrictions on the use that consumers may make of the products subject to these measures. 4 Such restrictions leave consumers free to buy the products in question, and to make any remaining lawful uses of them. Nevertheless, if no use remains permissible, there is little point in the consumer spending money on something so literally �useless�. If few uses remain, it may not be worth the expenditure. Such rules thus work as �purchasing deterrents� (for want of a better expression). With demand subsiding, supply will soon dry up, too. Trade between Member States would in this situation be affected by measures addressed not, as usually, to the producer, importer or vendor (the supply side of the market), but to the consumer (the demand side).
The ECJ has had to deal with a similar situation before. On that occasion, the free movement of workers was concerned. In Clean Car, the Court recognised that national measures addressed to either side of thelabour market may impair individuals� rights under the Treaty. As a consequence, such measures require a justification: "Article [45(1) TFEU] states, in general terms, that freedom of movement for workers is to be secured within the Community�. Whilst those rights are undoubtedly enjoyed by those directly referred to � namely, workers � there is nothing in the wording of Article [45] to indicate that they may not be relied upon by others, in particular employers. [I]n order to be truly effective, the right of workers to be engaged and employed without discrimination necessarily entails as a corollary the employer's entitlement to engage � "
