Are rules prohibiting the doorstep selling of certain goods and prohibiting the itinerant selling of goods and services without prior authorization compatible with the EU-Treaty and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive?
In the cases Burmanjer and A-Punkt Schmuckhandel, the CJEU examines whether the Belgian legislation prohibiting the itinerant selling of subscriptions to periodicals without prior authorisation (Burmanjer) and the Austrian legislation prohibiting the doorstep selling of silver jewelry (A-Punkt Schmuckhandel) are compatible with the free movement of goods. Answering these questions, the Court applies the reasoning formerly adopted in Keck and Mithouard. After analysing the reasoning of the Court in these cases, this paper examines whether this jurisprudence is still relevant today when determining whether a prohibition of itinerant selling of (certain) goods without prior authorisation or a prohibition on doorstep selling of certain goods are compatible with European law. When answering this question, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Consumer Rights Directive will also be taken into account.
In Socit Fiduciaire Nationale d'Expertise Comptable, the CJEU decides that national legislation which totally prohibits the members of a regulated profession from engaging in canvassing is incompatible with article 24 (1) of the Services Directive, which precludes total prohibitions on commercial communications by regulated professions. Determining whether rules on the doorstep selling, the itinerant selling or canvassing of services are compatible with European law, requires an analysis of the scope and content of article 56 TFEU, the Services Directive and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.