Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect (art.34 of TFEU) and quantitative restrictions on exports and all measures having equivalent effect (art.35 of TFEU) shall be prohibited. According to the well-settled case law, prohibition in art.34 of TFEU applies to discriminatory and indistinctly applicable measures. However, approach of the Court of Justice of the European Union to the art.35 of TFEU is different. This approach might be demonstrated in Groeneveld case.
A preliminary question was raised in Netherlands on the interpretation of the abovementioned article having regard to the national rules prohibiting any manufacturer of processed meat products from having in stock or processing the horse meat. This regulation was adopted for the purpose of protecting the Netherlands exports. It was stresses out that as it is practically impossible to determine the presence of horsemeat in meat products, the sole means of ensuring that such products do not contain horsemeat is to prohibit manufacturers of meat product from having in stock, preparing or processing horsemeat. This measure applied objectively to the production of goods without drawing distinction depending on whether such goods are intended for the national market or for export, i.e. it applied indistinctly/in a non-discriminatory way to all products of kind. The Court of Justice of the European Union held: “a national measure prohibiting all manufacturers of meat products from having in stock or processing horsemeat is not incompatible with the article 34 of EEC (now art. 35 of TFEU) if it does not discriminate between products intended for export and those marketed within the member state in question.”
To sum up, art.34 of TFEU applies to discriminatory and to indistinctly applicable measures where art.35 of TFEU only to discriminatory measures.