The Court did indeed appreciate the relevance of the directive to the promotion of a single market. In its judgement it states:
Furthermore, the Directive introduces a set of uniform rules concerning the conditions and procedures for the grant of marketing authorisations for plant protection products in order, first, to ensure a high standard of protection of human and animal health and of the environment and, secondly, to eliminate within the Community obstacles to trade in plant protection products and plant products arising from the existence of divergent national rules.
The Directive pursues in particular the objectives of protecting public health and eliminating barriers to trade within the Community, which are comparable to those of Directive 65/65, in addition to protecting animal health and the environment. With that in mind, it lays down a set of uniform rules concerning the conditions and procedures for the grant of marketing authorisation for plant protection products.
Accordingly, where a plant protection product covered by marketing authorisation granted in accordance with the provisions of the Directive in one Member State is imported into another Member State as a parallel import of a plant protection product already covered by marketing authorisation in the Member State of importation, the provisions of the Directive on the procedure for the grant of marketing authorisation do not apply.
Where two marketing authorisations are granted in accordance with the Directive, the objectives which it pursues as to protection of human and animal health and of the environment do not call for the same treatment. In such a situation, application of the Directive's provisions concerning the procedure for the grant of marketing authorisation would go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives and could, without justification, run counter to the principle of the free movement of goods laid down in Article 30 of the Treaty.
Therefore the Court took into account both the directive and the treaty and ruled clearly in favour of a swift parallel import procedure with clear unambiguous principles:
A plant protection product can indeed be introduced lawfully into a Member State through a fast registration procedure if it:
-unless that is precluded by considerations concerning the protection of human and animal health and of the environment.
-if not identical in all respects to a product already authorised within the Member State of importation, at least shares a common origin with that product in that it has been manufactured by the same company or by an associated undertaking or under licence according to the same formulation.