Two decisions passed down by the ECJ in 2009, Commission v Italy and Mickelsson, draw attention to a little discussed dimension of Article 28 EC: the fact that national measures regulating how, when, and by whom goods can be used can constitute measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions. The paper argues that these decisions have three distinct advantages over previous case law on MEQRs. Firstly, the Court of Justice has approached the concept of MEQRs broadly, accommodating national measures that do not easily fit the traditional categories employed in relation to Article 28. Secondly, the Court’s approach is pragmatic and allows for a relatively simple identification of obvious breaches while providing a more nuanced approach based on market access for “hard cases.” Finally, the new approach improves upon the existing case law, without discarding workable elements established previously. Johan Lindholm is a senior lecturer at Umeå University, Sweden, where he teaches and does research in the fields of European Union law, Comparative Law and Sports Law. In 2007 he received a doctoral degree on basis of the thesis: State Procedure and Union Rights – a Comparison of the European Union and the United States (Iustus, Uppsala 2007), where he compared examined the powers of the EU over national courts in comparison with the powers of the US federal government over state courts.