It is clear from Business law cassis de dijon foregoing that the requirements relating to the minimum alcohol content of alcoholic beverages do not serve a purpose which is in the general interest and such as to take precedence over the requirements of the free movement of goods, which constitutes one of the fundamental rules of the Community.
In the absence of common rules relating to the production and marketing of alcohol — a proposal for a regulation submitted to the Council by Business law cassis de dijon Commission on 7 December Official Journal cp.
Even today, different nation states continue to apply restrictions on the movement of merchandise. In practice, the principal effect of requirements of this nature is to promote alcoholic beverages having a high alcohol content by excluding from the national market products of other member states which do not answer that description.
The European Court of Justice also decided in this case, that under certain specified conditions, member states should accept in their own markets, products approved for sale by other member states.
It all started in Germany when a trader was refused permission to import a batch of liqueur into the country because the strength of alcohol was inadequate for that kind of liqueur. It therefore appears that the unilateral requirement imposed by the rules of a member state of a minimum alcohol content for the purposes of the sale of alcoholic beverages constitutes an obstacle to trade which is incompatible with the provisions of Article 30 of the Treaty.
As regards the protection of public health the German government states that the purpose of the fixing of minimum alcohol contents by national legislation is to avoid the proliferation of alcoholic beverages on the national market, in particular alcoholic beverages with a low alcohol content, since, in its view, such products may more easily induce a tolerance towards alcohol than more highly alcoholic beverages.
Obstacles to movement within the Community resulting from disparities between the national laws relating to the marketing of the products in question must be accepted in so far as those provisions may be recognized as being necessary in order to satisfy mandatory requirements relating in particular to the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, the protection of public health, the fairness of commercial transactions and the defence of the consumer.
The German government also claims that the fixing of a lower limit for the alcohol content of certain liqueurs is designed to protect the consumer against unfair practices on the part of producers and distributors of alcoholic beverages.
There is therefore no valid reason why, provided that they have been lawfully produced and marketed in one of the member states, alcoholic beverages should not be introduced into any other member state; the sale of such products may not be subject to a legal prohibition on the marketing of beverages with an alcohol content lower than the limit set by the national rules.
Such considerations are not decisive since the consumer can obtain on the market an extremely wide range of weakly or moderately alcoholic products and furthermore a large proportion of alcoholic beverages with a high alcohol content freely sold on the German market is generally consumed in a diluted form.
The Cassis de Dijon judgement is a famous example of a decision issued by the European Court of Justice that set out a new legal framework for the achievement of the internal market.
Significant relaxation was achieved by eliminating Business law cassis de dijon barriers that were preventing the further development in various Member States. This argument is based on the consideration that the lowering of the alcohol content secures a competitive advantage in relation to beverages with a higher alcohol content, since alcohol constitutes by far the most expensive constituent of beverages by reason of the high rate of tax to which it is subject.
The government of the Federal Republic of Germanyintervening in the proceedings, put forward various arguments which, in its view, justify the application of provisions relating to the minimum alcohol content of alcoholic beverages, adducing considerations relating on the one hand to the protection of public health and on the other to the protection of the consumer against unfair commercial practices.
To fully understand and discuss the statement above, the two key things that need to be understood are what the Cassis de Dijon is and what the EU internal market is.
A bottle of Cassis de Dijona form of Creme de Cassis The ECJ held that the German legislation represented a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports and was thus in breach of article 34 of the Treaty: The aim was, and is to create an area for the application of the 4 fundamental freedoms; the free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital.
As the Commission rightly observed, the fixing of limits in relation to the alcohol content of beverages may lead to the standardization of products placed on the market and of their designations, in the interests of a greater transparency of commercial transactions and offers for sale to the public.
Consequently, the first question should be answered to the effect that the concept of "measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports" contained in Article 30 of the Treaty is to be understood to mean that the fixing of a minimum alcohol content for alcoholic beverages intended for human consumption by the legislation of a member state also falls within the prohibition laid down in that provision where the importation of alcoholic beverages lawfully produced and marketed in another member state is concerned.
Furthermore, according to the German government, to allow alcoholic products into free circulation wherever, as regards their alcohol content, they comply with the rules laid down in the country of production would have the effect of imposing as a common standard within the community the lowest alcohol content permitted in any of the member states, and even of rendering any requirements in this field inoperative since a lower limit of this nature is foreign to the rules of several member states.
However, it admitted that certain obstacles in trade between EU member states were acceptable where they were justified by certain public policy needs, such as health, safety and defence of the consumer.
However, this line of argument cannot be taken so far as to regard the mandatory fixing of minimum alcohol contents as being an essential guarantee of the fairness of commercial transactions, since it is a simple matter to ensure that suitable information is conveyed to the purchaser by requiring the display of an indication of origin and of the alcohol content on the packaging of products.Cassis de Dijon case.
Cassis is a French liqueur with an alcohol level of 16%. Germany would not allow it to be sold as “liqueur” under German law, which states that the minimum percentage of alcohol should be 25%. The Cassis de Dijon judgement is a famous example of a decision issued by the European Court of Justice that set out a new legal framework for the achievement of the internal market.
It all started in Germany when a trader was refused permission to import a batch of liqueur into the country because the strength of alcohol was inadequate for. Schellenberg Wittmer is one of the leading business law firms in Switzerland.
Over lawyers in Zurich and Geneva provide comprehensive legal services to domestic and international clients in all aspects of business law. Introduction of the "Cassis de Dijon" principle in Switzerland.
October On 1 July the "Cassis de Dijon. “Without the Cassis de Dijon decision, the EU internal market would never have become a reality”. Discuss this proposition. To fully understand and discuss the statement above, the two key things that need to be understood are what the Cassis de Dijon is and what the EU internal market is.
The Cassis De Dijon Principle Law European Essay. This paper critically examines the decision of abolishing the cassis de Dijon principle from the Article 34 TFEU. EUR-Lex Access to European Union law.
Quick search: insert free text, CELEX number or descriptors. Use "" for exact matches. (IT) Painter, A.A.: Cassis de Dijon Digested, Business Law Review p (EN) Barents, R.: Annotaties Hof van Justitie EG (Ed.
W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink - Zwolle) p SUCH AS ' ' CASSIS DE DIJON.Download