EC Commission V Germany (Case 178/84)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Re Purity Requirements for Beer: E.C. Commission v Germany (Case 178/84) Before the Court of Justice of the European Communities ECJ (Presiding, Lord Mackenzie Stuart C.J.; Galmot, Kakouris, O'Higgins, Schockweiler PP.C.; Bosco, Koopmans, Due, Everling, Bahlmann, Joliet, Moitinho de Almeida and Rodriguez Iglesias JJ.) Sir Gordon Slynn, Advocate General. 12 March 1987 Action for A Declaration under Article 169 EEC. Imports. Manufacturing standards. National legislation which lays down mandatory standards for the manufacture of a product (in casu, beer) in that member-State does not in itself constitute a measure of equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports under Article 30 EEC. [24] Imports. Consumer protection. Labelling. Trade descriptions. Consumer expectations in a member-State with regard to a given trade description should not be given any significant weight if a national legislative embodiment of that expectation has a restrictive effect on imports of the same type of product from other member-States. [32] Imports. Trade descriptions. The term 'Bier' and its equivalents in other member-States are generic designations for a fermented beverage manufactured from malted barley with or without the addition of rice or maize. The term may not, therefore, be limited by national legislation to a more restrictive definition. [34] Imports. Trade descriptions. Consumer protection. Labelling. Where a product is of ambiguous quality to the consumers in a particular member-State and that State has imposed specific quality standards for domestic manufacturers, it may not deny the generic description to such products imported from other member-States which do not comply with its standards, but it may require non-conforming products to be labelled giving the nature of the product sold by indicating the raw materials utilised in its manufacture. Such a system of mandatory consumer information must not, however, entail negative *781 assessments for imported products not complying with the domestic standards. [35] Imports. Food. Additives. The prohibition on the marketing in a member-State of a foodstuff imported from other member-States and containing additives which are prohibited indiscriminately for domestic and foreign production alike nevertheless constitutes an import restriction caught by Article 30 EEC and can only be saved through Article 36. [40] Imports. Food. Additives. Where a member-State prohibits the marketing of a beverage (in casu, beer) if it contains additives but allows such additives in other beverages which have lower national consumption, there is not sufficient health justification under Article 36 EEC to overcome the prohibition on import restrictions under Article 30. [49] Import restrictions. Exceptions. Proportionality. Food. Additives. Where a member-State lays down strict quality controls on a foodstuff (in casu, beer) and prohibits the use of additives, within its lawful powers to regulate domestic manufacture and marketing, nevertheless their application to goods imported from another member-State where such additives are permitted may be disallowed if there can be shown a technological need for the foreign manufacturers to incorporate the additives. For the importing country to counter such an argument by stating, correctly, that if the foreign manufacturer used the manufacturing techniques of the importing country there would be no need for the additives is a means of favouring the domestic production methods and thus a disguised means of restricting trade between member-States, contrary to Article 36(2) EEC. The concept of technological need must be assessed in the light of the raw materials utilised and bearing in mind the assessment made by the authorities of the member-State where the imported product was lawfully manufactured and marketed. Account must also be taken of the findings of international scientific research, particularly the work of the EEC's Scientific Committee for Food, the FAO's Codex Alimentarius Committee and the World Health Organisation. [51]-[52] The German food purity laws lay down stringent rules on the permitted ingredients for beer and the prohibition of all additives. Imported beers which use other ingredients but no additives may be sold but may not use the description 'beer'; if they contain additives they are not allowed to be sold. The Court held that the term 'beer' in its various language forms could not be denied to foreign beers which did not meet the German purity standards and that the blanket ban on all EEC beers which contained additives *782 was an unlawful restriction on imports under Article 30 EEC and not saved by Article 36. Representation René-Christian Béraud, Principal Legal Adviser to the E.C. Commission, and Jörn Sack, of the Legal Department of the E.C. Commission, for the applicant Commission. Martin Seidel, Principal at the Ministry of Economic Affairs, J. Dietrich, Principal at the Ministry of Youth, Family Affairs and Health, and Rudd Lukes, Professor of Law at the University of Münster, for the defendant State. The following cases were not referred to in the judgment: 1. Procureur du Roi v. Dassonville (8/74), 11 July 1974: [1974] E.C.R. 837, [1974] 2 C.M.L.R. 436. Gaz:8/74 2. Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (120/78), 20 February 1979: [1979] E.C.R. 649, [1979] 3 C.M.L.R. 494. Gaz:120/78 3. Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v. de Smedt PVBA (261/81), 10 November 1982: [1982] E.C.R. 3961, [1983] 2 C.M.L.R. 496. Gaz:261/81 4. Re Excise Duties on Wine: E.C. Commission v. United Kingdom (170/78), 27 February 1980: [1980] E.C.R. 417, [1980] 1 C.M.L.R. 716. Gaz:170/78 5. E.C. Commission v. Italy (193/80), 9 December 1981: [1981] E.C.R. 3019. Gaz:193/80 6. Officier Van Justitie v. Sandoz BV (174/82), 14 July 1983: [1983] E.C.R. 2445, [1984] 3 C.M.L.R. 43. Gaz:174/82 7. The State v. Motte (247/84), 10 December 1985: [1985] E.C.R. 3887, [1987] 1 C.M.L.R. 663. Gaz:247/84 8. Ministere Public v. Muller and Kampffmeyer-France Sàrl (304/84), 6 May 1986: [1987] 2 C.M.L.R. 469. Gaz:304/84 The following further cases were referred to by the Advocate General: 9. Re Drawback on Italian Machine Parts: EEC Commission v. Italy (45/64), 1 December 1965: [1965] E.C.R. 857, [1966] C.M.L.R. 97. Gaz:45/64 10. Re Electrical Energy Meters: E.C. Commission v. Denmark (211/81), 15 December 1982: [1982] E.C.R. 4547, [1984] 1 C.M.L.R. 278. Gaz:211/81 11. Re Restriction on Imports of Lamb: E.C. Commission v. France (232/78), 25 September 1979: [1979] E.C.R. 2729, [1980] 1 C.M.L.R. 418. Gaz:232/78 12. Re Ultra Heat Treated Milk: E.C. Commission v. United Kingdom (124/81), 8 February 1983: [1983] E.C.R. 203, [1983] 2 C.M.L.R. 1. Gaz:124/81 *783 13. Re the Electrical Equipment Directive 1973: E.C. Commission v. Italy (123/76), 14 July 1977: [1977] E.C.R. 1449, [1978] 3 C.M.L.R. 460. Gaz:123/76 14. Re German Sparkling Wines and Brandies: E.C. Commission v. Germany (12/74), 20 February 1974: [1975] E.C.R. 181, [1975] 1 C.M.L.R. 340. Gaz:12/74 15. E.C. Commission v. Italy (193/80), 9 December 1981: [1981] E.C.R. 3019. Gaz:193/80 16. Fietje (27/80), 16 December 1980: [1980] E.C.R. 3839, [1981] 3 C.M.L.R. 722. Gaz:27/80 17. Miro BV (182/84), 26 November 1985: [1985] E.C.R. 3731, [1986] 3 C.M.L.R. 545. Gaz:182/84 18. Officier Van Justitie v. Van Bennekom (227/82), 30 November 1983: [1983] E.C.R. 3883, [1985] 2 C.M.L.R. 692. Gaz:227/82 19. Frans-Nederlandse Maatschappij voor Biologische Producten BV (272/80), 17 December 1981: [1981] E.C.R. 3277, [1982] 2 C.M.L.R. 497. Gaz:272/80 20. Officier Van Justitie v. Koninklijke Kaasfabriek Eyssen BV (53/80), 5 February 1981: [1981] E.C.R. 409, [1982] 2 C.M.L.R. 20. Gaz:53/80 21. C.M.C. Melkunie BV (97/83), 6 June 1984: [1984] E.C.R. 2367, [1986] 2 C.M.L.R. 318. Gaz:97/83 22. Albert Heijn BV (94/83), 19 September 1984: [1984] E.C.R. 3263. Gaz:94/83 23. Ministere Public v. Mirepoix (54/85), 13 March 1986: [1987] 2 C.M.L.R. 44. Gaz:54/85 TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET FORTH AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE Opinion of the Advocate General (Sir Gordon Slynn) In these proceedings the Commission asks the Court to declare that the Federal Republic of Germany hs failed in its obligations under Article 30 EEC by prohibiting the marketing of beer lawfully produced and marketed in another member-State unless that beer complies with sections 9 and 10 of the German Act relating to duty chargeable on beer (Biersteuergesetz, 'BSG'). Leaving aside the question as to which legislation brings it about, there is no doubt about the fact that most beers produced in all but one other member- State, Greece, cannot lawfully be imported and sold in Germany as beer. It is only, in effect, if they are produced specially to comply with German legislation that such beers can be sold, as in proportionately small, even if increasing, quantities they *784 now are. For the Commission the issue is thus an important one in the context of the task of establishing a common market, and in particular of Article 30.