Master's Program 2004/2005 Technical and Fiscal Barriers ... - Lexnet
Master's Program 2004/2005 Technical and Fiscal Barriers ... - Lexnet
Master's Program 2004/2005 Technical and Fiscal Barriers ... - Lexnet
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
61995J0189 European Court reports 1997 Page I-05909 11<br />
the functioning of the monopoly, nevertheless have a direct bearing upon it. Those provisions must be<br />
examined with reference to Article 30 of the Treaty.<br />
68 On this point, Mr Franzén observes that the monopoly may obtain supplies only from holders of<br />
production licences or wholesale licences whose grant is subject to restrictive conditions <strong>and</strong> that such an<br />
obligation necessarily impedes imports of products from other Member States.<br />
69 According to the established case-law of the Court, all trading rules which are capable of hindering,<br />
directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade constitute measures having an effect<br />
equivalent to quantitative restrictions (judgment in Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v Dassonville [1974] ECR<br />
837, paragraph 5).<br />
70 In a national system such as that in question in the main proceedings, only holders of production<br />
licences or wholesale licences are allowed to import alcoholic beverages, that is to say traders who fulfil<br />
the restrictive conditions to which issue of those licences is subject. According to the information<br />
provided to the Court during the proceedings, the traders in question must provide sufficient personal <strong>and</strong><br />
financial guarantees to carry on the activities in question, concerning in particular their professional<br />
knowledge, their financial capacity <strong>and</strong> possession of storage capacity sufficient to meet the needs of their<br />
activities. Furthermore, the submission of an application is subject to payment of a high fixed charge<br />
(SKR 25 000), which is not reimbursed if the application is rejected. Finally, in order to keep his licence,<br />
a trader must pay an annual supervision fee, which is also high (between SKR 10 000 <strong>and</strong> SKR 323 750<br />
for the basic amounts, depending on the kinds of beverage <strong>and</strong> the quantities produced or marketed).<br />
71 The licensing system constitutes an obstacle to the importation of alcoholic beverages from other<br />
Member States in that it imposes additional costs on such beverages, such as intermediary costs, payment<br />
of charges <strong>and</strong> fees for the grant of a licence, <strong>and</strong> costs arising from the obligation to maintain storage<br />
capacity in Sweden.<br />
72 According to the Swedish Government's own evidence, the number of licences issued is low (223 in<br />
October 1996) <strong>and</strong> almost all of these licences have been issued to traders established in Sweden.<br />
73 Domestic legislation such as that in question in the main proceedings is therefore contrary to Article 30<br />
of the Treaty.<br />
74 The Swedish Government has, however, invoked Article 36 of the EC Treaty. It maintains that its<br />
legislation was justified on grounds relating to the protection of human health.<br />
75 It is indeed so that measures contrary to Article 30 may be justified on the basis of Article 36 of the<br />
Treaty. All the same, according to established case-law (Cassis de Dijon, cited above; Case C-470/93<br />
Verein gegen Unwesen in H<strong>and</strong>el und Gewebe Köln v Mars [1995] ECR I-1923, paragraph 15; Case<br />
C-368/95 Familiapress [1997] ECR I-0000, paragraph 19; <strong>and</strong> Joined Cases C-34/95, C-35/95 <strong>and</strong> C-36/95<br />
De Agostini <strong>and</strong> TV-Shop [1997] ECR I-0000, paragraph 45), the domestic provisions in question must be<br />
proportionate to the aim pursued <strong>and</strong> not attainable by measures less restrictive of intra-Community trade.<br />
76 Although the protection of human health against the harmful effects of alcohol, on which the Swedish<br />
Government relies, is indisputably one of the grounds which may justify derogation from Article 30 of the<br />
Treaty (see, to this effect, the judgment in Joined Cases C-1/90 <strong>and</strong> C-176/90 Aragonesa de Publicidad<br />
Exterior <strong>and</strong> Publivía v Departamento de Sanidad y Seguridad Social de la Generalitat de Cataluña [1991]<br />
ECR I-4151, paragraph 13), the Swedish Government has not established that the licensing system set up<br />
by the Law on Alcohol, in particular as regards the conditions relating to storage capacity <strong>and</strong> the high<br />
fees <strong>and</strong> charges which licence-holders are required to pay, was proportionate to the public health aim<br />
pursued or that this aim could not have<br />
© An extract from a JUSTIS database<br />
35