Master's Program 2004/2005 Technical and Fiscal Barriers ... - Lexnet

61998J0405 European Court reports 2001 Page I-01795 4
Treaty seemed necessary. It therefore decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to
the Court for a preliminary ruling:
1. Is Article 30 or Article 59 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as precluding national legislation entailing
a general prohibition of alcohol advertising, such as the prohibition laid down in Article 2 of
Alkoholreklamlagen?
2. If so, can such a prohibition be regarded as justified and proportionate for the protection of life and
health of humans?
12 The Consumer Ombudsman lodged an appeal against the order for reference before the
Marknadsdomstolen, Sweden, which dismissed the appeal by decision of 11 March 1999.
Free movement of goods
13 By the questions referred to the Court, which can be considered together, the national court is asking
essentially, first, whether the provisions of the Treaty on the free movement of goods preclude a
prohibition on advertisements for alcoholic beverages such as that laid down in Article 2 of the
Alkoholreklamlagen.
14 The Consumer Ombudsman and the intervening Governments accept that the prohibition on advertising
in Sweden affects sales of alcoholic beverages there, including those imported from other Member States,
since the specific purpose of the Swedish legislation is to reduce the consumption of alcohol.
15 However, observing that the Court held in paragraph 16 of its judgment in Joined Cases C-267/91 and
C-268/91 Keck and Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097 that national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain
selling arrangements are not liable to hinder intra-Community trade, so long as they apply to all relevant
traders operating within the national territory and so long as they affect in the same manner, in law and in
fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States, the Consumer
Ombudsman and the intervening Governments contend that the prohibition on advertising in issue in the
main proceedings does not constitute an obstacle to trade between Member States, since it satisfies the
criteria laid down by the Court in that judgment.
16 GIP contends that an outright prohibition such as that at issue in the main proceedings does not satisfy
those criteria. It argues that such a prohibition is, in particular, liable to have a greater effect on imported
goods than on those produced in the Member State concerned.
17 Although the Commission takes the view that the decision as to whether, on the facts of the case, the
prohibition does or does not constitute an obstacle to intra-Community trade is a matter for the national
court, the Commission expresses similar doubts as to the application in the present case of the criteria
referred to in paragraph 15 above.
18 It should be pointed out that, according to paragraph 17 of its judgment in Keck and Mithouard, if
national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements are to avoid being caught by
Article 30 of the Treaty, they must not be of such a kind as to prevent access to the market by products
from another Member State or to impede access any more than they impede the access of domestic
products.
19 The Court has also held, in paragraph 42 of its judgment in Joined Cases C-34/95 to C-36/95 De
Agostini and TV-Shop [1997] ECR I-3843, that it cannot be excluded that an outright prohibition,
applying in one Member State, of a type of promotion for a product which is lawfully sold there might
have a greater impact on products from other Member States.
20 It is apparent that a prohibition on advertising such as that at issue in the main proceedings not only
prohibits a form of marketing a product but in reality prohibits producers and importers from directing any
advertising messages at consumers, with a few insignificant exceptions.
© An extract from a JUSTIS database
98