Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein
As Cassis de Dijon decision is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ( ECJ) on 20 February 1979 in Case 120/78 Rewe -Zentral AG. /. Federal Monopoly called. The derived Cassis -de- Dijon principle states generally that all the products that were produced in an EU Member State in accordance with regulations which may be sold in all other Member States. According to the ruling, a Member State may reduce the free movement of goods within the EU only for very specific, standing in the public interest reasons, restrict: Especially for fiscal supervision, the protection of public health, to protect the fairness of commercial transactions and for reasons of consumer protection.
Facts
The Cologne-based retail group Rewe -Zentral AG wanted from Dijon ( France) the so-called Cassis to Germany to import. This currant liqueur wanted the company to sell in their food markets. However, the Federal Monopoly forbade the Rewe sale of the goods from France because of alleged liqueur with its alcohol content of 15 to 20 vol % did not meet the required by the German Alcohol Monopoly Law alcohol content of 32 vol % for liqueurs.
Rewe brought an action against the Federal Monopoly, claiming, among other things, that the German legislation incompatible as a measure open to a quantitative import restriction in effect the same, with the free movement of goods under Article 30 of the Treaty (now Article 34 TFEU ) be. The court seized of the matter latter court laid the legal dispute then the ECJ for a preliminary ruling.
Decision
The ECJ has found that barriers to trade between Member States arising from disparities between national laws relating to the marketing of the affected products, must always be accepted, provided that they are necessary to satisfy mandatory requirements. Mandatory requirements in this sense has seen in particular in the requirements for effective fiscal supervision, the protection of public health, the fairness of commercial transactions and consumer protection the Court.
For the challenged provision of the German Alcohol Monopoly Law, however, the Court could not make such mandatory requirements. Consequently, the Court has held the German determination to be incompatible with the European free movement of goods.
Importance
The decision is based on Article 34 TFEU [ ex Article 28 (ex Article 30 of the Treaty ) ] and has set standards for the interpretation of this provision. Article 34 TFEU regulates the so-called free movement of goods and reads as follows:
" Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States. "
In the also basic Dassonville decision, the Court had the concept of " measures having equivalent effect " already given an extremely broad and below taken all trading rules of a Member State,
" Which is capable of hindering intra-Community trade, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially "
The Cassis de Dijon decision leads this Court initially consistently pursued by a trade regime that applies equally to foreign and domestic products, classifies as a measure having equivalent effect for the first time.
At the same time, however, the decision limits the concept of " measures having equivalent effect " - and in this respect takes back the far-reaching Dassonville formula - to such national rules, the
"Are not necessary in order to satisfy overriding requirements of the general interest justice "
In addition to the Dassonville decision the Cassis de Dijon judgment, therefore, is a fundamental, landmark decisions of the Court on the interpretation of European free movement of goods. Basically corresponds to the Cassis de Dijon principle with the implied mutual recognition of the results equivalent, but differently structured rules of market opening and liberal action.
The Cassis de Dijon judgment was followed by further judgments of the Court regarding violations in connection with the free movement of goods, such as the beer - judgment, which forbids Germany to seal against the import of beers from the EC, which do not the German purity law meet.
Application in Switzerland
To combat the problem of high consumer prices in Switzerland, made Federal Councillor Doris Leuthard 2006 proposal to apply the Cassis de Dijon principle also for the import of goods into Switzerland. This products would automatically also approved in Switzerland and thus reduced trade barriers in the EU approved. Thus, the price level in Switzerland is to be reduced, which is about 20 percent higher than in neighboring countries.
However, the Federal Council wanted to explore first the impact of a free trade agreement with the EU on the federal budget. Provided additional measures are taken, so that the effects of liberalization are to be cushioned. These include escape ramps and financial compensation to farmers. End of June 2008, presented Federal Councillor Doris Leuthard the message to the Parliament on the revision of the Federal Law on Technical Barriers to Trade. If products are approved in the EU, they should continue to be marketed freely in Switzerland. There are only 19 exceptions provided. After introduction of the Cassis -de- Dijon principle of imports of market access limitations were hampered only 19 instead of 52 percent. The Federal Council expects annual savings of 2 billion Swiss francs. This measure is, however, criticized because the savings would ultimately lead to a reduction in domestic production, which shifts the savings at the expense of unemployment funds and reduced tax revenue in the end.
On 29 April 2009, the National Council adopted with 95 votes to 73 as proposed by the Federal Council, unilateral adoption of the Cassis - de-Dijon principle by Switzerland, ie, the authorization for the import of products according to European standards in Switzerland and the approval of these standards for production in Switzerland. For the application of the principle to food a previous authorization by the Federal Office of Public Health is required. The majority with the Social Democrats voted Yes, the CVP and the Radical Liberals, who, arguing that the law strengthens the purchasing power and the Swiss economy relieves. In contrast, the Greens and the SVP, which, arguing that the world products would drive the Swiss products from the market and that this products would be allowed in Switzerland, which would be produced under bad conditions were. An announced referendum of farmers, the Greens and the SVP did not materialize, as they could not collect the required 50,000 signatures. Therefore, the Act to facilitate EU imports into Switzerland came into force on 1 July 2010.
A year later, the media reported that the Cassis de Dijon principle have not been met the targets in it expectations. The Swiss domestic market have not changed, and in particular in the food sector, the principle had shown no effect. On May 2012, a total 94 applications were submitted for food, of which 30 were approved and five were pending.