2.The appellant points out that the Belgian Law on the distribution and consumption of alcohol is singularly restrictive in comparison with the rules in force in other countries of the Community. He observes that only Belgium has adopted and maintained since 1919 a system totally prohibiting the consumption of spirits in places open to the public and allowing the purchase for consumption in private of not less than two litres at a time of spirits not complving with the descriptions in the Vande'rvelde Law of 22 August 1919.He alleges that the effect of applying the system on the domestic market has been the reduction of the consumption of spirits, the virtual disappearance of distilleries and the development of a very large national brewing industry.In the appellant's view the effect of the restrictive measures on intra-Community trade may be described as appreciable by reason of the protection conferred on the Belgian brewing industry which to a large extent is safe against competition from foreign spirits in the share of the market in alcohol in general.The Belgian legislation is accordingly incompatible with Article 30 of the EEC Treaty since the prohibitions laid down by the Law of 1919 are likely to affect imports of spirits from other Member States of the Community and thereby constitute a measure having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions according to the case-law of the Court in the judgment of 5 February 1981 in Case 53/80 Koninklijke Kaas/abriek Eyssen BV [1981] ECR 409, paragraph 11.The incompatibility with Community law of the provisions of the Belgian Law of 29 August 1919 can be avoided only by recourse to Article 36 of the EEC Treaty in so far as that provides that obstacles to intra-Community trade may be justified, as far as is relevant to the questions put to the Court by the Belgian Cour de Cassation on grounds of “the protection of health and life of humans”.In the appellant's view the Belgian legislation in question cannot be justified on that ground pursuant to Article 36 of the EEC Treaty. The benefit of the exception to the provisions of Article 30 provided for in Article 36 of the EEC Treaty is applicable only to the adoption of national provisions on grounds of the protection of the health and life of humans today.On the other hand the Belgian legislation in question owed its origin and justification only to grounds which have ceased to apply.The appellant observes in that respect that when the Belgian Law of 1919 was adopted it was necessary to deal with certain economic and social conditions which have ceased to exist today by counteracting certain forms of dangers created by alcohol and thus to ensure the protection of the health and wellbeing of families, wives and children.The reasons which were behind the adoption of the Law at the time are different from those contained in the order making the reference which mentions mainly combating “alcoholism in general” and in particular “its association with crime” which “is more serious owing to the traffic on the roads”.In the appellant's view the kinds of danger caused by alcohol are today statistically and sociologically identical in all countries and in particular the countries of the Community whether from the point of view of human physiology, public safety by reason of the risks of road accidents or by reason of criminal associations.Consequently what is universally valid for all the other countries of the Community cannot provide reasons for one of them alone justifying the adoption or maintenance of provisions contrary to Article 30 of the EEC Treaty on the basis of Article 36 thereof.Neither the special circumstances at the time when the Law in question was adopted in Belgium nor the social and human context of Belgium today make it lawful therefore to have national rules relating to spirits which are so restrictive in relation to the rules of other Member Slates. The universality of the actual conditions relating to the consumption of alcohol in the Community makes disparity between the Belgian national legislation and the laws of othercountries of the Community singular and unacceptable.Moreover, the appellant in the main proceedings observes in the alternative that the Belgian rules are contran' to the principle of proportionality according to which where a choice is possible between several courses of action to tackle a social problem which is of the same nature throughout the Community the remedy least obstructing trade such as the licensing system should be adopted.Since it cannot come within the exceptions of Article 36, the Belgian legislation on spirits falls under the prohibition in Article 30 of the EEC Treaty.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.