5.The United Kingdom also refers to the judgment of the Court in Case 120/78 “Cassis de Dijon” where it was held that in the absence of common rules relating to the production and marketing of alcohol it was for the Member States to regulate all matters relating thereto provided that where the national law operated as an obstacle to movement within the Community that law had to be justified on a ground of general interest such as the protection of public health.In the submission of the United Kingdom, the Belgian Law of 29 August 1919 falls within the prohibition laid down in Article 30 of the EEC Treaty. The ban on the sale of drinks which have an alcoholic content of more than 22o has the effect of reducing their potential sales. Belgium is moreover a maįor producer of beer but not an important producer of spirits. The Law thus favours products of which there is a substantial local production. It impedes competition from imported products and has an adverse effect on intra-Community trade.The United Kingdom also considers that the measures provided for by the Belgian Law involve discrimination against spirit producers in other Member States whose internationally established brands are impeded from entering the Belgian market, whereas local producers can easily adapt themselves to the law of their own country by producing spirits for their domestic market below 22' , and in practice have done so.The United Kingdom maintains that the tests laid down by the Court in a number of recent cases and reaffirmed in its judgment in Case 113/80 Commission v Ireland have established that the maintenance of the Belgian Law can be justified only if the Law is necessary in order to satisfy mandatory requirements relating (for present purposes) to the protection of public health.It submits that the Belgian Law is not capable of such justification in the absence of medical evidence to demonstrate that:— The consumption of a given quantity of alcohol in the form of spirit of a strength of over 22o is more damaging to health than the consumption of the same quantity of alcohol consumed in a more diluted form in products of a strength below 22o by volume;— The availability for consumption in public places of spirits above 22would facilitate or encourage the consumption of a greater total quantity of alcohol than alcoholic beverages of lower alcoholic strength;— Consumption in public places of spirits above 22o would be more harmful to public health than the consumption of such drinks in premises at present permitted by the law.Finally, it is necessary to inquire whether the disputed Law has been diverted from its proper purpose and is being used in such a way as either to create discrimination in respect of goods originating in other Member States or indirectly to protect certain national products (Case 34/79 Regina v Henn and Darby, paragraph 21 of the judgment).
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.