Cassis de Dijon decision

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Crème de Cassis

The Cassis-de-Dijon decision is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) of February 20, 1979 in Case 120/78, Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolyverwaltung für Brandwein. The Cassis de Dijon principle , derived from this, states that, in principle, all products that have been lawfully marketed in one EU member state can also be sold in all other member states. According to the ruling, a member state may only restrict the free movement of goods in the EU for very specific reasons in the public interest: in particular for tax control, to protect public health, to protect the fairness of trade and for reasons of consumer protection .

facts

The Cologne trading group Rewe-Zentral AG wanted to import the so-called Cassis from Dijon ( France ) to Germany . These currant - liqueur the company wanted to sell their food markets. However, the Federal Monopoly Administration for spirits forbade Rewe from selling the goods from France, as the alleged liqueur with its alcohol content of 15 to 20% by volume did not correspond to the 25% by volume alcohol content required by the German Spirits Monopoly Act for liqueurs.

Rewe then brought an action against the Federal Monopoly Administration for Spirits and asserted, among other things, that the German regulation, as a measure that is equivalent to a quantitative import restriction in effect, is incompatible with the free movement of goods under Article 34 TFEU (formerly Article 30 EEC ). The Hessian Finance Court dealing with the matter then submitted the legal dispute to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling .

decision

The ECJ has ruled that barriers to trade between the member states, which result from differences in the national regulations on the marketing of the products concerned, must be accepted as a matter of principle, provided that these regulations are necessary to meet mandatory requirements. The Court of Justice saw imperative requirements in this sense in particular in the requirements of effective tax control, the protection of public health, the fairness of trade and consumer protection.

For the challenged provision of the German Spirits Monopoly Act, however, the Court was unable to identify such mandatory requirements. Consequently, the Court of Justice held the German provision to be incompatible with the European free movement of goods .

meaning

The decision is based on Art. 34 TFEU [formerly Art. 28 EGV (formerly Art. 30 EWGV)] and has set standards for the interpretation of this provision. Art. 34 TFEU regulates the so-called free movement of goods and reads as follows:

"Quantitative import restrictions and all measures having equivalent effect are prohibited between the Member States."

In the Dassonville ruling , which is also fundamental , the Court of Justice had already interpreted the term "measures having equivalent effect" very broadly and included every trade regulation of a Member State,

"Which is suitable to directly or indirectly, actually or potentially hinder intra-Community trade."

- So-called Dassonville formula

The Cassis de Dijon decision initially consistently continues this case law by classifying , for the first time, a trade regulation that applies indiscriminately to foreign and domestic products as a measure of equivalent effect.

At the same time, however, the decision limits the concept of the prohibited “measures having equivalent effect” - and in this respect withdraws the extensive Dassonville formula - to those Member State regulations that

"Are not necessary to meet the imperative requirements of the common good."

- So-called cassis formula

In addition to the Dassonville decision, the Cassis-de-Dijon judgment is therefore one of the fundamental, landmark decisions of the Court of Justice on the interpretation of the European free movement of goods. Basically, the Cassis-de-Dijon principle, with the implied mutual recognition of regulations that are equivalent but differently structured, corresponds to market opening and liberal action.

The Cassis-de-Dijon judgment was followed by further judgments of the ECJ against violations in connection with the free movement of goods, such as the beer judgment , which forbids Germany to refrain from importing beers from the EC that are not comply with the German purity law .

Application in Switzerland

In order to combat the problem of high consumer prices in Switzerland, Federal Councilor Doris Leuthard proposed in 2006 that the Cassis-de-Dijon principle should also be applied to goods imports into Switzerland. As a result, products approved in the EU would automatically also be approved in Switzerland, thereby reducing trade barriers. This is intended to lower the price level in Switzerland, which is around twenty percent higher than in neighboring countries.

However, the Federal Council first wanted to sound out what effects a free trade agreement with the EU would have on the federal budget. Accompanying measures are planned to cushion the effects of liberalization. This includes exit aid and compensation payments to farmers. At the end of June 2008, Federal Councilor Doris Leuthard presented the message to parliament on the revision of the federal law on technical barriers to trade. If products are approved in the EU, they should also be allowed to be freely marketed in Switzerland in future. There are only 19 exceptions. After the introduction of the Cassis de Dijon principle, only 19 instead of 52 percent of imports would be hindered by market access restrictions. The Federal Council expects annual savings of two billion francs. This measure has been criticized, however, as the savings would ultimately lead to a reduction in domestic production, which ultimately shifts the savings to the detriment of the unemployment funds and reduced tax revenues.

On April 29, 2009, the National Council passed 95 votes to 73 on the unilateral adoption of the Cassis de Dijon principle by Switzerland as proposed by the Federal Council. H. the approval of the import of products according to European standards into Switzerland and the approval of these standards for production in Switzerland. Prior approval from the Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office is required to apply the principle to food . The majority of the votes in favor of the Social Democrats , the CVP and the Liberal Liberals , who argued that the law would strengthen purchasing power and relieve the Swiss economy. Against this were the Greens and the SVP , who argued that world products would drive Swiss products off the market and that products would be allowed in Switzerland that were produced under poor conditions. An announced referendum by the farmers, the Greens and the SVP did not take place because they could not collect the 50,000 signatures they needed. The law to facilitate EU imports into Switzerland therefore came into force on July 1, 2010.

A year later, the media reported that the Cassis de Dijon principle had not yet fulfilled the expectations placed in it. The Swiss domestic market has not changed and the principle has not had any impact, particularly in the food sector. As of May 2012, a total of 94 applications for food had been submitted, of which thirty were approved and five were pending.

See also

literature

  • Kai Purnhagen: The Virtue of Cassis de Dijon 25 years later - It is not Dead, it Just Smells Funny. In: Varieties of European Economic Law and Regulation , ed. Kai Purnhagen, Peter Rott , New York, Heidelberg, Dordrecht a. a. (Springer) 2014, 315–342, ISBN 978-3-319-04902-1 , preliminary version available as working paper:
  • Thomas Cottier , Rachel Liechti-Mc Kee (eds.): Switzerland and Europe. Economic integration and institutional abstinence. VDF Hochschulverlag , Zurich 2009, ISBN 978-3-7281-3185-0 (p. 275 f.)

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ swissinfo.ch: Lower prices thanks to fewer trade barriers , November 29, 2006
  2. ↑ news.ch: Federal Council wants the Cassis de Dijon principle , June 26, 2008
  3. ↑ swissinfo.ch: Also the National Council for the Cassis de Dijon principle , April 29, 2009
  4. ↑ drs.ch: Green light for Cassis de Dijon principle , 29. April 2009
  5. ↑ nachrichten.ch: Farmers bring a referendum against the Cassis de Dijon principle , June 23, 2009
  6. ^ Nzz.ch: Referendum against Cassis-de-Dijon failed , October 1, 2009
  7. ↑ nzz.ch: Easier EU imports , May 20, 2010.
  8. ^ SECO : Legal basis for the application of the Cassis-de-Dijon principle in Switzerland
  9. ↑ David Vonplon: Cassis-de-Dijon hardly brought anything , Der Bund , May 7, 2011
  10. ↑ NZZ Online : Modest interest in “Cassis de Dijon” , May 22, 2012
  11. ↑ SSRN : [1] , September 28, 2014