This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document E2004J0004
Judgment of the Court of 25 February 2005 in Case E-4/04 Pedicel AS and Sosial- og helsedirektoratet (Directorate for Health and Social Affairs) (Free movement of goods and services — prohibition against alcohol advertisement — trade in wine — Articles 8(3) and 18 EEA — other technical barriers to trade — advertisement of wine — restriction — protection of public health — principle of proportionality — applicability of the precautionary principle)
Judgment of the Court of 25 February 2005 in Case E-4/04 Pedicel AS and Sosial- og helsedirektoratet (Directorate for Health and Social Affairs) (Free movement of goods and services — prohibition against alcohol advertisement — trade in wine — Articles 8(3) and 18 EEA — other technical barriers to trade — advertisement of wine — restriction — protection of public health — principle of proportionality — applicability of the precautionary principle)
Judgment of the Court of 25 February 2005 in Case E-4/04 Pedicel AS and Sosial- og helsedirektoratet (Directorate for Health and Social Affairs) (Free movement of goods and services — prohibition against alcohol advertisement — trade in wine — Articles 8(3) and 18 EEA — other technical barriers to trade — advertisement of wine — restriction — protection of public health — principle of proportionality — applicability of the precautionary principle)
OB C 45, 23.2.2006 , p. 13–13
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
23.2.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 45/13 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 25 February 2005
in Case E-4/04 Pedicel AS and Sosial- og helsedirektoratet (Directorate for Health and Social Affairs)
(Free movement of goods and services — prohibition against alcohol advertisement — trade in wine — Articles 8(3) and 18 EEA — ‘other technical barriers to trade’ — advertisement of wine — restriction — protection of public health — principle of proportionality — applicability of the precautionary principle)
(2006/C 45/09)
In Case E-4/04 between Pedicel AS and Sosial- og helsedirektoratet — REQUEST to the Court by Markedsrådet (the Market Council), on the interpretation of the rules of free movement of goods and services within the EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Tresselt and Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judges, gave judgment on 25 February 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
|
1a. |
Article 11 EEA is to be understood as not applying to trade in wine. |
|
1b. |
Article 36 EEA is to be understood as not applying to advertising services related to wine in a case such as the one at hand. |
|
2. |
A general prohibition against the advertising of alcoholic beverages such as the one laid down in Section 9-2 of the Norwegian Alcohol Act constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 11 EEA and a restriction within the meaning of Article 36 EEA, as regards alcoholic beverages falling within the scope of the EEA Agreement. |
|
3. |
Such a prohibition may be justified on grounds of the protection of public health, unless it is apparent that, in the circumstances of law and of fact which characterise the situation in the EEA Contracting Party concerned, the protection of public health against the harmful effects of alcohol can be secured by measures having less effect on intra-EEA trade. In a situation such as that at issue, the precautionary principle as recognized by the Court does not apply. |