Deutsches Weintor eG v Land Rheinland-Pfalz

Last updated
Deutsches Weintor eG v Land Rheinland-Pfalz
Gugelhopf Riesling.jpg
Court European Court of Justice
Citation(s)(2012) C-544/10
Keywords
Human rights

Deutsches Weintor eG v Land Rheinland-Pfalz (2012) C-544/10 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of services in the European Union.

Contents

Facts

The Rheinland-Pfalz food regulator claimed that a wine cooperative in Ilbesheim bei Landau in der Pfalz should not describe its wine as ‘easily digestible’ (‘bekömmlich’), accompanied by a reference to the wine's reduced acidity level, because that was a ‘health claim’ under Regulation No 1924/2006 art 2(2)(5), and should therefore not be allowed generally for alcoholic beverages. Deutsches Weintor argued they were making a claim of general well-being, not health.

The Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) referred to the CJEU, suggesting that ‘easily digestible’ was not a health claim, but a comparative claim about the effect of the wine compared to others, and asked what the status might be regarding CFREU articles 15 and 16 (freedom to choose an occupation and run a business).

Judgment

The Court of Justice, Third Chamber held that the concept of a ‘health claim’ did also cover terms such as ‘easily digestible’. One had to regard, not just CFREU articles 15 and 16 but also article 35 on a high level of health protection.

48 As regards, first of all, the protection of health, it must be pointed out that in view of the risks of addiction and abuse as well as the complex harmful effects known to be linked to the consumption of alcohol, in particular the development of serious diseases, alcoholic beverages represent a special category of foods that is subject to particularly strict regulation.

49 In that regard, the Court has already recognised on several occasions that measures restricting the advertising of alcoholic beverages in order to combat alcohol abuse reflect public health concerns and that the protection of public health constitutes, as follows also from Article 9 TFEU, an objective of general interest justifying, where appropriate, a restriction of a fundamental freedom (see, to that effect, Case 152/78 Commission v France [1980] ECR 2299, paragraph 17; Joined Cases C‑1/90 and C‑176/90 Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior and Publivía [1991] ECR I‑4151, paragraph 15; Case C‑262/02 Commission v France [2004] ECR I‑6569, paragraph 30; and Case C‑429/02 Bacardi France [2004] ECR I‑6613, paragraph 37).

50 Furthermore, while it is apparent from Article 3(a) of Regulation No 1924/2006 that nutrition and health claims in general must not be false, ambiguous or misleading, that requirement applies all the more with regard to alcoholic beverages. It is essential that all claims in relation to such beverages are entirely unambiguous, so that consumers are in a position to regulate their consumption while taking into account all the inherent dangers associated with such consumption, and in so doing to protect their health effectively.

51 However, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, even if the claim at issue can be regarded as being substantively inherently correct in that it indicates reduced acidity levels, the fact remains that it is incomplete. The claim highlights a certain quality that facilitates digestion, but is silent as to the fact that, regardless of a sound digestion, the dangers inherent in the consumption of alcoholic beverages are not in any way removed, or even limited.

52 Thus, the European Union legislature was fully entitled to take the view that claims such as that at issue in the main proceedings are ambiguous or even misleading where they relate to an alcoholic beverage. By highlighting only the easy digestion of the wine concerned, the claim at issue is likely to encourage its consumption and, ultimately, to increase the risks for consumers’ health inherent in the immoderate consumption of any alcoholic beverage. Consequently, the prohibition of such claims is warranted in the light of the requirement to ensure a high level of health protection for consumers.

53 Having regard to the foregoing, the total prohibition of any claim of the kind at issue in the main proceedings may be regarded as being necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements that stem from Article 35 of the Charter.

54 As regards, secondly, the freedom to choose an occupation and the freedom to conduct a business, it must be borne in mind that, according to the case‑law of the Court, the freedom to pursue a trade or profession, like the right to property, is not an absolute right but must be considered in relation to its social function (see, to that effect, Case C‑210/03 Swedish Match [2004] ECR I‑11893, paragraph 72). Consequently, restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of those freedoms, provided that those restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the European Union and do not constitute, with regard to the aim pursued, a disproportionate and intolerable interference, impairing the very substance of those rights (Case C‑22/94 Irish Farmers Association and Others [1997] ECR I‑1809, paragraph 27, and Joined Cases C‑20/00 and C‑64/00 Booker Aquaculture and Hydro Seafood [2003] ECR I‑7411, paragraph 68).

55 So far as those objectives are concerned, it follows from paragraphs 48 to 53 of the present judgment that the legislation at issue is designed to protect health, which is an objective recognised by Article 35 of the Charter.

56 As regards compliance with the principle of proportionality, while it is true that the prohibition of the claims at issue imposes certain restrictions on the professional activity of the economic operators concerned in one specific respect, compliance with those freedoms is nevertheless assured in the essential respects.

57 Far from prohibiting the production and marketing of alcoholic beverages, the legislation at issue merely controls, in a very clearly defined area, the associated labelling and advertising.

58 Thus, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, the prohibition at issue does not in any way affect the actual substance of the freedom to choose an occupation or of the freedom to conduct a business.

See also

Notes

    Related Research Articles

    Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd (2003) C-167/01 is a leading corporate law case, concerning the EU law of freedom of establishment for companies.

    Rewe-Zentral v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (1979) Case C-120/78, popularly known as Cassis de Dijon after its subject matter, is an EU law decision of the European Court of Justice. The Court held that a regulation applying to both imported and to domestic goods that produces an effect equivalent to a quantitative import restriction is an unlawful restriction on the free movement of goods. The case is a seminal judicial interpretation of article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In the same ruling, the Court established the so-called rule of reason, allowing non-discriminatory restrictive measures to be justified on grounds other than those listed in article 36 TFEU.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Alcohol law</span> Law pertaining to alcoholic beverages

    Alcohol laws are laws in relation to the manufacture, use, being under the influence of and sale of alcohol or alcoholic beverages that contains ethanol. Common alcoholic beverages include beer, wine, (hard) cider, and distilled spirits. The United States defines an alcoholic beverage as "any beverage in liquid form which contains not less than one-half of one percent of alcohol by volume", but this definition varies internationally. These laws can restrict those who can produce alcohol, those who can buy it, when one can buy it, labelling and advertising, the types of alcoholic beverage that can be sold, where one can consume it, what activities are prohibited while intoxicated., and where one can buy it. In some cases, laws have even prohibited the use and sale of alcohol entirely, as with Prohibition in the United States from 1920 to 1933.

    <i>International Transport Workers Federation v Viking Line ABP</i>

    The Rosella or International Transport Workers Federation v Viking Line ABP (2007) C-438/05 is an EU law case, relevant to all labour law within the European Union, including UK labour law, which held that there is a positive right to strike. However, it also held that the right to strike could infringe a business's freedom of establishment under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union article 49. The decision has been criticised for the Court's inarticulate line of reasoning, and its disregard of fundamental human rights.

    <i>T-Mobile Netherlands BV v Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit</i>

    T-Mobile Netherlands BV v Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit (2009) C-8/08 is an EU competition law case, concerning the requirements for finding that firms have colluded with the "object" of harming competition.

    <i>O2 (Germany) GmbH & Co OHG v Commission</i>

    O2 (Germany) GmbH & Co OHG v Commission (2006) T-328/03 is an EU competition law case, concerning the requirements for a restriction of competition to be found under TFEU article 101.

    Banco Español de Crédito SA v Camino (2012) Case C-618/10 is a case relevant for European contract law concerning the scope of consumer protection in the Unfair Terms Directive under EU law.

    Konsumentombudsmannen v Gourmet AB (2001) C-405/98 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of goods in the European Union.

    <i>Commission v Italy</i> (C-110/05)

    Commission v Italy (2009) C-110/05 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of goods in the European Union. This case is commonly referred to as 'Italian Trailers', and is predominantly known for establishing the 'market access test'.

    Deutscher Apothekerverband v 0800 DocMorris NV (2003) C-322/01 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of goods in the European Union.

    <i>Geraets-Smits v Stichting Ziekenfonds</i>

    Geraets-Smits v Stichting Ziekenfonds and Peerbooms v Stichting CZ Groep Zorgverzekeringen (2001) C-157/99 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of services in the European Union.

    <i>Josemans v Burgemeester van Maastricht</i>

    Josemansv Burgemeester van Maastricht is a European Union law case from 2010, concerning cannabis and the free movement of services in the European Union. The Second Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union pronounced its ruling on 16 December 2010.

    <i>Alpine Investments BV v Minister van Financiën</i>

    Alpine Investments BV v Minister van Financiën (1995) C-384/93 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of services in the European Union.

    <i>Omega Spielhallen und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn</i>

    Omega Spielhallen und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn (2004) C-36/02 is an EU law case, concerning the freedom to provide services and the free movement of goods in the European Union.

    <i>Liga Portuguesa de Futebol v Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa</i>

    Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional and Bwin International Ltd v Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (2009) C‑42/07 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of services in the European Union.

    Albany International BV v Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie (1999) C-67/96 is an EU law case, concerning the boundary between European labour law and European competition law in the European Union.

    Weigel v Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg (2004) C-387/01 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of workers in the European Union.

    <i>Netherlands v Essent NV</i>

    Netherlands v Essent NV (2013) C‑105/12 is an EU law case relevant for UK enterprise law on electricity generation governance.

    <i>R (Vodafone Ltd) v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform</i>

    R v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (2010) C-58/08 is an EU law case relevant for UK enterprise law, concerning telecommunications.

    <i>Ker-Optika bt v ÀNTSZ Dél- dunántúli Regionális Intézete</i> European Union law case

    Ker-Optika bt v ÀNTSZ Dél-dunántúli Regionális Intézete [2010] ECR, Case C-108/09 is an EU law case concerning a conflict of law between Hungarian national legislation and European Union law. The Hungarian legislation regarding the online sale of contact lenses was considered with regards to whether it was necessary for the protection of public health, and it was concluded that this could have been done by less restrictive measures. Despite the internal measure in this case being categorised as a selling arrangement, which would generally be determined by the discrimination test established in Keck, the Court went on to use a market access test, as per Italian Trailers. Thus, this case is crucial in the recent development of the tests for determining measures equaling equivalent effect.

    References