| Josemans v Burgemeester van Maastricht | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | European Court of Justice |
| Citation(s) | (2010) C-137/09, [2010] I-13019 |
| Keywords | |
| Free movement of services | |
Josemansv Burgemeester van Maastricht (case C-137/09) is a European Union law case from 2010, concerning cannabis and the free movement of services in the European Union. [1] The Second Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union pronounced its ruling on 16 December 2010.
Netherlands prohibited marketing of marijuana, but tolerated by law. Municipal legislation in Maastricht limited access to marijuana cafes to residents only. Josemans, who ran a coffee shop selling marijuana, claimed that this prohibition contravened the freedom to provide services under TFEU article 56, and that it would have to be justified. [2]
The Court of Justice, Second Chamber, held that TFEU article 56 could not be relied on to challenge municipal laws. Legislation restricting free movement of services was justified by the need to combat drug tourism.
63 In the present case, it is common ground that the rules at issue in the main proceedings are intended to put an end to the public nuisance caused by the large number of tourists wanting to purchase or consume cannabis in the coffee-shops in the municipality of Maastricht. According to the information provided by the Burgemeester van Maastricht at the hearing, the 14 coffee-shops in the municipality attract around 10 000 visitors per day and a little more than 3.9 million visitors per year, 70% of which are not resident in the Netherlands.
74 In the present case, it cannot be denied that the policy of tolerance applied by the Kingdom of the Netherlands with regard to the sale of cannabis encourages persons who are resident in other Member States to travel to that State, and more specifically to the municipalities in which coffee-shops are tolerated, in particular in border regions, in order to buy and consume that drug. Furthermore, according to the information in the case-file, some of those persons purchase cannabis in such establishments in order to export it illegally to other Member States.
75 It is indisputable that a prohibition on admitting non-residents to coffee-shops, such as that which is the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings, constitutes a measure capable of substantially limiting drug tourism and, consequently, of reducing the problems it causes.
76 In that connection, it is important to point out that the discriminatory nature of the rules at issue in the main proceedings does not, on its own, mean that the way in which they pursue the intended objective is inconsistent. Although the Court took the view in Adoui and Cornuaille that a Member State cannot validly rely on grounds of public policy with regard to the behaviour of a non-national inasmuch as it does not adopt repressive measures or other genuine and effective measures with respect to the same conduct on the part of its own nationals, the fact remains that the dispute in the main proceedings is part of a different legal context.
77 As was pointed out in paragraph 36 of this judgment, there is, under international law and European Union law, a prohibition in all the Member States on marketing narcotic drugs, with the exception of strictly controlled trade for use for medical and scientific purposes. By contrast, prostitution, the behaviour referred to in Adoui and Cornuaille, aside from trafficking in human beings, is tolerated or regulated in a number of Member States (see, to that effect, Case C-268/99 Jany and Others [2001] ECR I‑8615, paragraph 57).
78 It cannot be held to be inconsistent for a Member State to adopt appropriate measures to deal with a large influx of residents from other Member States who wish to benefit from the marketing – tolerated in that Member State – of products which are, by their very nature, prohibited in all Member States from being offered for sale.
[...]
83 In such circumstances, it must be stated that rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings are suitable for attaining the objective of combating drug tourism and the accompanying public nuisance and do not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it.
84 Having regard to all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second question is that Article 49 EC must be interpreted as meaning that rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services laid down by the EC Treaty. That restriction is, however, justified by the objective of combating drug tourism and the accompanying public nuisance.
The case has been criticised for its inconsistency on previous Court of Justice cases on illegal services. For example, De Witte writes the following. [3]
The Court’s logic in Josemans, however, presumes that only residents are allowed to act in certain ways, and, conversely, that foreign residents are bound by limits to permissible behaviour from their home State even when they are abroad. The absurdity of this “logic” becomes clear quickly if we transpose it to different policy areas. It would presume, for example, that only German residents may drive 160 km/h on the autobahn, only Spanish residents can be a matador, or only Slovak residents are allowed to smoke in a bar in Bratislava. Equally, it entails that German residents may not play lasergames in Sofia, that Irish residents may not have an abortion in Stockholm, that a Swedish tourist may not buy alcohol in an off-licence in Firenze, and that his British friend must leave the pub there at 11pm.
While recreational use, possession and trade of non-medicinal drugs described by the Opium Law are all technically illegal under Dutch law, official policy since the late 20th century has been to openly tolerate all recreational use while tolerating the other two under certain circumstances. This pragmatic approach was motivated by the idea that a drug-free Dutch society is unrealistic and unattainable, and efforts would be better spent trying to minimize harm caused by recreational drug use. As a result of this gedoogbeleid, the Netherlands is typically seen as much more tolerant of drugs than most other countries.
The prohibition of drugs through sumptuary legislation or religious law is a common means of attempting to prevent the recreational use of certain intoxicating substances.
European Union law is a system of rules operating within the member states of the European Union (EU). Since the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community following World War II, the EU has developed the aim to "promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples". The EU has political institutions, social and economic policies, which transcend nation states for the purpose of cooperation and human development. According to its Court of Justice the EU represents "a new legal order of international law".
The European single market, internal market or common market is a single market comprising the 27 member states of the European Union (EU) as well as – with certain exceptions – Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway through the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and Switzerland through sectoral treaties. The single market seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people, known collectively as the "four freedoms".
In the Netherlands, coffeeshops are establishments where the sale of cannabis for personal consumption by the public is tolerated by the local authorities.
In the United States, the non-medical use of cannabis is legalized in 19 states and decriminalized in 12 states as of May 2022. Decriminalization refers to a policy of reduced penalties for cannabis offenses, typically involving a civil penalty for possessing small amounts, instead of criminal prosecution or the threat of arrest. In jurisdictions without penalty the policy is referred to as legalization, although the term decriminalization is sometimes used for this purpose as well.
The Freedom to Provide Services or sometimes referred to as free movement of services along with the Freedom of Establishment form the core of the European Union's functioning. With the free movement of workers, citizens, goods and capital, they constitute fundamental rights that give companies and citizens the right to provide services without restrictions in any member country of the EU regardless of nationality and jurisdiction.
Drug liberalization is a drug policy process of decriminalizing or legalizing the use or sale of prohibited drugs. Variations of drug liberalization include: drug legalization, drug re-legalization and drug decriminalization. Proponents of drug liberalization may favor a regulatory regime for the production, marketing, and distribution of some or all currently illegal drugs in a manner analogous to that for alcohol, caffeine and tobacco.
Cannabis in Oregon is legal for both medical and recreational use. In recent decades, the U.S. state of Oregon has had a number of legislative, legal, and cultural events surrounding use of cannabis. Oregon was the first state to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of cannabis, and among the first to authorize its use for medical purposes. An attempt to recriminalize possession of small amounts of cannabis was turned down by Oregon voters in 1997.
The legal history of cannabis in the United States began with state-level prohibition in the early 20th century, with the first major federal limitations occurring in 1937. Starting with Oregon in 1973, individual states began to liberalize cannabis laws through decriminalization. In 1996, California became the first state to legalize medical cannabis, sparking a trend that spread to a majority of states by 2016. In 2012, Washington and Colorado became the first states to legalize cannabis for recreational use.
Reference for a Preliminary Ruling in the Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard (1993) C-267/91 is an EU law case, concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and European Union law. The Court found that "selling arrangements" did not constitute a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on trade between Member States of the European Community, as it was then. As a result, the 'discrimination test' was introduced to identify such selling arrangements.
Konsumentombudsmannen v Gourmet AB (2001) C-405/98 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of goods in the European Union.
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.
Minors and the legality of cannabis is one of the issues around the legalisation of cannabis, with most jurisdictions placing strict age limits in a similar way as is done with the drinking age for alcohol.
Roman Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano S.p.A. (2000) C-281/98 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of workers in the European Union.
Cannabis is one of the most popular controlled substances for cultivation and consumption within the country of Belgium. Following global trends, cannabis consumption rates in Belgium have been steadily increasing across the country since the 20th century, and cannabis cultivation continues to expand rapidly on a national scale. Despite significant legal rework of cannabis-related laws since 2010, certain elements of the consumption and cultivation of cannabis are considered to exist within a “legal grey area” of Belgian law. Cannabis is technically illegal in Belgium, but personal possession has been decriminalised since 2003; adults over the age of 18 are allowed to possess up to 3 grams. The legal effort to restrict cultivation and growth has gradually subsided, resulting in an increase of the growth and consumption of cannabis and cannabis-related products.
Cannabis in the Netherlands is illegal, but is decriminalised for personal use. Recreational consumption of the drug is tolerated, and it is available in coffeeshops.
Cannabis rights or marijuana rights are individual civil and human rights that vary by jurisdiction. The rights of people who consume cannabis include the right to be free from employment discrimination and housing discrimination.
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.
Cannabis tourism, also called marijuana tourism, is travel/tourism related to cannabis or incorporating cannabis use.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)