# C_2012291EN.01001301.xml

| 27.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/13

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 6 February 2012 in the case of HOB-vín ehf. v the State Alcohol and Tobacco Company of Iceland (ÁTVR)

(Case E-2/12)

2012/C 291/04

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 6 February 2012 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 13 February 2012, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of HOB-vín ehf. v the State Alcohol and Tobacco Company of Iceland (ÁTVR), on the following questions:

| 1. | Is it incompatible with Article 11 EEA for a State enterprise, which has a monopoly on the retail sale of alcohol in the territory of an EEA State, to be permitted under legislation or administrative regulations to refuse to accept for sale alcoholic beverages that are lawfully produced and marketed in another EEA State, on the grounds that the packaging and labelling of the products contain loaded or unrelated information or suggest that alcohol enhances physical, mental, social or sexual function and do not merely relate to the product, its production method or its characteristics? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it incompatible with Article 11 EEA for a State enterprise, which has a monopoly on the retail sale of alcohol in the territory of an EEA State, to be permitted under legislation or administrative regulations to refuse to accept for sale alcoholic beverages that are lawfully produced and marketed in another EEA State, on the grounds that the packaging and labelling of the products contain loaded or unrelated information or suggest that alcohol enhances physical, mental, social or sexual function and do not merely relate to the product, its production method or its characteristics?

| 2. | Is it incompatible with Article 11 EEA for an EEA State to include in its legislation or administrative regulations, rules which require that it be clearly stated on the packaging of alcohol beverages that their contents are alcoholic, and that a State-owned monopoly may refuse to accept such products for sale if the packaging does not meet this requirement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it incompatible with Article 11 EEA for an EEA State to include in its legislation or administrative regulations, rules which require that it be clearly stated on the packaging of alcohol beverages that their contents are alcoholic, and that a State-owned monopoly may refuse to accept such products for sale if the packaging does not meet this requirement?

| 3. | In answering the first and second questions above, is it of significance whether the legislation or administrative regulations apply equally to domestic and foreign products? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In answering the first and second questions above, is it of significance whether the legislation or administrative regulations apply equally to domestic and foreign products?

| 4. | If it is considered that an arrangement such as the one described in the first and/or second question above constitutes a quantitative restriction, or a measure having equivalent effects, within the meaning of Article 11 EEA, then it is requested that the EFTA Court state whether such an arrangement may nevertheless be considered justifiable with reference to Article 13 EEA. |
| --- | --- |

4.

If it is considered that an arrangement such as the one described in the first and/or second question above constitutes a quantitative restriction, or a measure having equivalent effects, within the meaning of Article 11 EEA, then it is requested that the EFTA Court state whether such an arrangement may nevertheless be considered justifiable with reference to Article 13 EEA.

| 5. | If it is considered that an arrangement such as the one described in the first and/or second question above, which is based on law or administrative regulations, is incompatible with Article 11 EEA, then it is requested that the EFTA Court state whether it considers that the conditions for State liability are met, to the extent that the EFTA Court assesses this point. |
| --- | --- |

5.

If it is considered that an arrangement such as the one described in the first and/or second question above, which is based on law or administrative regulations, is incompatible with Article 11 EEA, then it is requested that the EFTA Court state whether it considers that the conditions for State liability are met, to the extent that the EFTA Court assesses this point.

---