# C_2013118EN.01003301.xml

| 25.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/33

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 11 December 2012

in Case E-2/12

HOB-vín ehf. v The State Alcohol and Tobacco Company of Iceland (ÁTVR)

(Free movement of goods — Directive 2000/13/EC — Product coverage — Labelling of foodstuffs — Misleading labelling — Lack of notification to ESA of a national measure — Justification — State liability)

2013/C 118/09

In Case E-2/12, HOB-vín ehf. v The State Alcohol and Tobacco Company of Iceland (ÁTVR) — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court) on the compatibility with the EEA Agreement of national rules under which a State monopoly on the retail sale of alcohol may refuse, under certain conditions, to accept for sale alcoholic beverages that are lawfully produced and marketed in another EEA State, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 11 December 2012, the operative part of which is as follows.

| 1. | Article 18 of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs precludes a rule such as Article 5.10 of the product selection rules, by which ÁTVR rejects the sale of alcoholic beverages that are lawfully produced and marketed in another EEA State on the grounds that the labelling of the products contains loaded or unrelated information.
  It is of no significance whether the product selection rules apply equally to domestic and foreign products. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 18 of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs precludes a rule such as Article 5.10 of the product selection rules, by which ÁTVR rejects the sale of alcoholic beverages that are lawfully produced and marketed in another EEA State on the grounds that the labelling of the products contains loaded or unrelated information.

It is of no significance whether the product selection rules apply equally to domestic and foreign products.

| 2. | A national rule such as Article 8 of the Icelandic Regulation No 828/2005 on the commercial production, import and wholesale of alcohol, which requires that it be stated on packages of beverages containing more than 1,2 % by volume of alcohol, other than by indication of the actual alcoholic strength by volume, that their contents are alcoholic, cannot be considered effective and cannot be allowed to impose burdens on individuals and economic operators if it has been adopted without regard to the procedure laid down in Article 19 of Directive 2000/13/EC. |
| --- | --- |

2.

A national rule such as Article 8 of the Icelandic Regulation No 828/2005 on the commercial production, import and wholesale of alcohol, which requires that it be stated on packages of beverages containing more than 1,2 % by volume of alcohol, other than by indication of the actual alcoholic strength by volume, that their contents are alcoholic, cannot be considered effective and cannot be allowed to impose burdens on individuals and economic operators if it has been adopted without regard to the procedure laid down in Article 19 of Directive 2000/13/EC.

| 3. | Individuals and economic operators who have been harmed by the incorrect application of Directive 2000/13/EC may rely on the free movement of goods in order to be able to render the State liable for the breach of EEA law.
  Damage caused by a national measure such as that described in the first question entails State liability if the national court finds that the application of the national legislation or administrative regulation constitutes a sufficiently serious breach of EEA law and there is a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the State and the damage sustained by the injured party.
  A breach of EEA law is sufficiently serious where damage is caused by a national measure such as that described in the second question if the national legislation or administrative regulation cannot be considered effective due to a failure to notify it pursuant to Article 19 of Directive 2000/13/EC. Such a breach entails State liability if the national court finds a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the State and the damage sustained by the injured party. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Individuals and economic operators who have been harmed by the incorrect application of Directive 2000/13/EC may rely on the free movement of goods in order to be able to render the State liable for the breach of EEA law.

Damage caused by a national measure such as that described in the first question entails State liability if the national court finds that the application of the national legislation or administrative regulation constitutes a sufficiently serious breach of EEA law and there is a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the State and the damage sustained by the injured party.

A breach of EEA law is sufficiently serious where damage is caused by a national measure such as that described in the second question if the national legislation or administrative regulation cannot be considered effective due to a failure to notify it pursuant to Article 19 of Directive 2000/13/EC. Such a breach entails State liability if the national court finds a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the State and the damage sustained by the injured party.

---