WRITTEN QUESTION E-1809/97 by Aldo Arroni (UPE), Roy Perry (PPE), Gian Boniperti (UPE), Gérard d'Aboville (UPE), Franco Malerba (UPE), Stefano De Luca (ELDR), Giles Chichester (PPE) and Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission (28 May 1997)

Subject: Ban of the cross-border sponsorship on alcoholic beverages

A recent complaint relating to the ban of cross-border sponsorship of the World Cup campaign by alcoholic beverage producer in France in the interests of the protection of public health has apparently been closed by the Commission. Could the Commission explain the reason for this closure and in so doing provide details on the following:

1. Did the Commission seek to collect information from sports and cultural bodies of the effect of this sponsorship ban?

2. Could the Commission explain how it justified this decision under Community Law and more specifically in view of the principle of the free movement of services? Did the Commission make an assessment of the proportionality of this restriction which accounted for the fact that (1) billboard advertising for alcoholic beverages is permitted outside sports and cultural venues in France and (2) major sporting events encourage participation in sports and therefore can have a positive effect on public health?

3. If the Commission made no such assessment will it now re-open the case to re-address the proportionality of the restriction?

4. If the Commission considers that there is no need to re-open this case implying that it considers the restriction to be proportionate, when will it be proposing a harmonisation of alcoholic drinks sponsorship and what form will this take?

5. Finally, can it now be expected that the Commission will no longer contest restrictions posed by national measures aimed at the protection of public health? Will the Commission give a blank cheque to Member States once they invoke public health protection for establishing unjustified barriers to the Single Market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1997)

The Honourable Members request information about the reported closure of an infringement case concerning a ban on cross-border sponsorship for the 1998 world cup in France by an alcoholic beverage producer following the application of the French Loi Evin. While the Commission is bound by confidentiality not to reveal the identity of plaintiffs or the detail of individual complaints, it is hoped that the following information will alleviate the Honourable Members' concerns.

First, each case is examined on its own merits and since confidentiality must be maintained, the Commission relies on the information it already holds and that provided by the plaintiff. In the specific area of commercial communications, the Commission has made proposals in its green paper on commercial communications ((COM(96) 192 final. )) to improve its information on the nature and impact of commercial communication services including sponsorship within the Community.

Second, for this specific complaint, the Commission was aware that the national authorities were negotiating with the plaintiff. The Commission did not wish to undermine these delicate negotiations.

Third, the Commission wishes to assure the Honourable Members that the closure of the case they mention does not imply that the proportionality of restrictions to cross-border sponsorship services will not be examined in order to assess their compatibility with Article 59 of the EC Treaty.

In assessing proportionality of a national measure restricting cross-border services, the Commission will take full account of reactions in particular of that of the Parliament, to the proposals it made in its green paper on commercial communications last year concerning the possibility of improving proportionality assessment in this field. In its future decisions, the Commission will give due consideration to the possible adverse effects of sponsorship restrictions on cultural and sports events.

Finally, the Commission would confirm that it will continue to examine, on a case by case basis as required by the Treaty, restrictions to free movement arising from the application of national regulations invoking public health. Such application of internal market principles is consistent with a high level of protection of public health.