WRITTEN QUESTION E-3832/97 by Jean-Pierre Bébéar (PPE) to the Commission (28 November 1997)

Subject: The Evin Law and restrictions on freedom of movement

I thank the Commission for its recent response to my Written Question E-2105/97 ((OJ C 82, 17.3.1998, p. 29.)).

Unfortunately, however, I must point out that the Commission's reponse was not satisfactory. In addition, I would like it to clearly set out its current position by answering the following questions:

1. If the Commission applied the methodology proposed in the Green Paper, how does it explain the fact that in the majority of countries, where alcoholic beverage producers are not prevented from sponsoring sporting events, there is a similar level of protection for public health as there is in those countries which have imposed a total ban?

2. More generally, when the same methodology is applied, can the assessment of the proportionality of the restriction imposed differ in each of the Member States?

3. Can the Commission therefore confirm that, in this case, the principle of proportionality was applied in the assessment of the restriction imposed in the Member State involved?

4. Moreover, given the fact that the Green Paper advocated more transparency and Parliament called for more coordination in its opinion, can the Commission state whether it has held discussions with the Member States, and more specifically, their national health authorities on topics relating to the advertising of alcoholic drinks, and does it plan to inform Parliament of these discussions?

5. Finally, could new developments in this complaint, such as more detailed information or a breakdown in negotiations between the complainant and the Member State, enduce the Commission to reconsider this important issue, in the form of an assessment of new cases that are likely to arise in the future?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (3 February 1998)

The Honourable Member requests clarification on an earlier answer to his Written Question E-2105/97 regarding the reported closure of an infringement case concerning the ban of a cross-border sponsorship for the 1998 World Cup in France by an alcoholic beverage producer following the application of the French loi Evin.

The proportionality assessment methodology proposed in the green paper on commercial communications ((COM(96) 192. )) is due to be adopted early next year in a communication by the Commission. It is therefore not appropriate to discuss the application of this methodology, or for that case any of the other proposals made in that text, to a case which was examined by the Commission earlier this year.

Regarding the case at hand, as noted in its previous reply, the Commission considered the restriction to be proportional. According to the case-law of the Court of justice, in the present state of Community law, in which there are not common or harmonised rules governing in a general manner the advertising of alcoholic beverages, it is for the Member States to decide on the degree of health protection they wish to afford their citizens and on the way that protection is to be achieved, provided that they do so within the limits set out by the Treaty. However, at the behest of the Parliament, the Commission considers that sponsorship services should be given due consideration in its proposed follow-up communication on commercial communications. This will allow for discussions on this issue with all the Member States as suggested by the Honourable Member.

As regards the Honourable Member's last question, the plaintiff has not lodged another complaint following the closure of the case referred to and therefore the Commission has no reason to review this specific restriction at the current time.