WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2105/97 by Jean-Pierre BÉBÉAR to the Commission. The Evin Law and restrictions on freedom of movement
Date: 1997-06-23
Institutions: BEBEAR, European Parliament
Subjects: France, alcoholic beverage, application of the law, beverage industry, complaint to the Commission, freedom to provide services, public health, single market, sports body

17. 3. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 82/29

(98/C 82/40)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2105/97

by Jean-Pierre Be·be·ar (PPE) to the Commission

(23 June 1997)

Subject: The Evin Law and restrictions on freedom of movement

The Commission recently rejected a complaint lodged by a brewer challenging the application of the Evin Law,
which had obliged him to break his sponsorship contract with FIFA (International Football Federation) for the
World Cup due to be held in France in 1998.

1. What arguments under Community law led the Commission to take this decision?

In attempting to determine whether the Evin Law is compatible with Community law, did the Commission

2.
examine how effective the law is in achieving its objectives?

3.
Does  this  decision  mean  that  the  Commission  considers  that  the  objective  of  the  internal  market  is
incompatible  with  the  objective  of  protecting  public  health?  Would  it  therefore  be  possible  in  future  for  the
Member States to create barriers to the internal market by invoking public health considerations, regardless of the
content of the rules concerned?

Has the Commission taken into account the fact that sport is beneficial to health and that the broadcasting of

4.
sporting events bolsters this message?

5.
Has the Commission taken into account the fact that French law prohibits the consumption of alcohol inside
stadiums with the result that there is no risk of alcohol abuse in stadiums and the broadcasting of matches has no
harmful effects?

Has the Commission taken into account the principle that the restrictions should be proportionate to the

6.
objective pursued (cf. case law of the Court of Justice)?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 1997)

The Honourable Member requests information 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 Honourable Member will recognise that it is not possible to
answer his questions using detailed information on the case given the confidentiality that the Commission must
respect in such instances.

When examining the compatibility with the Treaty of such restrictions on cross-border services, and in view of
the assessment of their proportionality, it is necessary to evaluate how far they are efficient in protecting the
public interest invoked. The Commission has explained how this proportionality assessment could be rendered
more  efficient  in  the  green  paper  on  commercial  communications (1)  which  the  Parliament  has  strongly
supported. To assess the efficiency of restrictions which aim to discourage abusive use of alcoholic beverages it
is  necessary  to  identify  the  positive  and  negative  effects  of  the  measure  on  the  objective  invoked  and  other
general interest objectives. In the particular case mentioned in the question, the assessment showed that there
were  no  grounds  to  pursue  the  case.  This  in  no  way  prejudges  the  assessment  of  future  cases.  The  aspects
mentioned by the Honourable Member will, of course, be important in judging these cases.

Finally the Commission wishes to make it clear that it believes in strongly defending the policy objectives of
establishing  the  internal  market  and  the  protection  of  public  health.  It  is  through  applying  internal  market
principles rigorously that one can identify proportional restrictions where the level of protection of public health
is  deficient  in  the  originating  Member  State.  These  signal  the  need  for  harmonisation  to  re-establish  free
movement  whilst  ensuring  that  a  high  level  of  protection  of  public  health  can  be  attained  for  all  European
citizens.

(1)  COM(96) 192 final.