WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3832/97 by Jean-Pierre BÉBÉAR to the Commission. The Evin Law and restrictions on freedom of movement
Date: 1997-11-28
Institutions: BEBEAR, European Parliament
Subjects: advertising, alcoholic beverage, application of the law, beverage industry, complaint to the Commission, public health, sponsorship, sporting event

C 187/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16. 6. 98

(98/C 187/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3832/97

by Jean-Pierre Be·be·ar (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 (1).

Unfortunately,  however,  I  must  point  out  that  the  Commission(cid:146)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?

(1)  OJ C 82, 17.3.1998, p. 29.

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 (1) 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(cid:146)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.

(1)  COM(96) 192.