CELEX: E1994J0001
Language: en
Date: 1994-12-16 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 16 December 1994 in Case E-1/94 (reference for an advisory opinion from the Tullilautakunta): Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark (Admissibility - Free movement of goods - State monopolies of a commercial character - Import monopoly - Articles 11, 13 and 16 of the EEA Agreement - Unconditional and sufficiently precise)

Avis juridique important

|

E1994J0001

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 16 December 1994 in Case E-1/94 (reference for an advisory opinion from the Tullilautakunta): Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark (Admissibility - Free movement of goods - State monopolies of a commercial character - Import monopoly - Articles 11, 13 and 16 of the EEA Agreement - Unconditional and sufficiently precise)  

Official Journal C 398 , 31/12/1994 P. 0018 - 0018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 16 December 1994 in Case E-1/94 (reference for an advisory opinion from the Tullilautakunta): Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark (1) (Admissibility - Free movement of goods - State monopolies of a commercial character - Import monopoly - Articles 11, 13 and 16 of the EEA Agreement - Unconditional and sufficiently precise) (94/C 398/05)(Pursuant to Article 27 (5) of the Rules of Procedure authentic in English and Finnish)In Case E-1/94: reference to the Court for an advisory opinion pursuant to Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice from the Tullilautakunta (Tullnämnden, the Appeals Committee at the Finnish Board of Customs) in the appeal by Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark against the decision of the Helsingin piiritullikamari (Helsinki District Customs House) - on the interpretation of Articles 11 and 16 of the EEA Agreement - the Court, composed of: Leif Sevón, President, Björn Haug, Thór Vilhjálmsson, Kurt Herndl and Sven Norberg (Rapporteur), Judges; Karin Hökborg, Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 December 1994, the operative part of which is as follows:1. Article 11 of the EEA Agreement must be interpreted as precluding a national measure which confers on a statutory State monopoly the exclusive right to import alcoholic beverages falling within the product coverage of the EEA Agreement and originating in the Contracting Parties, or the application to intra-EEA trade of national provisions which require the authorization of the statutory State monopoly for the importation and putting into free circulation of such products, even if such an authorization is granted automatically. Neither can such measures be justified pursuant to Article 13 of the EEA Agreement merely because they form part of an alcohol policy aimed at minimizing the harmful effects to health of consumption of alcoholic beverages, since this objective can be achieved by measures which are less restrictive of the free movement of goods.2. Article 16 of the EEA Agreement must be interpreted as meaning that, as from 1 January 1994, every State monopoly of a commercial character not covered by Protocol 8 to the EEA Agreement must be adjusted so as to eliminate the exclusive right to import the goods the subject of the monopoly into a Contracting Party from other Contracting Parties.3. Article 16 of the EEA Agreement must be interpreted as fulfilling the implicit criteria in Protocol 35 to the EEA Agreement of being unconditional and sufficiently precise.(1) OJ No C 199, 21. 7. 1994, p. 9.