CELEX: E1997P0001
Language: en
Date: 1997-04-19 00:00:00
Title: Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett by decision of that court of 22 April 1997 in the case of Fridtjof Frank Gundersen v. Oslo kommune (Case E-1/97)

Avis juridique important

|

E1997P0001

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett by decision of that court of 22 April 1997 in the case of Fridtjof Frank Gundersen v. Oslo kommune (Case E-1/97)  

Official Journal C 282 , 18/09/1997 P. 0013 - 0013

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett by decision of that court of 22 April 1997 in the case of Fridtjof Frank Gundersen v. Oslo kommune (Case E-1/97) (97/C 282/10)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 22 April 1997 of Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 19 April 1997, for an advisory opinion in the case of Fridtjof Frank Gundersen v. Oslo kommune, on the following questions:1. Is there '. . . discrimination . . . between nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States` contrary to Article 16 EEA if a national is refused the right to market red wine, white wine and rosé wine at the retail level, on the grounds that wine may only be sold at the retail level through a State commercial monopoly, in a situation where beer with an alcohol content of lower than 4,75 % alcohol by volume (medium-strength beer) may be sold outside the commercial monopoly by parties who obtain a municipal licence?2. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, can alcohol policy and/or health considerations, first and foremost the wish to reduce the availability and consumption of alcohol, be grounds for the differential treatment in marketing for wine and medium-strength beer as referred to in question 1 falling outside the scope of Article 16 of the EEA Agreement?3. (a) Does Article 4 and/or Article 11 apply to the retail sale of wine?(b) If question 3 (a) is answered wholly or in part in the affirmative, is the differential treatment in marketing referred to in question 1 in violation of Article 4 and/or Article 11?(c) If question 3 (b) is answered wholly or in part in the affirmative, can alcohol policy and/or health considerations as referred to in question 2 be grounds for applying the exception rule as set out in Article 13 of the EEA Agreement?