CELEX: C2004/156/08
Language: en
Date: 2004-06-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-170/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Högsta Domstolen (Sweden) by order of that court of 30 March 2004 in case of Klas Rosengren, Bengt Morelli, Hans Särman, Mats Åkerström, Åke Kempe, Anders Kempe, Mats Kempe, Björn Rosengren, Martin Lindberg, Jon Pieree and Tony Staf against Riksåklagaren

12.6.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 156/4
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Högsta Domstolen (Sweden) by order of that court of 30 March 2004 in case of Klas Rosengren, Bengt Morelli, Hans Särman, Mats Åkerström, Åke Kempe, Anders Kempe, Mats Kempe, Björn Rosengren, Martin Lindberg, Jon Pieree and Tony Staf against Riksåklagaren
   (Case C-170/04)
   (2004/C 156/08)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Högsta Domstolen (Court of Appeal for Western Sweden) of 30 March 2004 received at the Court Registry on 6 April 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Klas Rosengren, Bengt Morelli, Hans Särman, Mats Åkerström, Åke Kempe, Anders Kempe, Mats Kempe, Björn Rosengren, Martin Lindberg, Jon Pieree and Tony Staf against Riksåklagaren the following questions concerning the interpretation of Articles 28, 30 and 31 of the EC Treaty:
   
               1.
            
            
               Can it be held that the above mentioned ban on imports constitutes part of the retail monopoly's manner of operation and that on that basis it is not precluded by Article 28 and is to be examined only in the light of Article 31?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If the answer to Question 1 is yes, is the ban on imports in such a case compatible with the conditions laid down for State monopolies in Article 31?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If the answer to Question 1 is no, is Article 28 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that it in principle precludes the current ban on imports despite the obligation of the Systembolaget to obtain, upon request, alcoholic beverages which it does not hold in stock?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               If the answer to Question 3 is yes, can such a ban on imports be considered justified and proportional in order to protect health and life of humans?on the following question: