CELEX: E1994P0001
Language: en
Date: 1994-07-21 00:00:00
Title: Reference for an advisory opinion, made pursuant to the order of the tullilautakunta dated 19 April 1994, in the appeal by Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark against the decision of the Helsingin piiritullikamari (Case E-1/94)

Avis juridique important

|

E1994P0001

Reference for an advisory opinion, made pursuant to the order of the tullilautakunta dated 19 April 1994, in the appeal by Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark against the decision of the Helsingin piiritullikamari (Case E-1/94)  

Official Journal C 199 , 21/07/1994 P. 0009 - 0009

Reference for an advisory opinion, made pursuant to the order of the tullilautakunta dated 19 April 1994, in the appeal by Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark against the decision of the Helsingin piiritullikamari (Case E-1/94) (94/C 199/08)Reference has been made to the EFTA Court by an order of the tullilautakunta (Appeals Committee of the National Board of Customs) of 19 April 1994, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 April 1994, for an advisory opinion in the appeal by Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark against the decision of the Helsingin piiritullikamari (Helsinki District Custom House) on the following questions:1. Can it be considered, having regard, on the one hand, to the statutory monopoly of Oy Alko Ab (the alcohol company) to import alcoholic beverages but, on the other hand, also to the measures of authorization which the company has announced it is ready to institute in order to permit commercial import of alcohol on terms laid down by the company itself, that the commercial import of alcohol from other Contracting States is not quantitatively restricted or hindered by a measure having equivalent effect contrary to Article 11 of the EEA Agreement, if the administrative court of appeal confirms the decision of the competent customs authority not to permit the imported consignment of alcohol into free circulation without the permission of Oy Alko Ab, which permission is requird by law?2. Is the statutory monopoly referred to above contrary to Article 16 of the Agreement?If so:Is this Article so unconditional and sufficiently precise as to have direct legal effect and should the import monopoly therefore be considered as having expired from 1 January 1994?