CELEX: E2011J0019
Language: en
Date: 2012-11-30 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 30 November 2012 in Case E-19/11 — Vín Tríó ehf. v the Icelandic State (Free movement of goods — Admissibility — Product coverage — Articles 11 and 16 EEA — State monopolies of a commercial character — Rules concerning the existence and operation of a monopoly — Product selection rules — Refusal to sell alcoholic beverages containing stimulants such as caffeine — Discrimination between domestic and imported products — Absence of domestic production)

14.3.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 75/15
            
         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 30 November 2012
   in Case E-19/11
   Vín Tríó ehf. v the Icelandic State
   (Free movement of goods — Admissibility — Product coverage — Articles 11 and 16 EEA — State monopolies of a commercial character — Rules concerning the existence and operation of a monopoly — Product selection rules — Refusal to sell alcoholic beverages containing stimulants such as caffeine — Discrimination between domestic and imported products — Absence of domestic production)
   2013/C 75/08
   In Case E-19/11 Vín Tríó ehf. v the Icelandic State — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), on whether Articles 11 and 16 of the EEA Agreement preclude a State monopoly on the retail of alcohol from refusing to accept for sale in its retail outlets alcoholic beverages containing stimulants such as caffeine, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 30 November 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:
   
                
            
            
               It does not contravene Article 16(1) EEA if an EEA State provides in legislation, or through administrative acts, that a body exercising a State monopoly on the retail of alcohol may refuse to accept for sale in its outlets alcoholic beverages containing stimulants such as caffeine.
            
         
                
            
            
               However, such a selection rule must apply in the same manner to domestic and imported alcoholic beverages containing stimulants. If, as in the present case, there is no domestic production, and the selection rule does not aim to protect domestic production of similar products, it cannot be deemed to place operators or products from other EEA States at a disadvantage.