CELEX: C2007/170/03
Language: en
Date: 2007-07-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-170/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Klas Rosengren, Bengt Morelli, Hans Särman, Mats Åkerström, Åke Kempe, Anders Kempe, Mats Kempe, Björn Rosengren, Martin Lindberg, Jon Pierre, Tony Staf v Riksåklagaren ( Free movement of goods — Articles 28 EC, 30 EC and 31 EC — National provisions prohibiting the importation of alcoholic beverages by private individuals — Rule relating to the existence and operation of the Swedish monopoly on sales of alcoholic beverages — Assessment — Measure contrary to Article 28 EC — Justification on grounds of protection of the health and life of humans — Review of proportionality) )

21.7.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 170/2
            
         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Klas Rosengren, Bengt Morelli, Hans Särman, Mats Åkerström, Åke Kempe, Anders Kempe, Mats Kempe, Björn Rosengren, Martin Lindberg, Jon Pierre, Tony Staf v Riksåklagaren
   (Case C-170/04) (1)
   
   (Free movement of goods - Articles 28 EC, 30 EC and 31 EC - National provisions prohibiting the importation of alcoholic beverages by private individuals - Rule relating to the existence and operation of the Swedish monopoly on sales of alcoholic beverages - Assessment - Measure contrary to Article 28 EC - Justification on grounds of protection of the health and life of humans - Review of proportionality))
   (2007/C 170/03)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Högsta domstolen
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicants: Klas Rosengren, Bengt Morelli, Hans Särman, Mats Åkerström, Åke Kempe, Anders Kempe, Mats Kempe, Björn Rosengren, Martin Lindberg, Jon Pierre, Tony Staf
   
      Defendant: Riksåklagaren
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Högsta Domstolen — Interpretation of Articles 28, 30 and 31 EC in the light of national provisions regarding a national retail monopoly for retail sales of alcoholic beverages which exclude the direct import of such beverages by individuals
   Operative part of the judgment
   
               1.
            
            
               A national provision, such as that in the first subparagraph of Paragraph 2 of Chapter 4 of the Law on alcohol (alkohollagen) of 16 December 1994, under which private individuals are prohibited from importing alcoholic beverages must be assessed in the light of Article 28 EC and not in the light of Article 31 EC.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               A measure, such as that in the first subparagraph of Paragraph 2 of Chapter 4 of the Law on alcohol, under which private individuals are prohibited from importing alcoholic beverages amounts to a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 28 EC, even though that law requires the holder of the retail sale monopoly, on request, to supply and therefore, if necessary, to import the beverages in question.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               A measure, such as that in the first subparagraph of Paragraph 2 of Chapter 4 of the Law on alcohol, under which private individuals are prohibited from importing alcoholic beverages,
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           as it is unsuitable for attaining the objective of limiting alcohol consumption generally, and
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           as it is not proportionate for attaining the objective of protecting young persons against the harmful effects of such consumption,
                        
                     cannot be regarded as being justified under Article 30 EC on grounds of protection of the health and life of humans.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 156, 12.6.2004.