Cassis de Dijon / Rewe-Zentral Judgment: Principle of Mutual Recognition (ECJ, February 20, 1979)
♥️♥️ If you enjoyed this video, please like, comment, and subscribe so you don't miss the next ones. ♥️♥️
If you want to stay up-to-date, join us on our social media:
📸 Instagram: / filezdroit
🐦 Twitter: / droitfilez
⚠️ Warning ⚠️
This video is intended only to help you understand legal rulings that are sometimes quite complex. It is in no way intended to replace legal scholarship, which remains a reliable source of knowledge.
Remember that plagiarism is prohibited and severely punished in academia. Therefore, always cite your sources and put your quotes in quotation marks.
⤵️ Here is the text of the video ⤵️:
"We're revisiting European Union Law today with the Rewe Zentral judgment of February 20, 1979, better known as the Cassis de Dijon judgment. The facts of this judgment are simple, but the Court of Justice's decision gave rise to the Cassis de Dijon principle, fundamental to the free movement of goods.
Before we begin, let's review the basics: The Schul judgment defines the functioning of the internal market as 'the elimination of all obstacles to intra-Community trade with a view to merging national markets into a single market achieving conditions as close as possible to those of a genuine internal market.'
Returning to our specific case, a German spirits company, Rewe Zentral AG, wanted to import a batch of Cassis de Dijon from France and, to do so, needed to request authorization from the alcohol monopoly administration. However, this authorization was refused." The reason given was that fruit liqueurs, in order to be marketed, had to have a minimum alcohol content of 25 percent.
The applicant company will bring the matter before the German courts, arguing in particular that this obstacle to the free movement of goods is contrary to Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which states that "Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States."
However, as the concept of a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions is not defined by the Treaties, the German court referred the following preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union: "Should the concept of measures having equivalent effect (...) be interpreted as also applying to the setting of a minimum alcohol content (...), which has the effect of preventing the placing on the market (...) of traditional products of..." OTHER MEMBER STATES (…)?
The Court first observes that, in the absence of Community regulations, Member States retain the possibility of regulating the movement of certain products, particularly to meet overriding requirements such as “(…) THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH, FAIR TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION.”
However, the Court will consider that the German argument based on this requirement of general interest does indeed constitute, within the meaning of Article 32 TFEU, a measure having equivalent effect, and “THEREFORE, THERE IS NO VALID GROUND FOR PREVENTING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, PROVIDED THAT THEY ARE LAWFULLY PRODUCED AND MARKETED IN ONE OF THE MEMBER STATES, FROM BEING INTRODUCED INTO ANY OTHER MEMBER STATE.”
This decision of the Court will therefore give rise to the The so-called Cassis de Dijon principle imposes on Member States an obligation of mutual recognition of products legally manufactured in another Member State, in the absence of more specific legislation.
Alright folks, I hope this has been helpful, and I'll see you soon.
And until then… stay on the straight and narrow!
To learn more
The ruling:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...
Commission communication incorporating the provisions of the ruling:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...