Judgment of the Court of 12 March 1987 Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany. Failure of a State to fulfil its obligations - Purity requirement for beer. Case 178/84
European Court Reports 1987 -01227
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:1987:126
Languages and formats available
BGES CS DADE ET EL EN FR GAHRIT LV LT HUMTNL PL PT ROSKSL F
PDF
Multilingual display
English (en)
Please choose Please choose
Display
Text
61984J0178
Judgment of the Court of 12 March 1987. Commission of the European Communities v
Federal Republic of Germany. - Failure of a State to fulfil its obligations - Purity requirement for beer. - Case 178/84.
European Court reports 1987 Page 01227 Swedish special edition Page 00037 Finnish special edition Page 00037
Summary Parties Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Keywords
++++
1 : FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS - MEASURES HAVING EOUIVALENT EEFECT - MARKETING
OF PRODUCTS - DISPARITIES BETWEEN
NATIONAL LAWS - BARRIERS TO INTRA-
COMMUNITY TRADE - PERMISSIBILITY
CONDITIONS AND LIMITS
(EEC TREATY, ART : 30 )
2 . FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS -
QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS - MEASURES
HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - LEGISLATION
RESTRICTING A GENERIC DESIGNATION TO
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH NATIONAL RULES -
JUSTIFICATION - NONE
( EEC TREATY, ART . 30 )
3 . FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - OUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS - MEASURES
HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - SYSTEM OF
MANDATORY CONSUMER INFORMATION FOR
CONSUMERS SHOWING A PREFERENCE FOR
PRODUCTS MADE FROM PARTICULAR RAW MATERIALS - PERMISSIBILITY -
CONDITIONS
( EEC TREATY, ART . 30 )
4 . FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS -
DEROGATIONS - PROTECTION OF PUBLIC
HEALTH - RULES ON THE USE OF FOOD
ADDITIVES - JUSTIFICATION - CONDITIONS AND LIMITS
( EEC TREATY, ARTS 30 AND 36 )
Summary
1 : IN THE ABSENCE OF COMMON RULES
RELATING TO THE MARKETING OF THE PRODUCTS CONCERNED, OBSTACLES TO
FREE MOVEMENT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY
RESULTING FROM DISPARITIES BETWEEN
THE NATIONAL LAWS MUST BE ACCEPTED IN
SO FAR AS SUCH RULES, APPLICABLE TO
DOMESTIC AND TO IMPORTED PRODUCTS
WITHOUT DISTINCTION, MAY BE
RECOGNIZED AS BEING NECESSARY IN
ORDER TO SATISEY MANDATORY
REQUIREMENTS RELATING INTER ALIA TO CONSUMER PROTECTION . IT IS ALSO
NECESSARY FOR SUCH RULES TO BE
PROPORTIONATE TO THE AIM IN VIEW . IF A
MEMBER STATE HAS A CHOICE BETWEEN
VARIOUS MEASURES TO ATTAIN THE SAME
OBJECTIVE IT SHOULD CHOOSE THE MEANS
WHICH LEAST RESTRICTS THE FREE
MOVEMENT OF GOODS .
2 : A MEMBER STATE IS NOT ENTITLED - ON
THE GROUNDS OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF
CONSUMER PROTECTION - TO RESTRICT
THE USE OF A DESIGNATION TO PRODUCTS
SATISFYING THE REQUIREMENTS OF ITS
NATIONAL LEGISLATION . FIRSTLY
CONSUMERS CONCEPTIONS ARE LIKELY TO
VARY FROM ONE MEMBER STATE TO
ANOTHER AND TO EVOLVE IN THE COU