This article gives a brief overview of Case 33/76 Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland (1976), focusing on its role in EU law and the principle of non-discrimination in national trading standards.

  • In the case of Case 33/76 Rewe-Zentralfinanz [1976] ECR 1989, the European Court of Justice ruled products sold lawfully from one Member State to another cannot be restricted.
  • This joint case involved customs duties, national courts, and direct effect.

Facts of the Case

  • The first case was about the health inspections of fruit imported into Germany and how to interpret Treaty of Rome 1957 Article 13 and Council Regulation 159/66 Article 13.
  • The second case was about a levy paid on flower bulb exports and how to interpret Treaty of Rome 1957 Article 16 and Council Regulation 234/68 Article 10.

Issues

  • When charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties have been restricted, can an applicant use a remedy under European Economic Community law?
  • Is there a right to a refund?

Held by the European Court of Justice

  • Direct effect applies in both circumstances – Member States must uphold rights.

Judge Kutscher, C.J. (President)

Community law

  • Member States have the autonomy to decide their own procedural rules.
  • “In the absence of Community rules on this subject, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts having jurisdiction and to determine the procedural conditions governing actions at law intended to ensure the protection of the rights which citizens have from the direct effect of Community law, it being understood that such conditions cannot be less favourable than those relating to similar actions of a domestic nature. The position would be different only if the conditions made it impossible in practice to exercise the rights which the national courts are obliged to protect.”

Advocate General (Mr. Jean-Pierre Warner)

National authority

  • “In the present state of Community law there is nothing to prevent a citizen who contests before a national court a decision of a national authority on the ground that it is incompatible with Community law from being confronted with the defence that limitation periods laid down by national law have expired”.

Significance of Rewe-Zentralfinanz (1976) on the Development of the Law

Establishing the Principle of Mutual Recognition: Rewe-Zentralfinanz is a landmark case that set the foundation for the principle of mutual recognition in EU law, ensuring that products legally produced and marketed in one Member State should be allowed to circulate freely in another. This principle has been influential in several subsequent rulings:

  • Cassis de Dijon (1979): Building directly on the principles established by Rewe-Zentralfinanz, this case further solidified the concept of mutual recognition and proportionality in the application of national rules affecting the free movement of goods.
  • Keck and Mithouard (1993): This case refined the distinction between ‘selling arrangements’ and product regulations, clarifying the scope of restrictions that could be imposed by Member States, a concept initially challenged in Rewe-Zentralfinanz.
  • Commission v Italy (2009), from the attached file, where Italy was found in breach of EU law for restricting the use of scooters from other Member States, reflecting the ongoing influence of the mutual recognition principle.

Enhancing the Doctrine of Proportionality: Rewe-Zentralfinanz emphasized the necessity for national measures that restrict market freedoms to be proportional to the intended public interest goals, influencing EU jurisprudence and policy:

  • Bosman (1995): The ruling in Bosman on the free movement of football players within the EU was influenced by the proportionality tests developed in Rewe-Zentralfinanz, particularly regarding the balance between national interests and EU market freedoms.
  • Alpine Investments v Minister van Financiën (1995): This case involved restrictions on the provision of services and applied the proportionality principle to assess whether national restrictions on marketing financial services were permissible.
  • Viking Line ABP v International Transport Workers’ Federation (2007): This case assessed the proportionality of collective actions against the background of market freedoms, showing the broad application of principles from Rewe-Zentralfinanz in service provision and establishment.

Impacting European Integration and Legislation: The case has had a significant impact on European integration, influencing legislative measures aimed at harmonizing standards across the EU to facilitate the free movement of goods and services:

  • Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States reflects the influence of Rewe-Zentralfinanz in ensuring non-discriminatory treatment across the EU.
  • Tobacco Advertising Directive (2003/33/EC), which prohibits tobacco advertising in all Member States, aligns with the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality in market regulation discussed in Rewe-Zentralfinanz.
  • Regulation (EC) No 764/2008, laying down procedures relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another Member State, directly draws from the principles laid down in Rewe-Zentralfinanz, facilitating easier compliance and enforcement across Member States.

Exam Questions and Answers

Below you will find answers to questions that are most commonly asked based on this case.

How did the specific regional policies of Saarland conflict with EU law in the Rewe-Zentralfinanz case?

In the Rewe-Zentralfinanz case, the regional policies of Saarland imposed certain standards and requirements on the marketing of seedlings, which were deemed to be unnecessarily restrictive and discriminatory towards products from other EU Member States. These regional policies were considered to go beyond what was necessary to achieve their purported objectives, such as ensuring quality or protecting plant health, thereby conflicting with EU laws on the free movement of goods. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) highlighted that such measures must not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States. This principle was reinforced in Commission v Italy (2009) from the attached file, where Italy faced scrutiny for similar restrictive practices that hindered the free movement of goods within the EU. The case also aligns with the principles outlined in the Goods Package (Regulation (EU) 2019/515), which seeks to prevent such barriers in the EU internal market.

What were the economic implications of the Rewe-Zentralfinanz ruling for intra-EU trade, particularly for small and medium enterprises?

The Rewe-Zentralfinanz ruling had significant economic implications for intra-EU trade, especially benefiting small and medium enterprises (SMEs) by facilitating easier access to broader markets without facing inconsistent and restrictive national regulations. By reinforcing the principle of mutual recognition, the ruling allowed SMEs to sell their products across EU borders with greater ease, reducing the regulatory burden associated with meeting different national standards. This economic liberalization has been further supported by subsequent EU regulations such as Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 on European standardization, which helps harmonize standards across the EU, thus supporting SMEs in navigating the single market. The case of Labianca v Calcio Napoli (2020) from the attached file illustrates a modern application, where the principles of free movement were crucial in determining the rights of businesses and workers within the EU sports industry.

How has the principle of mutual recognition evolved in EU jurisprudence following the Rewe-Zentralfinanz decision?

Following the Rewe-Zentralfinanz decision, the principle of mutual recognition has evolved to become a cornerstone of the EU’s approach to the single market, especially concerning the harmonization of product standards and regulations. This evolution is evident in the development of comprehensive frameworks and directives aimed at ensuring that products lawfully marketed in one Member State can be sold in others without additional requirements. For example, Directive 2008/122/EC on the safety of toys reflects this principle by setting EU-wide standards that all Member States must accept. Additionally, the case of Dansk Supermarked v Imerco (1990) from the attached file demonstrates the continued application and refinement of this principle, with the ECJ ruling against national measures that unjustifiably hindered the import and sale of legally marketed products from other Member States. This ongoing evolution underscores the EU’s commitment to reducing barriers to intra-EU trade and ensuring a seamless internal market.

Study Law in the UK

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.