Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon) Case 120/78, [1979] ECR 649
Delve into the seminal Cassis de Dijon case, a cornerstone in EU law for students exploring the principles of mutual recognition and the free movement of goods within the internal market.
Facts
Rewe-Zentral sought to import Cassis de Dijon, a French blackcurrant liqueur, into Germany. The drink was lawfully produced and marketed in France, but its alcohol content was below the minimum required by German rules for the relevant category of spirits. The German monopoly authority refused permission to market it. Rewe challenged the restriction, arguing that the requirement obstructed imports. Germany relied on public health and consumer protection. The national court referred questions about the compatibility of the requirement with the Treaty rules governing trade in goods.
Legal Issue
Could Germany exclude a liqueur lawfully marketed in France because it failed to satisfy the German minimum-alcohol requirement, and were the proposed justifications proportionate?
Held
The Court held that the requirement was an obstacle to trade equivalent to a quantitative restriction. In the absence of common rules, Member States retained regulatory powers, but obstacles resulting from differences in national law had to be necessary to satisfy recognised mandatory requirements. Germany’s arguments did not justify excluding the drink. Consumers could obtain information through suitable labelling, and the health argument for requiring stronger alcohol was unpersuasive. The judgment established the approach commonly called mutual recognition: a product lawfully produced and marketed in one Member State should generally be admitted elsewhere, subject to a properly justified and proportionate restriction.
⭐ Legal Principle
Indistinctly applicable product rules can restrict imports. In the absence of harmonisation, mutual recognition and proportionate mandatory requirements determine whether a host state may exclude goods lawfully marketed in another Member State.
Significance
Cassis expanded free-movement analysis beyond overt discrimination and explained how legitimate regulation can be reconciled with market access. It should be read with Dassonville and later cases distinguishing product requirements, selling arrangements and use restrictions. Mutual recognition is not unconditional admission of every product. The relevant EU harmonisation and justification must be considered, and the judgment does not itself determine the rules governing present UK imports.
Common exam questions about this case
Why was the alcohol rule caught despite applying to German products too?
A producer selling lawfully in France had to alter its product to enter Germany. That additional product requirement obstructed trade even without an express distinction based on origin. Cassis therefore directs attention to practical barriers created by national rules, rather than asking only whether their wording discriminates.
Why was labelling relevant to proportionality?
If consumers needed to know the drink’s strength, a label could supply that information without excluding the product. The availability of a less restrictive measure undermined the asserted necessity of the minimum-alcohol rule. Proportionality requires examining alternatives, not merely accepting that consumer protection is a legitimate aim.
Does mutual recognition eliminate national regulation?
No. National rules may be justified where the relevant legal conditions are met, including necessity and proportionality. The analysis also changes where EU legislation harmonises the field. Mutual recognition supplies a starting point for assessing cross-border obstacles rather than a complete exemption from lawful host-state regulation.