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.

  • In the case of Case 120/78 Cassis de Dijon [1979] ECR 649, the Court ruled on the principle of mutual recognition and held that there should be consumer protection to prevent products from being treated differently because of where they came from.
  • This case concerned free movement of goods and quantitative restrictions.
  • This case established mandatory requirements that apply only to indistinctly applicable measures.

Facts of the Case Cassis de Dijon

  • According to German legislation, the minimum alcohol level for spirits like cassis per litre was 25%. C wished to import a liqueur under this limit called the Cassis de Dijon.
  • C contended that this limit, as per German legislation, breached Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
  • D contended this law was designed for public health reasons and for commercial fairness.

Issues in Cassis de Dijon

  • Was the national legislation in Germany justified?
  • Could these rules be enforced on the grounds of public health and consumer protection?

Held by the European Court of Justice

  • C’s claim allowed – this restriction breaches Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and constitutes as a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports.

Advocate General (Sig. Francesco Capotorti)

Mutual obligation

  • Manufactured imports sold lawfully in and from other EU states should be lawfully recognized in all EU states.
  • States cannot unlawfully impose extra sale restrictions in the imported state without justification. The measure in this case is clearly an obstacle to free trade.
  • “Obstacles to movement within the Community resulting from disparities between the national laws relating to the marketing of the products in question must be accepted in so far as those provisions may be recognized as being necessary in order to satisfy mandatory requirements relating in particular to the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, the protection of public health, the fairness of commercial transactions and the defence of the consumer”.
  • “There is therefore no valid reason why, provided that they have been lawfully produced and marketed in one of the member states, alcoholic beverages should not be introduced into any other member state; the sale of such products may not be subject to a legal prohibition on the marketing of beverages with an alcohol content lower than the limit set by the national rules.”

Significance of the Case on the Development of the Law

The Cassis de Dijon case (Case 120/78) significantly shaped European Union law regarding the free movement of goods, establishing the principle of mutual recognition and influencing the approach to market regulation among EU member states. Here’s how this case has impacted the legal landscape:

  • Establishment of the Principle of Mutual Recognition: Cassis de Dijon introduced the principle that a product lawfully produced and sold in one member state should be allowed to be sold in any other member state, unless a specific restriction can be justified. This principle was vital in subsequent cases, such as Keck and Mithouard (C-267/91), which further defined the application of rules to product sales, and Commission v Italy (C-110/05), where Italy was found to have unjustifiably restricted the sale of motor scooters from other member states. The principle was also critical in the Trailers case (C-110/05) from the attached file, which dealt with the registration of trailers used for road transport, asserting that restrictions must be justified and proportionate to be valid.

  • Impact on National Regulatory Autonomy: The judgment significantly restricted member states’ ability to apply national regulations that could obstruct intra-EU trade. This case influenced the development of the EU’s approach to harmonization and standardization of regulations to ensure the free flow of goods across borders. For example, Commission v Germany (C-317/92), related to beer purity regulations, and Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v de Smedt PVBA (C-261/81), which addressed packaging standards, both reflect the application of principles established in Cassis de Dijon.

  • Legal Framework for Market Regulation: Cassis de Dijon has been foundational in shaping EU policies on market regulation, leading to the development of directives aimed at eliminating unjustified barriers to trade. The New Approach Directives, influenced by this case, aim to harmonize technical standards and certification across the EU, fostering a more integrated internal market. Subsequent rulings, such as Torfaen Borough Council v B&Q PLC (C-312/89), which examined national restrictions on trading hours, relied on principles from Cassis de Dijon to evaluate the balance between market freedom and public interest.

Exam Questions and Answers

Below, you will find answers to the most commonly asked questions based on this case.

How has the Cassis de Dijon ruling affected the development of specific sectors, such as food and beverages, within the EU market?

The Cassis de Dijon ruling has profoundly influenced the food and beverage sector by reducing trade barriers and harmonizing standards across the EU. This decision facilitated the easier introduction of products like food and alcoholic beverages across national borders without facing stringent domestic rules in each member state. For example, the ruling allowed for the mutual recognition of food labeling and ingredients that meet the standards of one member state to be acceptable in others, promoting a diversity of products available to consumers and enhancing competition. A specific case from the attached file, Commission v Italy (C-120/78), relates to the movement of trailers used for transporting food and beverages, demonstrating how mutual recognition also impacts related industries and logistics. Moreover, EU regulations like the Food Information to Consumers Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 now ensure that food labeling is consistent across member states, enhancing transparency and consumer trust.

What subsequent legal challenges have questioned the limits of mutual recognition established in Cassis de Dijon?

Subsequent legal challenges have tested the boundaries of the mutual recognition principle established by Cassis de Dijon. One such challenge is highlighted in the attached file case, Commission v Belgium (C-2/90), commonly known as the “Walloon Waste Case.” This case questioned whether environmental concerns could justify restrictions on the movement of waste between member states, testing the balance between mutual recognition and public health or environmental protections. The court held that while mutual recognition is a fundamental principle, it can be restricted on grounds such as environmental protection, provided that the measures are proportionate and scientifically justified. This case has led to nuanced interpretations in later disputes, where environmental and health protections are weighed against the economic freedoms central to the single market.

How do EU institutions monitor and enforce compliance with the principles set out in Cassis de Dijon among member states?

EU institutions, primarily the European Commission, actively monitor and enforce compliance with the principles established in the Cassis de Dijon ruling. The Commission uses infringement proceedings against member states that fail to comply with EU law, including the mutual recognition of goods. For instance, in the Commission v France (C-265/95), the Commission acted against France for restricting imports of agricultural products from other member states, which was seen as a violation of the principles of free movement and mutual recognition. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) supports this enforcement by adjudicating cases and providing rulings that further clarify the law. The Commission also regularly reviews national laws and regulations to ensure they do not create new barriers to intra-EU trade, thereby maintaining the integrity of the single market.

Exclusive Industry Scoop

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