Cassis de Dijon Case Study: Impact on European Union Law

This case study provides an analysis of the Cassis de Dijon case and its impact on European Law. The case revolves around a German liquor importer being denied permission to import Cassis de Dijon due to German law requiring fruit liquor to have a minimum alcohol content of 25%. The European Court of Justice ruled that this breached Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), establishing the principle of mutual recognition, where a product lawfully marketable in one member state is also marketable in another. The court also introduced the concept of "overriding reasons of public interest," allowing import restrictions under certain non-discriminatory circumstances. The case's significance extends to current trade relations, exemplified by Switzerland's alignment with the Cassis de Dijon principle to enhance trade with EU countries. Desklib provides access to similar solved assignments and case studies for students.

EUROPEAN LAW
European Law
Name
Institution
1

EUROPEAN LAW
ANALYSYS OF THE CASSIS DE DIJON CASE
The laws under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union are binding to the
member States. As such was the treaties was very vital in determining trade relations especially
in the post war age. The summary of this Cassis De Dijon case1 is that a German liquor importer
was denied permission to import the liquor known as cassis de Dijon on the basis that, according
to German law, all fruit liquor was required to have a minimum of 25% alcohol.2 The plaintiff
went to the European Court of Justice and pleaded that the prohibition breached Article 34 of
TFEU.3 The court held that under the principle of mutual recognition, any product that is
lawfully marketable in one member state is also, by right, marketable in another. 4
The German government pleaded public health. They submitted that lower levels of
alcohol would cause the citizens to develop a tolerance of alcohol. This reasoning the court
dismissed as beverages originating within the country having a lower that 25% alcohol level
were being sold legally. The court introduced a concept known as “overriding reasons of public
interest” which provided that as long as there is no discrimination, then a nation may prohibit the
import of products under Art. 36.5
In terms of current significance, the Federal Council of Switzerland in 2010 revised the laws on
imports to align with the ‘Casis De Dijon” principle. The purpose of which is to increase trade
with other EU countries.6
Bibliography
1 Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 2019 (accessed May 24,2019); available from https://www.nzz.ch/erleichterte_eu-
importe-1.5759574
2 'Case 120/78 Cassis De Dijon [1979] | Case Summary’ (Web stroke Law, 1 April
2019)<https://webstroke.co.uk/law/cases/case-12078-cassis-de-dijon-1979> accessed 24 May,2019
3 Art. 34 provides “quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be
prohibited between Member States”.
4 Hayes, supra note 1 at 123
5 Art 36 provides that prohibit a state can the import of good under certain circumstances.
6 Ibid., 1
2

EUROPEAN LAW
Webstroke.co.uk ,'Case 120/78 Cassis De Dijon [1979] | Case Summary’ (Web stroke Law, 1
April 2019)<https://webstroke.co.uk/law/cases/case-12078-cassis-de-dijon-1979> accessed 24
May,2019
Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 2019 (accessed May 24,2019); available from
https://www.nzz.ch/erleichterte_eu-importe-1.5759574
Rewe-Zentral v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein [1979] Case 120/78
Treaty of European community, October,2012, “Official journal of the European Union
consolidated version no. 4(2012): 326.
3