*UPDATE: On 5 June 2007 the European Court of Justice ruled that the Swedish monopoly is a disproportionate measure to attain the objective of limiting alcohol consumption in general and limiting underage drinking. The ECJ concluded that the monopoly was against the EU principle of free movement of goods, and that it was therefore not compatible with EU law.
Despite that judgement, Maria Larsson, Swedish public health minister, confirmed that the alcohol monopoly will stay put and that the Swedish State “will also work for restrictive alcohol policies” within the EU.
On 30 november 2006, the European Court of Justice advocate-general backed Sweden’s stringent policies on alcohol retails. He suggested that the Swedish ban is legal under European Union law: it is not in principle contradictory to article 31 of the Treaty. However, he also pointed out that the rules shall not discriminate against the sale of goods from other Member States.
In March 2004, the Supreme Court of Sweden asked the European Court of Justice to rule wether the Swedish legislation on alcohol was in line with the European Community Treaty. The European Court of Justice issued its ruling on the 30 March 2006 (’Rosengren Case’ 170/04 - in French).
Background and context of the case law
In order to limit the consumption of alcohol and reduce alcohol related harm, Sweden has adopted the ’alkohollag’ which rules on all aspects of production and trade of alcohol. Within this framework, Sweden has established a retailer monopoly. Products that are not displayed in the shops can be requested by the consumer. If the products are from other countries, the import taxes msut be paid by the client. Up to 2005, the monopoly could refuse to import alcohol. This provision has been removed from the law since then.
In other words, individuals do not have the right to import alcohol by themselves, unless it is restricted to their personal consumption.
The case is based on request from Mr Rosengren who tried to import Spanish wines without a licence. He ordered Spanish wines through a Danish website as well as directly in Spain therefore bypassing the national alcohol monopoly.
Decision of the European Court of Justice
On the 30 March 2006, the European Court of Justice ruled that the prohibition for individuals to import alcohol is contrary to the European Community Treaty (article 31), since the monopoly has a discretionary power to refuse importing alcohol beverages requested by clients: it leaves the individuals with no legal means to obtain the alcoholic beverage, which breach EU trade law.
It also concluded that the existing restrictions on imports are contrary to the European Community Treatty article 28 and 30. In other words, a individual has the right to request the retailer to order alcohol in his/her name.
However, it is worthnoting that the advocate-general did not rule out the principle of the retailer monopoly. As long as the monopoly makes sure that clients have access to alcohol when they require it, it does not contradict the EC Treaty.
