Samiksha Jaiswal (Editor)

Procureur du Roi v Benoît and Gustave Dassonville

Updated on
Edit
Like
Comment
Share on FacebookTweet on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit
Decided
  
11 July 1974

End date
  
July 11, 1974

Citation(s)
  
(1974) Case 8/74

Ruling court
  
European Court of Justice

Procureur du Roi v Benoît and Gustave Dassonville httpsuploadwikimediaorgwikipediacommonsthu

Similar
  
Rewe‑Zentral AG v Bundesm, Van Gend en Loos v Nederlan, Costa v ENEL, Alpine Investments BV v Mini, Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl

Procureur du Roi v Benoît and Gustave Dassonville (1974) Case 8/74 is an EU law case of the European Court of Justice, in which a 'distinctly applicable measure of equivalent effect' to a quantitative restriction of trade in the European Union was held to exist on a Scotch whisky imported from France.

Contents

Facts

Benoit and Dassonville claimed that their prosecution for selling Scotch whisky without a certificate was contrary to the TEEC article 28 (now TFEU art 34). A Belgian law said Scotch whisky and other products that had a designation of origin could only be sold if accompanied with a certificate of origin. Competitors had exclusive dealing arrangements with UK exporters, and so they had acquired the whisky from France. However, in France, it was impossible to obtain a certificate because French law did not require certificates. Benoit and Dassonville were accused of forging a certificate and prosecuted. In response, they challenged the legality of the certificate law, based on the rule in article 28 that there should be no quantitative restrictions on trade, or measures of equivalent effect. The Belgian authorities, the Procureur du Roi contended that because the purpose was to protect consumers, not regulate trade, the measure fell outside TEEC article 28.

The Belgian court referred the case to the European Court of Justice, as is permitted under TEEC article 234 (now TFEU art 267).

Judgment

The Court of Justice held that the requirement for a certificate in Belgian law was contrary to article 28.

Significance

Horspool and Humphreys note that this decision could include a "huge" range of restrictions and that the court has sought to limit the scope of the Dassonville decision, in cases such as Cassis de Dijon, which was decided a few years later.

References

Procureur du Roi v Benoît and Gustave Dassonville Wikipedia