WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2105/97 by Jean-Pierre BÉBÉAR to the Commission. The Evin Law and restrictions on freedom of movement
17. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 82/29 (98/C 82/40) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2105/97 by Jean-Pierre Be·be·ar (PPE) to the Commission (23 June 1997) Subject: The Evin Law and restrictions on freedom of movement The Commission recently rejected a complaint lodged by a brewer challenging the application of the Evin Law, which had obliged him to break his sponsorship contract with FIFA (International Football Federation) for the World Cup due to be held in France in 1998. 1. What arguments under Community law led the Commission to take this decision? In attempting to determine whether the Evin Law is compatible with Community law, did the Commission 2. examine how effective the law is in achieving its objectives? 3. Does this decision mean that the Commission considers that the objective of the internal market is incompatible with the objective of protecting public health? Would it therefore be possible in future for the Member States to create barriers to the internal market by invoking public health considerations, regardless of the content of the rules concerned? Has the Commission taken into account the fact that sport is beneficial to health and that the broadcasting of 4. sporting events bolsters this message? 5. Has the Commission taken into account the fact that French law prohibits the consumption of alcohol inside stadiums with the result that there is no risk of alcohol abuse in stadiums and the broadcasting of matches has no harmful effects? Has the Commission taken into account the principle that the restrictions should be proportionate to the 6. objective pursued (cf. case law of the Court of Justice)? Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1997) The Honourable Member requests information regarding the reported closure of an infringement case concerning the ban of a cross-border sponsorship for the 1998 world cup in France by an alcoholic beverage producer following the application of the French loi Evin. The Honourable Member will recognise that it is not possible to answer his questions using detailed information on the case given the confidentiality that the Commission must respect in such instances. When examining the compatibility with the Treaty of such restrictions on cross-border services, and in view of the assessment of their proportionality, it is necessary to evaluate how far they are efficient in protecting the public interest invoked. The Commission has explained how this proportionality assessment could be rendered more efficient in the green paper on commercial communications (1) which the Parliament has strongly supported. To assess the efficiency of restrictions which aim to discourage abusive use of alcoholic beverages it is necessary to identify the positive and negative effects of the measure on the objective invoked and other general interest objectives. In the particular case mentioned in the question, the assessment showed that there were no grounds to pursue the case. This in no way prejudges the assessment of future cases. The aspects mentioned by the Honourable Member will, of course, be important in judging these cases. Finally the Commission wishes to make it clear that it believes in strongly defending the policy objectives of establishing the internal market and the protection of public health. It is through applying internal market principles rigorously that one can identify proportional restrictions where the level of protection of public health is deficient in the originating Member State. These signal the need for harmonisation to re-establish free movement whilst ensuring that a high level of protection of public health can be attained for all European citizens. (1) COM(96) 192 final