## Facts

- A German importer, Rewe-Zentral AG, sought to market “Cassis de Dijon”, a French blackcurrant liqueur, in Germany.
- German law required fruit liqueurs to contain a minimum alcohol content higher than that of Cassis de Dijon.
- The German Federal Monopoly Administration for Spirits refused an import licence because the product did not meet the statutory strength.
- Litigation in German courts resulted in a reference to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the compatibility of the national rule with Treaty provisions on free movement of goods.

## Issues

1. Whether Germany’s minimum-alcohol requirement was a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions contrary to the Treaty rules on free movement of goods (then Art 30 EEC, now Art 34 TFEU).
2. If so, whether such a measure could nonetheless be justified by legitimate interests—termed “mandatory requirements”—such as consumer protection or public health, and whether it satisfied proportionality.

## Decision

- The ECJ held that the national rule constituted a measure having equivalent effect because it hindered the marketing of lawfully produced goods from another Member State.
- The Court formulated the principle of mutual recognition: goods lawfully produced and marketed in one Member State should in principle be admitted to the market of any other Member State.
- It accepted that certain “mandatory requirements” (e.g., public health, consumer protection, fairness of commercial transactions, effectiveness of fiscal supervision) may justify barriers, provided the requirements are suitable and necessary.
- Germany’s alcohol-content rule was found disproportionate; less restrictive means (such as labelling) could achieve the same consumer-protection aim.
- Consequently, the German measure was incompatible with the Treaty.

## Legal Principles

- Mutual recognition: lawful marketing in one Member State creates a presumption of free circulation throughout the Community.
- Mandatory requirements: non-discriminatory national measures may limit trade where essential to objectives like health or consumer protection.
- Proportionality (“rule of reason”): the measure must be appropriate, necessary, and the least restrictive means of attaining its objective.
- Burden of justification rests on the Member State invoking a mandatory requirement.

## Conclusion

The ECJ invalidated Germany’s minimum-strength rule, establishing mutual recognition and the mandatory-requirement doctrine. Trade barriers that impede goods lawfully marketed elsewhere are unlawful unless the Member State proves they pursue a legitimate objective through proportionate means, a framework that remains central to the EU internal market regime.

Cassis de Dijon (Case C-120/78) [1979] ECR 649