## Facts

- Germany enforced statutory “beer purity” rules limiting ingredients for bottom- and top-fermented beer and broadly prohibiting certain additives permitted in other Member States.
- Germany reserved the product designation “Bier/beer” to beverages complying with those domestic composition rules.
- Beers lawfully produced and marketed in other Member States (including beers using ingredients such as maize or rice, or permitted additives) were barred from marketing in Germany and/or could not be sold under the generic name “beer.”
- The European Commission brought an infringement action alleging Germany’s measures violated the EEC Treaty rule prohibiting measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports.

## Issues

1. Whether Germany’s beer composition rules and reservation of the term “beer” were measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports contrary to Article 30 EEC.
2. Whether those restrictions were justified by public health under Article 36 EEC or by mandatory requirements such as consumer protection, and whether the measures were proportionate.

## Decision

- The ECJ held Germany’s prohibition on marketing imported beers lawfully made and sold in other Member States, based on noncompliance with German ingredient/additive rules, infringed Article 30 EEC.
- The ECJ held Germany’s restriction reserving the generic designation “beer” to products meeting German purity rules also infringed Article 30 EEC.
- The ECJ rejected justifications based on public health and consumer protection because the measures were not proportionate and less restrictive means were available.
- Germany was declared to have failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 30 EEC and was ordered to pay costs.

## Legal Principles

- National product-composition and marketing rules that hinder access for goods lawfully produced and marketed in other Member States can constitute measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions.
- Treaty derogations for public health must be construed strictly; preventive restrictions must be supported by a concrete assessment and must be proportionate.
- A Member State may regulate additives in principle where scientific uncertainty exists and harmonization is absent, but a blanket prohibition may be disproportionate, particularly where the state permits the same additives in other beverages.
- Consumer protection does not justify reserving a generic product name to goods meeting one Member State’s domestic standard, especially where this would entrench an advantage for domestic producers.
- Consumer information goals should ordinarily be pursued through less restrictive measures, including labeling and point-of-sale disclosure, rather than import exclusions or categorical naming bans.

## Conclusion

Germany’s beer purity and naming rules unlawfully restricted intra-Community trade because they excluded or disadvantaged beers lawfully marketed elsewhere, and Germany failed to show that its public health and consumer protection aims required such restrictive measures when labeling and other information-based alternatives were available.


Commission v. Ger. (Beer Purity), Case 178/84, 1987 E.C.R. 1227 (E.C.J. 1987)