## Facts

- German law imposed a minimum alcohol content requirement for fruit liqueurs sold within Germany.
- This regulation blocked the import and sale of fruit liqueurs produced and lawfully marketed at lower alcohol content levels in other Member States.
- The European Commission commenced infringement proceedings against Germany, alleging this constituted a quantitative import restriction contrary to EU law.
- Germany argued the measure was necessary for consumer protection and to prevent unfair commercial practices.

## Issues

1. Whether Germany's minimum alcohol content requirement for fruit liqueurs constituted a restriction on the free movement of goods under Article 34 EEC.
2. Whether the restriction could be justified on grounds of consumer protection or fairness in commercial transactions.
3. Whether the measure was proportionate, or if less restrictive alternatives, such as labeling, could sufficiently achieve the stated objectives.

## Decision

- The Court determined that Germany's requirement restricted imports and sales of fruit liqueurs from other Member States, contravening Article 34 EEC.
- It found that national measures are only justifiable by legitimate aims if they are proportionate.
- The Court rejected the sufficiency of consumer protection as a justification for the measure.
- It held that clear labeling would be an equally effective and less restrictive means of protecting consumers.
- The German regulation was found unnecessary, disproportionate, and unlawful under Article 34 EEC.

## Legal Principles

- Trade-restrictive national measures may be justified only by mandatory requirements, such as consumer protection, when proportionate.
- The proportionality principle dictates that measures must be suitable, necessary, and confined to achieving legitimate aims.
- If less restrictive methods, such as labeling, are available, more onerous restrictions are unjustified.
- The principle of mutual recognition allows products lawfully marketed in one Member State to be sold in others.
- The Cassis de Dijon principle prohibits national provisions that hinder intra-EU trade where less restrictive alternatives exist.

## Conclusion

The European Court of Justice held that Germany’s minimum alcohol content rule for fruit liqueurs unlawfully restricted the free movement of goods under Article 34 EEC, as consumer protection could be ensured by less restrictive means such as labeling.


Commission v Germany, [1987] ECR 1227