Eyssen (Case C-53/80) [1981] ECR 409

Facts

• Belgian law required imported margarine to be sold exclusively in cube-shaped packages, whereas domestic margarine could be marketed in any form.
• To comply, Mr Eyssen, an importer, had to repackage foreign margarine, incurring extra cost, delay and commercial risk.
• Eyssen argued the shape rule was a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction, infringing Article 30 EEC (now Article 34 TFEU).
• Belgium contended the measure protected public health by enabling consumers to distinguish margarine from butter and thereby limit fat intake.
• A Belgian court referred questions to the Court of Justice on whether the rule breached Article 30 and, if so, whether it could be justified under the Article 36 public-health derogation.

Issues

1. Did Belgium’s cube-shape obligation for imported margarine constitute a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction under Article 30 EEC?
2. If it did, was the measure necessary and proportionate so as to be justified under the public-health exception in Article 36 EEC?

Decision

• The Court held that the cube-only requirement placed imported margarine at a competitive disadvantage and therefore amounted to a measure having equivalent effect prohibited by Article 30.
• A Member State relying on Article 36 must prove both necessity and proportionality of the contested rule.
• Belgium failed to show that clear, conspicuous labelling would not sufficiently inform consumers of the product’s nature.
• Because consumer awareness could be achieved by less trade-restrictive means, the packaging rule exceeded what was necessary to safeguard public health.
• The measure accordingly breached Article 30 EEC and could not be justified under Article 36.

Legal Principles

• Article 30 EEC bars national provisions that hinder intra-Community trade by disadvantaging imported goods, even if the rules are facially non-discriminatory.
• Derogations in Article 36 are interpreted strictly; the Member State bears the burden of demonstrating indispensability and the absence of viable, less restrictive alternatives.
• Consumer-protection or public-health aims may justify restrictions only where equivalent protection cannot be achieved through measures such as clear labelling.
• Goods lawfully marketed in one Member State enjoy free circulation unless a proportionate, evidence-based restriction is demonstrably required.

Conclusion

The Court of Justice declared Belgium’s cube-shape packaging requirement incompatible with Article 30 EEC and rejected the Article 36 defence, finding that clear labelling would have met the health objective without impeding trade.