## Facts

- Belgian law required products bearing a designation of origin (including “Scotch whisky”) to be marketed in Belgium only if accompanied by an official certificate of origin issued by the exporting state’s authorities.
- Benoît and Gustave Dassonville, traders in alcoholic beverages, imported Scotch whisky into Belgium via France, where the whisky was already in free circulation.
- Because French law did not require such certificates, parallel importers sourcing through France could obtain an official United Kingdom certificate only with great difficulty compared to importers purchasing directly from the producer country.
- Belgian authorities brought criminal proceedings alleging breach of the certificate regime and use of a forged certificate.
- The Belgian trial court referred questions for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of EEC rules on free movement of goods (Articles 30–36) and competition (Article 85).

## Issues

1. Whether a national requirement for an official certificate of origin for designated-origin goods constitutes a “measure having equivalent effect” to a quantitative restriction under Article 30 EEC (now Article 34 TFEU).
2. Whether such a requirement can be justified under Article 36 EEC (now Article 36 TFEU) as a measure to prevent unfair practices or protect consumers.
3. When an exclusive dealing arrangement, particularly when combined with a restrictive national rule, falls within the prohibition of Article 85 EEC (now Article 101 TFEU).

## Decision

- The Court held that Member State trading rules capable of hindering intra-Community trade, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, are measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions.
- The Belgian certificate-of-origin requirement, as applied to Scotch whisky already in free circulation in another Member State, constituted a prohibited measure having equivalent effect under Article 30.
- Although preventing deception about origin can be a legitimate objective absent a Community system, the Belgian requirement was not justified because it imposed a substantially greater practical burden on parallel importers and operated as an unreasonable obstacle to trade.
- The Court stated that an exclusive dealing agreement falls within Article 85 when, in its legal and economic context, it impedes imports from other Member States into the protected territory by persons other than the exclusive importer, including by exploiting national rules to block parallel imports.
- The Court left application of these interpretations to the referring national court.

## Legal Principles

- “Measures having equivalent effect” include all Member State trading rules capable of hindering intra-Community trade directly or indirectly, actually or potentially (the Dassonville formula).
- A measure aimed at preventing misleading origin claims may be permissible only if it is reasonable and does not amount to arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade.
- Required means of proof for authenticity must not function as a trade barrier and must be practically accessible to all Community nationals, including parallel importers.
- Exclusive dealing arrangements may infringe Article 85 when they impede imports in law or fact, particularly where combined with national requirements that enable the exclusion of parallel imports; context determines whether the agreement restricts trade and competition.

## Conclusion

The Court adopted a broad effects-based test for prohibited national trade barriers and held that Belgium’s origin-certificate requirement unlawfully hindered parallel imports and could not be justified, while also clarifying that exclusive dealing arrangements may breach EU competition rules when used, together with national law, to block imports from other Member States.


Procureur du Roi v. Dassonville, Case 8/74, 1974 E.C.R. 837 (C.J.E.U. 1974)