Ministère Public v. Deserbais

Case 286/86, Ministère Public v. Deserbais, Judgment of 22 September 1988

Case 286/86, Ministère Public v. Deserbais, Judgment of 22 September 1988

In a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the Treaty the Court had to decide upon the possible intra-Community effects of an international convention as well as of the Codex Alimentarius jointly drawn up by the FAO and the WHO to which the Community is not party.

Facts

Mr. Deserbais, director of a dairy products enterprise, had marketed in France under the name of "Edam" a cheese imported from the FRG having a fat content of 34%, whereas under French legislation the name "Edam" is reserved for a type of cheese with a fat content of at least 40%. This national requirement implements the so-called Stresa Convention, to which France is a party. In the FRG, however, the cheese in question is legally manufactured and distributed. Nonetheless, Mr. Deserbais was convicted of violating the relevant French law (Ministere public v. Deserbais, 1988). The Court of Appeal called upon the Court to determine whether this national legislation constitutes a quantitative restriction or a measure having equivalent effect thereto in the sense of Article 30 of the Treaty.

Summary

In the absence of common rules on the marketing of the products in question, obstacles to free movement within the Community resulting from disparities in national legislation must be accepted in so far as the national rules, applying without distinction to domestic and imported products, can be justified as being necessary in order to satisfy imperative requirements relating inter alia to consumer protection and fair trading (Ministere public v. Deserbais, 1988).

The purpose of the first paragraph of Article 234 of the Treaty is to lay down, in accordance with the principles of international law, that the application of the Treaty does not affect the duty of the Member State concerned to respect the rights of non-member countries under a prior agreement and to perform its obligations thereunder. Consequently, provided that the rights of non-member countries are not involved, a Member State cannot rely on the provisions of a preexisting convention of that kind in order to justify restrictions on the marketing of products coming from another Member State where the marketing thereof is lawful by virtue of the free movement of goods provided for by the Treaty.

Article 30 et seq. of the Treaty preclude a Member State from applying national legislation making the right to use the trade name of a type of cheese subject to the observance of a minimum fat content to products of the same type imported from another Member State when those products have been lawfully manufactured and marketed under that name in that Member State and consumers are provided with proper information (Ministere public v. Deserbais, 1988).

The Judgment

According to the established practice of the Court, well known as the Cassis de Dijon formula,30 the Court states that the French regulations pertaining to minimum fat content create an obstacle to trade in the sense of Article 30, which cannot ...