Action brought on 21 December 2000 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-9/00)

(2001/C 49/15)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 December 2000 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Peter Dyrberg, acting as Agent of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 74 Rue de Trèves, B-1040 Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should declare that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the following provisions of the EEA Agreement:

- Article 16, by applying two forms of sale at the retail level where beer with an alcohol content between 2,5 % and 4,75 % by volume, mainly produced domestically, may be sold outside the outlets of the State controlled Wine and Spirits Monopoly ("Vinmonopolet"), while other alcoholic beverages with the same alcohol content, mostly imported from other EEA States, may only be sold through the Monopoly, and

- Article 11, by applying more restrictive measures regarding licences to serve alcoholic beverages with an alcoholic content between 2,5 % and 4,75 % by volume, mostly imported from other EEA States, compared to beer with the same alcohol content, mainly produced domestically, these measures not being necessary and proportionate in relation to the objective of safeguarding public health under Article 13 of the EEA Agreement.

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

- Article 16 provides that any State monopoly of a commercial character must be adjusted so that no discrimination regarding the conditions under which goods are procured and marketed will exist between nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States,

- by requiring that retail sales of other alcoholic beverages than beer, with an alcohol content between 2,5 % and 4,75 % by volume, only take place through Vinmonopolet, while allowing beer to be sold in grocery stores pursuant to municipal licence, Norway has, according to the applicant, failed to comply with Article 16 of the EEA Agreement,

- beer is overwhelmingly domestically produced, while other alcoholic drinks with the same alcoholic content are mostly imported. Furthermore, according to the applicant, there is a competitive relationship between these products,

- Article 11 of the EEA Agreement prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports, and all measures having an equivalent effect thereto. Such a measure may only be allowed if it is justified under Article 13 of the EEA Agreement,

- by not allowing licences held by restaurants and other establishments to serve beer to cover other alcoholic beverages having the same alcoholic content, including beverages based on spirits, Norway has, according to the applicant, failed to comply with Article 11 of the EEA Agreement,

- the applicant submits that justification for this prohibition cannot be found in Article 13 of the EEA Agreement on grounds of public health, since the measure chosen is unnecessary and disproportionate.