Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Svensk alkoholpolitik och EU - en undersökning av Sveriges och EU:s alkoholpolitik

Johnson, Felix LU (2014) LAGF03 20141
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Uppsatsen har som syfte att redogöra för alkoholpolitiken som bedrivs och som har bedrivits i Sverige och dess förhållande till EU-rätten, samt att redogöra för den alkohol- och hälsopolitik EU bedriver. Utöver diskuteras den fria rörligheten och alkoholimport.
Sverige har sedan länge haft lagar som syftar till att begränsa de problem som är förknippade med alkohol. De allra tidigaste lagarna från 1500-talet var av ren straffrättslig karaktär, men efter hand kom fokus att läggas på mer preventiva åtgärder såsom monopol och alkoholtillstånd för restauranger.
Sverige och Danmark är lika i många avseenden, men när det kommer till alkoholpolitik är skillnaderna stora. Danmark har valt en mer liberal politik utan monopol vilket innebär att... (More)
Uppsatsen har som syfte att redogöra för alkoholpolitiken som bedrivs och som har bedrivits i Sverige och dess förhållande till EU-rätten, samt att redogöra för den alkohol- och hälsopolitik EU bedriver. Utöver diskuteras den fria rörligheten och alkoholimport.
Sverige har sedan länge haft lagar som syftar till att begränsa de problem som är förknippade med alkohol. De allra tidigaste lagarna från 1500-talet var av ren straffrättslig karaktär, men efter hand kom fokus att läggas på mer preventiva åtgärder såsom monopol och alkoholtillstånd för restauranger.
Sverige och Danmark är lika i många avseenden, men när det kommer till alkoholpolitik är skillnaderna stora. Danmark har valt en mer liberal politik utan monopol vilket innebär att vanliga matbutiker kan sälja sprit, och inte bara alkohol upp till tre komma fem volymprocent. I Danmark får personer som fyllt sexton år handla vin och öl och artonårsgräns gäller för starkare drycker. Tyskland har i princip identiska bestämmelser.
Utöver monopol, alkoholtillstånd för krogar, och begränsningar vid försäljning av alkoholdrycker i butiker, har förbud mot alkoholreklam varit en viktig fråga för svenska politiker. Reklamförbudet kom att ifrågasättas i Gourmet-fallet och där slog EU-domstolen fast att förbudet var i enlighet med fördragen om det motiverades av folkhälsoskäl och var proportionerligt. Trots detta kom Marknadsdomstolen och Högsta domstolen fram till att förbudet inte var proportionerligt och att vissa drycker, med en viss högsta alkoholhalt, borde få marknadsföras.
Forskning bedrivs såklart inom alkoholområdet. Informationen jag tagit del av visar att Sverige med en relativt hårt hållen alkoholpolitik har mindre missbruksproblem än Moskvaregionen i Ryssland där ca fyrtio procent har missbruksproblem. Man måste dock ha i åtanke att siffrorna är ca femton år gamla och att mycket kan ha hänt sedan statistiken togs fram.
Sveriges anslutning till EU innebar vissa förändringar för svensk alkoholpolitik. De största förändringarna var avskaffandet av monopolen för produktion, import/export och restauranghandel. En annan mindre förändring var att alkoläsk och lådvin började säljas.

En elva år gammal rapport visar att svenskarna nu dricker mer de gjort på hundra år och bara efter EU-inträdet i mitten av 90-talet har konsumtionen ökat med trettio procent. Detta antas bero på ökad tillgänglighet men också att alkoholen med tiden blivit billigare p.g.a. inflationen.

För att motverka att alkoholproducenter i andra EU-stater diskrimineras utövar Konkurrensverket kontroll över Systembolagets verksamhet. Produkter av alkoholproducenter som Systembolaget valt att inte beställa in till sitt sortiment kan överklagas av den berörda leverantören till Alkoholsortimentsnämnden. Produkter som saknas i det ordinarie sortimentet hos Systembolaget kan beställas in av köparen om varan finns i beställningssortimentet. Om det mot all förmodan skulle saknas i beställningssortimentet kan köparen privatimportera drycken med eller utan Systembolagets försorg.

Nästan omedelbart efter Sveriges anslutning till EU började skåningen Harry Franzén (därav namnet ”Franzénmålet”) att utmana Systembolaget och sålde vin som han inhandlat i Danmark och på Systembolaget. Detta ledde till åtal och saken kom att prövas av EU-domstolen (se C-189/95). Domstolen menade att alkoholmonopol är tillåtna och pekade precis som i Gourmet-fallet, på staternas självbestämmanderätt i folkhälsofrågor.
Ett par år senare hade EU-domstolen återigen ett fall från Sverige på sitt bord och frågan rörde den här gången inte olovlig spritförsäljning som i Franzénmålet, utan om privatpersoner som av Tullverket nekats att importera spanskt vin köpt på postorder. Målet kallas Rosengrendomen (se C-170/04). Köparna fick rätt och EU-domstolen ansåg att Sveriges förbud mot privat alkoholimport utgör en kvantitativ importrestriktion och utöver detta är förbudet dels inte motiverat ur folkhälsoskäl, och dels är det inte en proportionerlig åtgärd för att motverka skadlig alkoholkonsumtion.
En annan sak att diskutera är den alkoholpolitik som bedrivs på EU-nivå. Precis som det visade sig i både Gourmet- och Franzénmålet är hälsofrågor frågor som medlemsstaterna fått tillåtelse att bestämma över själva till stor del. Artikel 152 i fördraget ålägger bara EU att förebygga och skydda medborgarnas hälsa och utgör inte bindande lagstiftning. Artikel 152 är enbart till för att fungera som en möjlighet att söka hjälp från EU för medlemsstaterna.
Utöver detta har EU med ett par års mellanrum antagit program med åtgärder på hälsoområdet. Det senaste antogs tidigare i år och åtgärder mot skadlig alkoholkonsumtion är med som ett av delmålen. Rekommendationer har också tagits fram och en av de mest kända är 2001/458/EC där stor vikt läggs på alkoholkonsumtion bland unga.
Införsel av alkoholvaror från andra EU-länder till Sverige är mer begränsad än införsel av andra varor. Vid införsel ska köparen vara minst tjugo år gammal och själv stå för transporten till Sverige. Utöver detta får den importerade alkoholen inte vara avsedd för någon annan än köparen eller köparens familjs behov.
Eftersom konsumtionen skiftar från familj till familj har Tullverkets vissa riktlinjer. Tio liter sprit, tjugo liter starkvin, nittio liter vin samt hundratio liter öl klassas som privat konsumtion.
Vill köparen inte transportera alkoholen själv blir situationen en annan. Då får köparen anlita en extern transportör och också meddela Skatteverket för att på så sätt inte undkomma svensk alkoholskatt. Om köparen ordnar transporten är köparen alkoholskattepliktig och samma sak gäller om det istället är säljaren som ordnar transporten. Underrättas inte Skatteverket riskerar köparen eller säljaren att få betala punktskatt. (Less)
Abstract
The main purpose of this essay is to discuss Swedish politics on the alcohol field, and its problems when it comes to the treaties of the EU. In addition, I also want to write about the alcohol and health policy of the EU.
Sweden has since many hundred years had problems associated with alcohol. The earliest laws came during the 1500s and provided penalty for drunkenness. Gradually our law maker began to focus on more preventive measures, such as alcohol monopolies and liquor license for restaurants.
Sweden and Denmark are similar in many ways, but when it comes to alcohol politics, there are many differences. Denmark has a more liberal alcohol policy. For example Denmark does not have a monopoly on alcoholic beverages, which means that... (More)
The main purpose of this essay is to discuss Swedish politics on the alcohol field, and its problems when it comes to the treaties of the EU. In addition, I also want to write about the alcohol and health policy of the EU.
Sweden has since many hundred years had problems associated with alcohol. The earliest laws came during the 1500s and provided penalty for drunkenness. Gradually our law maker began to focus on more preventive measures, such as alcohol monopolies and liquor license for restaurants.
Sweden and Denmark are similar in many ways, but when it comes to alcohol politics, there are many differences. Denmark has a more liberal alcohol policy. For example Denmark does not have a monopoly on alcoholic beverages, which means that grocery stores can sell liquor and, unlike Sweden, there are no rules limiting how strong alcohol stores can sell. Danish people aged sixteen and more are allowed to buy wine and beer, but only peopled aged eighteen and more, are allowed to buy spirits. Germany has almost identical rules as Denmark.
Not only monopoly, alcohol licensing of restaurants, and limitations of how strong beer you can buy in grocery stores has been measures carried out by the Swedish government. Some years ago Sweden had a prohibition of alcohol advertising. The ban of advertising was not popular, and it later led to a case called the Gourmet-case which was reviewed by the ECJ Court. The Court´s conclusion was that laws which prohibit advertising of alcoholic beverages are in accordance with the Treaties of EU if it is motivated by public health considerations and stood in proportion to its purpose of limiting alcohol consumption. The Swedish Market Court and the Swedish Supreme Court however, later concluded that the ban did not stand in proportion to its purpose of limiting alcohol consumption. The two Swedish courts decided to allow advertising for alcoholic beverages not containing more than fifteen percentage of alcohol, i.e. not spirits.
There is a lot of research going on in the alcohol field, and the results from the research shows that countries with a strict alcohol policy, has less problems with alcoholic abuse. For example, in the Moscow region in Russia where the regulation of alcohol is very liberal, forty percent of the citizens have drinking issues. However, one must keep in mind that the statistics are about fifteen teen years old and a lot could have changed ever since.
When Sweden became a member of the EU some changes had to be made concerning alcohol.
The greatest changes were the abolition of the monopoly for production, the monopoly for import and export, and finally the abolition of the monopoly for alcohol trade for restaurants. A minor change was that Systembolaget was now allowed to sell alcopop and bag-in-box wine; beverages not permitted to sell at Systembolaget until now as they were considered as products increasing the alcohol consumption.
An eleven year old report shows us that Swedes now drink more than they did a hundred years ago and only after entering the EU in the mid -90s, the consumption has increased by thirty percent. This increase in consumption may be due to that alcohol is easier to find today, but also that alcoholic beverages over time has become cheaper due to inflation.
It is of great importance that producers of alcoholic beverages in EU get treated equally. To prevent discrimination, the Swedish competition authority “Konkurrensverket” controls the business of Systembolaget. If Systembolaget refuses to buy from a supplier, the supplier can appeal to “Alkoholsortimentsnämnden”, an authority with the right to revoke the decision made by Systembolaget. Products not being available at Systembolaget may be ordered by Systembolaget if the buyer so desires. If the product is out of stock in Systembolaget’s main supply, the buyer can order the beverage himself with assistance from Systembolaget (“privatimport”).
Almost immediately after Sweden became a member of the EU a man called Harry Franzén (hence the name the “Franzén-case”) started to compete with Systembolaget by selling wine. His actions led to prosecution, and the case was judged by the ECJ (C-189/95). The Court decided that alcohol monopolies are allowed and, just like the Court reasoned in the Gourmet-case, that each state has the right to decide what actions to take in the field of public health.
A few years later the ECJ had another Swedish case to deal with. This time it was not about selling liquor illegally, as in the Franzén-case, but instead the case was about people who were stopped by the Swedish Custom Authority “Tullverket” as they tried to import Spanish wine ordered by mail. The case is called “The Rosengren-case” (C-170/04). The claimants (the buyers) won and the ECJ first of all concluded that the Swedish prohibition of private alcohol import was an action considered as a quantitative import restriction and therefore not in accordance with EU-law. Secondly the ECJ concluded that the import prohibition could not be considered as an action necessary for protecting the public health and, as a consequence, the action is disproportionate.

The Gourmet-case and the Franzén-case made it clear that each member state, to a large extent, has the right to decide what actions to be taken in the field of public health. Article 152 is only meant to serve as a general rule for protecting the health of EU-citizens and is not a binding legislation; it only gives member states the opportunity to obtain help from EU in matters concerning public health.
The minister council and the parliament of EU have also made health programs. The newest program was adopted earlier this year, and one of its goals is to find measures against harmful alcohol consumption. In addition to health programs, some recommendations have been developed and one the most famous recommendations is 2001/458/EC. This recommendation focuses on alcohol consumption among young people.
Free movement of alcohol beverages is more complicated than free movement of other goods. In Sweden, a person must be at least twenty years old in order to import alcoholic beverages. Besides that, the buyer must handle the transport to Sweden and the liquor has to be for personal or family use only.
Some families consume more alcohol than other families, and it could be hard for the buyer to know what the Swedish Customs consider as personal use. The Swedish Customs “Tullverket” has therefore made a recommendation which allows a buyer to bring ten liters of spirits, twenty liters of fortified wine, ninety liters of wine and hundred and ten liters of beer to Sweden.
If the buyer does not want to transport the alcohol, an external transporter can be hired. But in that case the buyer must inform the Swedish Tax Authority “Skatteverket” because the buyer must pay Swedish alcohol tax. If the buyer arranges the transport, the buyer has to pay Swedish alcohol tax and in the opposite case, the seller has to pay Swedish alcohol tax. If “Skatteverket” don’t get informed about the transaction, the buyer or the seller may have to pay excise duty. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Johnson, Felix LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20141
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
fri rörlighet, alkoholtullar, EU-law and social welfare law Alkoholpolitik
language
Swedish
id
4449052
date added to LUP
2014-06-17 13:53:28
date last changed
2014-06-17 13:53:28
@misc{4449052,
  abstract     = {{The main purpose of this essay is to discuss Swedish politics on the alcohol field, and its problems when it comes to the treaties of the EU. In addition, I also want to write about the alcohol and health policy of the EU.
Sweden has since many hundred years had problems associated with alcohol. The earliest laws came during the 1500s and provided penalty for drunkenness. Gradually our law maker began to focus on more preventive measures, such as alcohol monopolies and liquor license for restaurants.
Sweden and Denmark are similar in many ways, but when it comes to alcohol politics, there are many differences. Denmark has a more liberal alcohol policy. For example Denmark does not have a monopoly on alcoholic beverages, which means that grocery stores can sell liquor and, unlike Sweden, there are no rules limiting how strong alcohol stores can sell. Danish people aged sixteen and more are allowed to buy wine and beer, but only peopled aged eighteen and more, are allowed to buy spirits. Germany has almost identical rules as Denmark.
Not only monopoly, alcohol licensing of restaurants, and limitations of how strong beer you can buy in grocery stores has been measures carried out by the Swedish government. Some years ago Sweden had a prohibition of alcohol advertising. The ban of advertising was not popular, and it later led to a case called the Gourmet-case which was reviewed by the ECJ Court. The Court´s conclusion was that laws which prohibit advertising of alcoholic beverages are in accordance with the Treaties of EU if it is motivated by public health considerations and stood in proportion to its purpose of limiting alcohol consumption. The Swedish Market Court and the Swedish Supreme Court however, later concluded that the ban did not stand in proportion to its purpose of limiting alcohol consumption. The two Swedish courts decided to allow advertising for alcoholic beverages not containing more than fifteen percentage of alcohol, i.e. not spirits.
There is a lot of research going on in the alcohol field, and the results from the research shows that countries with a strict alcohol policy, has less problems with alcoholic abuse. For example, in the Moscow region in Russia where the regulation of alcohol is very liberal, forty percent of the citizens have drinking issues. However, one must keep in mind that the statistics are about fifteen teen years old and a lot could have changed ever since.
When Sweden became a member of the EU some changes had to be made concerning alcohol. 
The greatest changes were the abolition of the monopoly for production, the monopoly for import and export, and finally the abolition of the monopoly for alcohol trade for restaurants. A minor change was that Systembolaget was now allowed to sell alcopop and bag-in-box wine; beverages not permitted to sell at Systembolaget until now as they were considered as products increasing the alcohol consumption.
An eleven year old report shows us that Swedes now drink more than they did a hundred years ago and only after entering the EU in the mid -90s, the consumption has increased by thirty percent. This increase in consumption may be due to that alcohol is easier to find today, but also that alcoholic beverages over time has become cheaper due to inflation.
It is of great importance that producers of alcoholic beverages in EU get treated equally. To prevent discrimination, the Swedish competition authority “Konkurrensverket” controls the business of Systembolaget. If Systembolaget refuses to buy from a supplier, the supplier can appeal to “Alkoholsortimentsnämnden”, an authority with the right to revoke the decision made by Systembolaget. Products not being available at Systembolaget may be ordered by Systembolaget if the buyer so desires. If the product is out of stock in Systembolaget’s main supply, the buyer can order the beverage himself with assistance from Systembolaget (“privatimport”).
Almost immediately after Sweden became a member of the EU a man called Harry Franzén (hence the name the “Franzén-case”) started to compete with Systembolaget by selling wine. His actions led to prosecution, and the case was judged by the ECJ (C-189/95). The Court decided that alcohol monopolies are allowed and, just like the Court reasoned in the Gourmet-case, that each state has the right to decide what actions to take in the field of public health.
A few years later the ECJ had another Swedish case to deal with. This time it was not about selling liquor illegally, as in the Franzén-case, but instead the case was about people who were stopped by the Swedish Custom Authority “Tullverket” as they tried to import Spanish wine ordered by mail. The case is called “The Rosengren-case” (C-170/04). The claimants (the buyers) won and the ECJ first of all concluded that the Swedish prohibition of private alcohol import was an action considered as a quantitative import restriction and therefore not in accordance with EU-law. Secondly the ECJ concluded that the import prohibition could not be considered as an action necessary for protecting the public health and, as a consequence, the action is disproportionate.

The Gourmet-case and the Franzén-case made it clear that each member state, to a large extent, has the right to decide what actions to be taken in the field of public health. Article 152 is only meant to serve as a general rule for protecting the health of EU-citizens and is not a binding legislation; it only gives member states the opportunity to obtain help from EU in matters concerning public health. 
The minister council and the parliament of EU have also made health programs. The newest program was adopted earlier this year, and one of its goals is to find measures against harmful alcohol consumption. In addition to health programs, some recommendations have been developed and one the most famous recommendations is 2001/458/EC. This recommendation focuses on alcohol consumption among young people.
Free movement of alcohol beverages is more complicated than free movement of other goods. In Sweden, a person must be at least twenty years old in order to import alcoholic beverages. Besides that, the buyer must handle the transport to Sweden and the liquor has to be for personal or family use only.
Some families consume more alcohol than other families, and it could be hard for the buyer to know what the Swedish Customs consider as personal use. The Swedish Customs “Tullverket” has therefore made a recommendation which allows a buyer to bring ten liters of spirits, twenty liters of fortified wine, ninety liters of wine and hundred and ten liters of beer to Sweden.
If the buyer does not want to transport the alcohol, an external transporter can be hired. But in that case the buyer must inform the Swedish Tax Authority “Skatteverket” because the buyer must pay Swedish alcohol tax. If the buyer arranges the transport, the buyer has to pay Swedish alcohol tax and in the opposite case, the seller has to pay Swedish alcohol tax. If “Skatteverket” don’t get informed about the transaction, the buyer or the seller may have to pay excise duty.}},
  author       = {{Johnson, Felix}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Svensk alkoholpolitik och EU - en undersökning av Sveriges och EU:s alkoholpolitik}},
  year         = {{2014}},
}