The Compatibility of the Swedish Alcohol Monopoly with EC Law

Abstract

Sweden has traditionally pursued a restrictive policy on alcohol. One of the fundamental and outstanding features of this policy is the monopolization of the retail sales of alcoholic beverages. Spirits, wine and beer with an alcohol content of more than 3.5 per cent by volume may only be sold by the State-owned Systembolaget AB. The products available in Systembolaget's shops are selected and purchased centrally, based on their price-quality ratio and a 'blind test' carried out by Systembolaget's tasters. The products that are eventually purchased must then reach a certain sales volume during an introductory period, failing which they will not be included in Systembolaget's basic assortment. Similarly, products that are included in this assortment will be dropped if their sales fail to reach a certain volume. In 1997 the European Court of Justice had the opportunity to pronounce on the compatibility of Systembolaget's monopoly in the so-called Franzén case. The owner of a food shop had unlawfully sold wine in his shop and maintained that the statutory monopoly was contrary to the Community rules on the free movement of goods. To the surprise of most lawyers, the monopoly was upheld by the Court. What was particularly surprising was the Court's approach regarding the applicability of Art. 28 EC. It held that Art. 31 EC was «specifically applicable to the exercise, by a domestic monopoly, of its exclusive rights Case C-189/95, para. 35.» and refused to examine the monopoly under Art. 28 EC. This approach was totally at odds not only with the opinion of the Advocate General, but also with the Court's previous cas-law and even with the judgements in the energy monopoly cases, which were handed down on the very same day. The Court's judgement was far from convincing on a number of points. First of all, the Court did not state whether Franzén marked a general change of direction in its case-law concerning Art. 28 EC or whether that Article would continue to be applicable to State monopolies of a commercial character. To deny the applicability of Art. 28 EC to State monopolies, however, would lead to the paradox result that such monopolies are privileged over less harmful obstacles to the free movement of goods. While Art. 28 EC prohibits all kinds of quantitative restrictions, Art. 31 EC only forbids discriminative measures. If, however, it was not the Court's intention to exclude the applicability of Art. 28 EC in general, the question remains why it did not apply that Article to Systembolaget's monopoly. Had an examination under Art. 28 EC taken place, the Court would in all likelyhood have come to the conclusion that the monopoly constituted a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions and was therefore prohibited under Community law. Moreover, the Court only examined whether the rules governing Systembolaget's monopoly were applied in a discriminatory manner. If, what should have happened, it had examined whether these rules excluded any possibility of discrimination, the outcome of the case might well have been a different one. Some commentators have therefore seen Franzén as a mainly politically motivated judgement. The judges, they argue, may have been deeply split in their opinions and did not want to take a decision against a Member State in such a sensitive political field without having a clear majority. Franzén should therefore be interpreted as a judgement based solely on its particular facts and circumstances and does not prejudice the outcome of further legal actions against the Swedish alcohol monopoly. While the Court in Franzén focused its assessment on the free movement rules, it is clear that other provisions of the Treaty may be equally applicable to the monopoly. From a competition law perspective, Art. 82 and 86 EC are of a particular relevance. As a monopoly undertaking, Systembolaget clearly holds a dominant position on the retail market for alcoholic beverages, which it may not abuse. Moreover, the State may not create a situation in which Systembolaget cannot avoid abusing this position. The main purpose behind the Swedish alcohol monopoly is the limitation of the sales of alcoholic beverages. This is to be achieved, inter alia, by the limitation of the accessibility of such beverages. It is therefore not Systembolaget's purpose to satisfy the actual demand for alcoholic beverages. On the contrary, the rules governing Systembolaget's activities are designed to render the access to such products more difficult. In practice, this is achieved by limiting Systembolaget's sales network to 417 shops and 570 agents, through which alcoholic beverages can be ordered. Several factors indicate that this sales network is not apt to satisfy the actual demand for such products. By reserving the retail sale of alcoholic beverages to Systembolaget and by imposing restrictive rules on that company, th Swedish State has therefore left Systembolaget in a position where it cannot avoid abusing its dominant position. In summary, it must be held that the Swedish statutory rules on the retail sale of alcoholic beverages are contrary to both Art. 28 and 31 EC as well as Art. 86 in connection with Art. 82 EC.

• author: Näf, Moritz
• supervisor: Peter Gjørtler
• organization: Department of Law
• year: 2002
• type: H1 - Master's Degree (One Year)
• subject: Law and Political Science
• keywords: European Affairs
• language: English
• id: 1554562
• date added to LUP: 2010-03-08 15:22:28
• date last changed: 2010-03-08 15:22:28