tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post515024031452689999..comments2024-03-28T02:32:17.979-07:00Comments on EU Law Analysis: Protecting Health, or Protecting Trade? A fine balance in the Scotch Whisky Association judgmentSteve Peershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-49109983606968856072016-10-22T00:35:58.426-07:002016-10-22T00:35:58.426-07:00well the litigation may drag on further yet. Howe...well the litigation may drag on further yet. However I thought CoS made right analysis of CJEU judgment. It confirmed it was reasonable indeed to conclude that alternative measures, are not capable of protecting health as effectively as minimum pricing. Also correct to say that when assessing whether or not alternative measures are capable of being less restrictive of trade it is always possible to dig up some evidence which points in the opposite direction. Correct also to say CJEU does not require demonstration by a Member State that no other conceivable measure could protect the public health objectivethoughts from elsewherehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03235954006843752441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-61095459874894519842016-01-05T07:09:10.695-08:002016-01-05T07:09:10.695-08:00Thanks Peter, feedback much appreciated.
It's ...Thanks Peter, feedback much appreciated.<br />It's becoming more clear now that a Member State has to be very careful and balance any political advantage that might be had from claiming a measure can achieve several objectives, against the difficulty they may have defending that multi-purpose measure in a later litigation. A single narrow objective is much easier to defend in relation to proportionality.Angus MacCullochnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-41986106591657520952016-01-02T09:20:20.853-08:002016-01-02T09:20:20.853-08:00Generally speaking, I agree with the author.
The ...Generally speaking, I agree with the author.<br /><br />The starting-point was the Court's finding, following the AG, that MUP discriminated against imports (para 32 of the judgment). That coloured the whole case: obviously, non-discriminatory tax increases are preferable in principle.<br /><br />In addition, question 2 in the order for reference is a leading question: it is based on a rebuttable presumption that tax increases are preferable. The bizarre wording of question 4 also worked against the Scottish Government.<br /><br />More importantly, the referring court also made various findings of fact that were harmful to the Scottish Government's case. In particular, it seems to have found that, the wealthier they are, the more the Scots drink. That finding was pretty much fatal !<br /><br />So this case is very much fact-based. Which is why the Irish Government is right not to abandon its plans to introduce MUP until it has considered the matter further<br /><br />http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/varadkar-to-push-ahead-with-cheap-alcohol-prohibition-1.2476722Peter Oliver, peterjol@gmail.comnoreply@blogger.com