Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PVBA

Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PVBA was a notable case heard by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on December 10, 1987. The case, with the official citation (1987) ECR 4607, revolved around the interpretation of European Union (EU) law, specifically concerning the principles of free movement of goods within the EU and the measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions, as outlined in Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

Background

The case originated from a dispute between Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke, a German company that produced and sold margarine in tubs shaped like butter blocks, and De Smedt PVBA, a Belgian company. The controversy arose when Walter Rau sought to export its margarine to Belgium, where a law required margarine to be sold in cube-shaped packages to distinguish it from butter, ostensibly for consumer protection and to prevent confusion.

Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke argued that the Belgian law constituted a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports, which was prohibited under Article 34 TFEU. The company contended that the law restricted its ability to sell its product in Belgium, as it would have to incur additional costs to redesign its packaging specifically for the Belgian market.

Judgment

The ECJ held that the Belgian law did indeed constitute a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction. The Court reasoned that any national measure which could hinder, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade should be considered as having an equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions. The ruling emphasized that consumer protection could be achieved through less restrictive measures, such as labeling, which would not impede the free movement of goods within the EU.

The Court's decision in Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PVBA is significant as it further clarified the scope of Article 34 TFEU and the concept of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions. It underscored the importance of balancing national regulatory autonomy with the fundamental EU principle of free movement of goods.

Impact and Significance

The judgment had a profound impact on EU law, particularly in the area of the free movement of goods. It reinforced the principle that national regulations must not unjustifiably restrict trade between Member States. The case is frequently cited in discussions and analyses related to the internal market and the harmonization of laws within the EU to facilitate trade and protect consumers without unnecessarily hindering the free movement of goods.

See Also

• European Court of Justice
• Free movement of goods in the European Union
• Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
• Quantitative restriction

   This article is a law-related stub. You can help WikiMD by expanding it!