The German government recently adopted a law defining "beer" as any alcoholic beverage brewed in compliance with customary German brewing practices dating back to the year 1516. These practices mandate specific procedures for every step in the brewing

Question

process. Only natural ingredients are to be used in the brewing process. The use of additives is specifically prohibited. As a result, imported alcoholic beverages labeled and sold as "beer" in other states were prohibited from being sold as "beer" in Germany. Instead, such products could only be sold as "malt beverages." The stated purposes of this law were to protect the public from products that contain additives and prevent confusion by German consumers who associate the term "beer" with traditional German brewing standards. The German law was challenged in court by Venezia Brewing Limited (VBL), an Italian company that wished to sell its malt beverage containing additives as "beer" in Germany. VBL claimed that the German law was inconsistent with a European Union regulation that established standards for but did not ban the use of additives in malt beverages. Does the German law violate European Union law, including the regulation? Why or why not? Would your answer be different if the European Union law was in the form of a directive that had not yet been implemented by Germany? Why or why not? Does VBL have standing to challenge the German law? Why or why not?

Answer 1

The German law violates the EU regulation. The supremacy doctrine provides that, in areas where a transfer of power and economic integration has occurred, EU law is superior to inconsistent national law. Regulations, such the law at issue in this case, are broad general and abstract statements of law adopted by the EU binding in their entirety on the member states. Regulations immediately become part of national law and are superior to inconsistent national laws. However, it would not make a difference if the EU law took the form of a directive. Directives are laws binding as to result to be achieved but leaving the means to the member states. The failure to adopt implementing legislation cannot be used as an excuse for violating a directive. VBL has standing to challenge the German law as a result of the direct effects doctrine. The direct effects doctrine permits individuals to raise rights arising from EU legislation before national courts.