Rather passed by amidst SOS but the case of 1) BACARDI MARTINI SAS (2) CELLIER DES DAUPHINES v NEWCASTLE UNITED FOOTBALL CO LTD (2000) QBD (Gray J) 26/7/2000 was recently heard:

A preliminary reference was made to the European Court of Justice as to the legality of French laws restricting the television advertising of alcohol products.

Application for a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice ('ECJ') under Art.234 EC Treaty of questions arising in proceedings in the High Court between Bacardi Martini SAS and Cellier des Dauphins ('the claimants'), and Newcastle United Football Club Ltd ('the defendant').

The claimants alleged that the defendant unlawfully induced a breach of contract between themselves and a marketing company. The alleged inducement consisted in an instruction to the marketing company to remove advertisements, for alcohol products containing more than 1.2 per cent alcohol, from around the pitch.

The defendant contended that it was justified in removing the advertisements because the match was to be transmitted under French television. Under French law, Article 17 to Article 21 Code des debits de boissons and Article 8 Decree No 92-280 ('the Loi Evin'), the advertising of alcoholic products containing more than 1.2 per cent alcohol is restricted.

Both parties sought to refer a question to the ECJ as to the legality of the Loi Evin as formulated and applied by the French administrative authorities, in particular, whether it was in conformity with Art.49 EC Treaty.

HELD:

(1) A question should be referred under Art.234 of the Treaty if it is critical to the final decision of the national court. R v International Stock Exchange, ex parte Else Ltd (1993) QB 534. The legality of the Loi Evin was critical to the final outcome of the English proceedings, even if not necessarily determinative of those proceedings.

(2) In light of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, it was desirable that the reference should be made in advance of the trial taking place.

3) It would be inappropriate and insensitive for an English court to determine a question relating to the legality of French law without the involvement of the French government.

(4) The two questions to be referred to the ECJ were: (i) whether the Loi Evin, as formulated, was in conformity with Art.49 of the Treaty; and (ii) whether the Loi Evin conforms with Art.49 of the Treaty in the manner in which it was interpreted and administered by the Conseil Superieur de l'Audiovisuel.

Application allowed. Proceedings pending before the High Court stayed.

Nicholas Green QC and Mark Hoskins instructed by Townleys for the claimants. Philip Engelman instructed by Dipp Lupton Alsop for the defendants.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Answers

CELLIER DES DAUPHINES v NEWCASTLE UNITED FOOTBALL CO LTD (2000)

Bliddy hell! I don't know how bad these CELLIER DES DAUPHINES are but 2000 goals away from home is an amazing performance.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

It's that new ball, pet. ((-:

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Could you translate/summarise that Dougal, I'm baffled.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Stevo,

I think the jist is that bacardi paid for some advertising space at SJP which it didn't get because Newcastle were playing a French team that day and bacardi is too strong to advertise on French telly. Now, they're getting nowty.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000