Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2017] All ER (D) 104 (Nov)
Neutral Citation: [2017] UKSC 76
Court: Supreme Court
Judge:

Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed and Lord Hodge SCJJ

Representation Aidan O'Neill QC and Morag Ross QC (instructed by Brodies LLP) for the appellants.
  James Wolffe QC, the Lord Advocate, and Gerry Moynihan QC (instructed by the Scottish Government Legal Directorate Litigation Division) for the Lord Advocate.
  Philip Simpson QC and John MacGregor (instructed by the Office of the Advocate General) for the Advocate General.
Judgment Dates: 15 November 2017

Catchwords

European Union - Freedom of movement - Goods

The Case

European Union Freedom of movement. The objectives of the and the principle of minimum pricing per unit of alcohol could justify the European Union market interference under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) art36 and under the parallel principles governing wine under the common agricultural policy (CAP) as set out in TFEU art39 and EU Regulation1308-2013 (the single CMO Regulation). That minimum pricing would involve a market distortion, including of EU trade and competition, was accepted. However, the Supreme Court held that it was impossible to conclude that that could or should be regarded as outweighing the health benefits which were intended by minimum pricing.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.