Both services and goods. The Court of Justice has added another piece to its doctrine on the free movement of goods: it does not suffice to observe an obstacle to condemn it, its goals and scope must also be taken into consideration (see this section in EUROPE of 19/20 February). The Court noted that the ban on the advertising of alcoholic beverages in Sweden "is of a nature to further impede market access for products originating in other Member states than that of national products, with which consumers are spontaneously more familiarized". Thus, an obvious case of national discrimination? Not as simple as that, as wanting to control and reduce alcohol consumption is legal, on condition that the restrictive measure is not disproportionate to the goal sought; in other words, the measure would become illicit if the goal sought may be achieved by prohibitions affecting intra-community trade to a lesser extent. It is up to national courts to proceed with that assessment.
So far, nothing new in relation to previous case law. The additional element is that the Swedish case also comprises an obstacle to the free movement of services (in this case, advertising). The Court applies to this aspect the same criteria as to the free movement of goods, using the same words to the letter: Articles 56 and 59 of the Treaty do not oppose a ban on advertising for alcoholic beverages, except if it transpires that the protection of public health against the ill-effects of alcohol may be achieved by measures affecting trade to a lesser extent. The Commission and national courts now know better how to conduct themselves.
A case that did not deserve the honour of the Courts. The Connolly case has been definitively buried through the ruling of the Court of Justice that confirmed the validity of the sanctions the European Commission took against this former official for his pamphlet against the euro and the fundamental guidelines of Community policy; a pamphlet using terms that the Court regarded as "offensive" for certain European Commissioners. The Court considered that the fundamental law on the freedom of expression has its limits, for a European official, within the respect of the duties and responsibilities linked to his or her job. The case has almost been forgotten today, but a few years ago it created quite a stir, as Connolly was precisely part of those Commission services preparing decisions over the euro, and British circles, notably, that, at the time, hoped to prevent the birth of the European currency, provided him with a maximum of publicity.
Indeed, the book in question (The Dirty War for Europe's Money) did not deserve the honours of a double trial. It should simply have fallen into ridicule. Not because of his monetary theses, of his adoration of the financial markets and his genuflexions faced with the grandees of international finance; each to their idols. What was frankly ridiculous in the book (I quote the French edition, La sale guerre de la monnaie européenne") is the obsession with a continental plot against the United Kingdom, described in grotesque terms. According to Mr. Connolly, those in favour of Monetary Union were speaking like "Bolshevik cells in the years preceding the October revolution", the cabinet of Jacques Delors was the KGB (sic), the French enarques, with "their talents for manipulation, are, in Europe, the authentic heirs of the Prussian State". If the Germans did not plot enthusiastically enough, their wives, who, horrors of horrors! were often …. French, did it for them. We are not inventing anything. Connolly wrote: "a German diplomat, married with a French woman, like so many others in the circle of close advisers to Kohl in foreign policy…" In this affair the French behaved with "brutality and stupidity", or "unbearable arrogance". But their goal was no small matter: the Franco-German plot for the single currency was aimed at rebuilding the Charlemagne empire, with the complicity of the Vatican. Here is the proof: in 1978 Giscard d'Estaing and Schmidt achieved their compromise on EMU in Aix-la-Chapelle, former capital of the Carolingian empire; Maastricht, where the last compromises were made, is but a few kilometers from Aix-la-Chapelle: the building in Brussels where the Council sits was called Charlemagne (certainly not by chance, the author pointed out with subtlety); the ambush against Mrs. Thatcher occurred in Rome where the "Christian-Democrat conspiracy plagued the air"; the Secretary of the Monetary Committee was a Protestant "but often expressed great admiration for Pope John-Paul II", and Mr. Tietmeyer was "a former student of a seminar held by Jesuits".
It is refreshing to peruse these pages again. Of course, no one has ever thought of prohibiting Mr. Connolly from composing his wild imaginings. The question was simply of knowing whether he could do so as European employee. The Court thought not. "Individual freedom" has nothing to do with it. (F.R.).