CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein

legal case

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionSep 6, 2026
Entity authorityQ1048414 ↗
Source-derived summary

Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (1979) Case C-120/78, popularly known as Cassis de Dijon after its subject matter, is an EU law decision of the European Court of Justice. The case is a seminal judicial interpretation of what is today article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It established the EU principle of mutual recognition for goods.

The Court held that a regulation applying to both imported and to domestic goods (an "indistinctly applicable measure") that produces an effect equivalent to a quantitative import restriction is an unlawful restriction on the free movement of goods.

In the same ruling, the Court established the so-called rule of reason, allowing non-discriminatory restrictive measures to be justified on grounds other than those listed in article 36 TFEU.

Facts

Rewe, a large German retail company, wanted to import and sell Cassis de Dijon, a crème de cassis blackcurrant liqueur produced in France. The liqueur contained between 15 and 20 per cent alcohol by volume (ABV). Germany, however, had a law specifying that products sold as fruit liqueurs be over 25 per cent ABV. The Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (Federal Monopoly Administration for Spirits), part of the Federal Ministry of Finance, informed Rewe that it would not be able to market Cassis in Germany as a liqueur.

Rewe challenged the decision as a breach of European law, specifically of Article 30 Treaty of Rome (TEC).

Judgment

The ECJ held that the German legislation represented a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports and was thus in breach of article 34 of the Treaty:

8. In the absence of common rules relating to the production and marketing of alcohol – a proposal for a regulation submitted to the Council by the Commission on 7 December 1976 (Official Journal c 309, p.2) not yet having received the Council's approval – it is for the member states to regulate all matters relating to the production and marketing of alcohol and alcoholic beverages on their own territory.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein” is legal case. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Rewe-Zentral, Bundesmonopolverwaltung and Branntwein, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1979, 1976—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, Rewe-Zentral, Bundesmonopolverwaltung and Branntwein is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “legal case” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

Evidence profile

Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 6, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q1048414. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1979 and 1976.

Critical limits

Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein primary sources, Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein archive and Rewe-Zentral research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein”?
  2. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.