Criminal Proceedings Against Sami Heinonen

(Case C-394/97)

Before the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber)

ECJ

(Presiding, Puissochet P.C.; Jann (Rapporteur),

Moitinho de Almeida, Gulmann and Wathelet JJ.) Mr Antonio Saggio, Advocate General.

15 June 1999

Reference from the Helsingin Karajaoikeus (Helsinki District Court) under Article 177 of the E.C. Treaty (now Article 234 E.C.).

Import restrictions--alcohol--Regulation 918/83--Directive 69/169-- goods contained in travellers' personal baggage--travellers arriving from non-Member countries--duty free allowances--prohibitions on imports linked to minimum period spent abroad--national legislation not contrary to Regulation 918/83 and Directive 69/169. For many years, Finland had pursued a restrictive policy on alcohol, which included prohibiting the importation of alcohol on return from trips abroad which lasted less than 24 hours. In 1995, that legislation was amended, with a view to the accession of Finland to the European Union, and the restrictions linked to journey time were abolished. In 1996, the restrictions were re-introduced to the effect that those arriving in Finland from outside the European Economic Area, otherwise than by air transport, and whose journey had lasted 20 hours at most, could not import alcoholic drinks. The justifications given for the re-introduction of that legislation included that, due to the lifting of restrictions, public order and safety were affected, in particular that drunken driving became common and violence increased in frontier areas, and that sales in the shops of the Finnish alcohol monopoly company declined significantly, while Finland lost revenue of about 400 million Mk. On 14 June 1997, H, who resided in Finland, sailed back from Estonia to Finland after a journey time of less than 20 hours. A routine customs check revealed him to be in possession of 19 0.33 litre cans of beer, which were confiscated and H was ordered to pay a fine for smuggling. H maintained that his conduct was not liable to criminal penalties since he was authorised under Community law to import at least the quantity of beer in

question. Under Article 45 of Regulation 918/83 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duties, goods contained in the luggage of travellers coming*1038 from third countries were admitted free of import duties, provided they were of a non-commercial nature. Article 46 of that Regulation set the maximum quantities of relief applicable to certain goods, which did not include beer. Article 47 limited the relief for those goods not listed in Article 46 to a total value of 175 ECU per traveller. The ninth recital in the preamble to Regulation 918/83 stated that the Regulation did not preclude the application by Member States of import or export prohibitions or restrictions which were justified on grounds inter alia of public morality, public policy, public security or protection of the health and life of humans. Directive 69/169 relating to exemption from turnover tax and excise duty on imports in international travel contained similar provisions to Regulation 918/83 concerning goods contained in the personal luggage of travellers from third countries and Article 3 of that Directive reproduced the definition of goods of a non-commercial nature given in Article 45 of Regulation 918/83. Moreover, both Article 24(2)(a)(i) of Regulation 3285/94 on the common rules for imports of products originating in certain third countries (except for those certain products originating in third countries listed in Regulation 519/94) and Article 19(2)(a)(i) of Regulation 519/94 stated that those Regulations did not preclude the adoption or application by Member States of restrictions on imports on certain grounds, including public morality, public policy or public security and the protection of the health and life of humans. In reliance on that legislation, H contested the penalty notice served on him by the Public Prosecutor, and the matter came before the Helsinki District Court. In the course of those proceedings, three questions were referred to the Court of Justice concerning the compatibility of the national legislation prohibiting the importation of certain goods by travellers arriving from third countries with Regulation 918/83 and Directive 69/169. Held: National legislation prohibiting or restricting imports on grounds of public morality is not contrary to Regulation 918/83 and Directive 69/169 The ninth recital to the preamble of Regulation 918/83 stated that it did not preclude the application by Member States of import or export prohibitions or restrictions on certain public policy grounds which were capable of justifying restrictions on the free movement of goods. The same interpretation had to apply to Directive 69/169 which, like Regulation 918/83, was limited to providing for a system of exemptions applicable to goods the importation of which was not prohibited on those grounds. It followed that while Regulation 918/83 and Directive 69/169 were intended to define the customs and tax rules applicable to imports of a non-commercial nature by travellers from non-Member countries, it was not the objective of that legislation to govern*1039 specifically the public policy interest requirements referred to in Article 24(2)(a)(i) of Regulation 3285/94 and Article 19(2)(a)(i) of Regulation 519/94. Accordingly, Member States retained their competence to adopt the necessary measures to protect those

requirements. In those circumstances, national legislation prohibiting or restricting imports of certain goods by travellers arriving from non-Member countries on grounds of public morality, public policy, public security, or protection of the health and life of humans was not contrary to Regulation 918/83 and Directive 69/169. [23]-[30] Economic considerations could not justify a restriction on imports Economic considerations including two of the reasons given for the re-introduction of the national legislation, namely that sales in the shops of the Finnish alcohol monopoly company declined significantly and Finland lost revenue of about 400 million Mk, were not among the reasons which, according to Article 24(2)(a)(i) of Regulation 3285/94 and Article 19(2)(a)(i) of Regulation 519/94, could justify a restriction on imports of products from non-Member countries. By contrast, maintenance of public order and the protection of internal security were among the first group of interests referred to in those provisions. The same was true of the protection of the health and life of humans, to which the campaign against alcoholism made a contribution. In those circumstances, national legislation restricting imports of alcoholic drinks by travellers arriving from non-Member countries in order to maintain public order was, in principle, not contrary to Regulation 918/83 or Directive 69/169. [31]-[34] Criminal Proceedings Against Franzen (C-189/95): [1997] E.C.R. I-5909; [1998] 1 C.M.L.R. 1231, followed. National legislation restricting imports by travellers on the basis of the duration of the journey was not contrary to Regulation 918/83 and Directive 69/169 The question of whether the legislation restricting the importation of alcoholic drinks by travellers arriving from third countries on the basis of the duration of the journey was contrary to Regulation 918/83 and Directive 69/169 had to be considered in the light of the objectives both of Articles 30 and 36 of the E.C. Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 and 30 E.C.), which was to guarantee respect of the fundamental principle of the free movement of goods in the internal market, and of the customs and tax provisions at issue in those proceedings, which was to facilitate passenger travel from non-Member countries in conformity with the requirements of the customs union. That legislation introduced only a limited derogation from the Community system of customs and tax reliefs, since it covered only a specific category of goods, i.e. alcoholic drinks, and only related to journeys lasting less than 20 hours. Moreover, those limitations corresponded to the typical circumstances singled out by the Finnish*1040 authorities as being the chief source of the social and health problems with which they were faced. In those circumstances, national legislation restricting imports by travellers arriving from third countries of alcoholic drinks on the basis of the duration of the journey with a view to combating disturbances of public order connected with the consumption of alcohol was not contrary to Regulation 918/83 or Directive

69/169. [35]-[45] Representation Holger Rotkirch, Ambassador, Head of Legal Affairs in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Tuula Pynna, Legal Adviser in the same Ministry, acting as Agents, for the Finnish Government. Roland Tricot and Kirsi Leivo, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, for the E.C. Commission. Cases referred to in the judgment: 1. Rewe-Handelsgesellschaft Nord mbH and Another v. Hauptzollamt Kiel (158/80), 7 July 1981: [1981] E.C.R. 1805; [1982] 1 C.M.L.R. 449. 2. E.C. Commission v. Italy (95/81), 9 June 1982: [1982] E.C.R. 2187. 3. Criminal Proceedings Against Franzen (C-189/95), 23 October 1997: [1997] E.C.R. I-5909; [1998] 1 C.M.L.R. 1231. 4. E.C. Commission v. France (C-265/95), 9 December 1997: [1997] E.C.R. I-6959. Further cases referred to by the Advocate General: 5. Rewe-Handelsgesellschaft Nord mbH and Another v. Hauptzollamt Flensburg and Others (278/82), 14 February 1984: [1984] E.C.R. 721; [1985] 2 C.M.L.R. 719. 6. E.C. Commission v. Ireland (C-158/88), 12 June 1990: [1990] E.C.R. I-2367; [1990] 3 C.M.L.R. 103. 7. Lucien Ortscheit GmbH v. Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH (C-320/93), 10 November 1994: [1994] E.C.R. I-5243; [1995] 2 C.M.L.R. 242. 8. Officier Van Justitie v. De Peijper (104/75), 20 May 1976: [1976] E.C.R. 613; [1976] 2 C.M.L.R. 271. 9. R. v. Henn and Another (34/79), 14 December 1979: [1979] E.C.R. 3795; [1980] 1 C.M.L.R. 246. 10. Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior Sa and Another v. Departamento de Sanidad Y Seguridad Social de la Generalitat de Cataluna (C 1 & 176/90), 25 July 1991: [1991] E.C.R. I-4151; [1994] 1 C.M.L.R. 887.

Opinion of Mr Advocate General Saggio 1. By order of 5 November 1997 the Helsingin Karajaoikeus (Helsinki District Court) (Finland) referred to the Court three questions on the interpretation of Council Regulation 918/83 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (hereinafter "the*1041 Regulation") [FN1] and Council Directive 69/169 relating to exemption from turnover tax and excise duty on imports in international travel (hereinafter "the Directive). [FN2] FN1 [1983] O.J. L105/1. Regulation as amended by Council Regulation 355/94

([1994] O.J. L46/5). FN2 [1969] O.J. Spec. Ed. (I) 232. Directive as last amended by Council Directive 78/1033 ([1978] O.J. L366/31) and Council Directive 94/4 ([1994] O.J. L60/14). In particular, the national court is asking the Court whether the aforementioned instruments must be interpreted in such a way that a total prohibition on imports of alcoholic drinks, justified on grounds relating to the public interest, with respect to short journeys made to third countries by residents of Finland, is considered to be compatible with them.

Relevant provisions

The provisions of Community law 2. Title XI of the Regulation regulates the reliefs from customs duty which Member States are to grant to goods contained in the personal luggage of travellers coming from a third country. According to Article 45, these goods are to be admitted free of import duties, provided such imports are of a non-commercial nature. Paragraph 2 of this same Article explains that "imports of a non-commercial nature" mean imports which are of an occasional nature and which consist exclusively of goods for the personal use of the travellers or their families, or of goods intended as presents. "The nature and quantity of such goods should not be such as might indicate that they are being imported for commercial reasons." For certain categories of goods, Article 46 limits the relief according to the quantity of the goods. For all other goods, including those which are the subject of this case (beer), Article 47 imposes instead a limit on their value which is set at 175 ECU by virtue of the amendments made by Regulation 355/94. 3.The ninth recital of the Regulation has particular importance in this case. It states that: this Regulation does not preclude the application by Member States of import or export prohibitions or restrictions which are justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security, protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants, protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historical or archaeological value or protection of industrial or commercial property. 4. Article 1 of the Directive, as last amended by Directive 94/4, provides for the application of an exemption from national turnover tax and excise duty imposed on imports of goods contained in the personal luggage of travellers coming from third countries, provided such imports are of a non-commercial nature and the total value of these goods does not exceed 175 ECU per traveller. *1042 Article 3 of the Directive contains the same definition for "imports of a non-commercial nature" as that given in the text of the Regulation. 5. According to Article 4 of the Directive, each Member State is to set quantitative limits for exemptions from duty on imports of certain alcoholic drinks. These limits are the same as the aforementioned limits contained in the Regulation. However,

like the Regulation, the Directive does not set any quantitative limits on imports of beer, to which the general limit is applied. This is calculated on the value of the goods, as specified in Article 1. 6. With regard to intra-Community travel, Council Directive 92/12 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products [FN3] allows the Member States to lay down maximum quantities beyond which the import of products by private individuals is regarded as "for commercial purposes" (Article 9). With regard to beer, this quantity may not be lower than 110 litres. FN3 [1992] O.J. L76/1. 7. Mention should next be made of Annex XV, IX, "Taxation", to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of Norway, Austria, Finland and Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded. [FN4] This Annex gives Finland and Sweden the power to "maintain quantitative limits for imports of cigarettes and other tobacco products, spirits, wines and beer from other Member States on the conditions stipulated in Article 26 of Council Directive 92/12. [FN5] This limit is 15 litres for beer. The same provision requires Finland and Sweden to "take measures to ensure that imports of beer from third countries are not allowed under more favourable conditions than such imports from other Member States". FN4 [1994] O.J. C241/21, at p. 339. FN5 Article 26 of Directive 92/12 gives this same power to Denmark, subject to a review mechanism. Article 26 of Directive 92/12 has since been replaced by Council Directive 96/99. [FN6] According to the new provision, Finland is authorised to apply derogations from the general arrangements for reliefs from excise duty to the intra-Community trade in alcoholic drinks. In particular, the third sub-paragraph of the new Article 26(1) provides that, where such goods are imported by persons resident within Finland, the grant of admission without payment of duty may be restricted to travellers who have been absent from their territory for a period of more than 24 hours. As far as is known, Finland has not used this power. FN6 [1997] O.J. L8/12. 8. The Community legislation on commercial imports from third countries and, in particular, the texts of the Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 113 of the E.C. Treaty [(now, after amendment, Article 133 E.C.)] contain similar provisions to the text of the ninth recital of the Regulation. Article 1(2) of Council Regulation 519/94 on*1043 common rules for imports from certain third countries and repealing Regulations 1765/82, 1766/82 and 3420/83 [FN7] specifies that imports of products originating in the third countries referred to in Annex I are to take

place freely and so are not to be subject to any quantitative restrictions, without prejudice to the measures which may be taken under Title V and the quantitative quotas referred to in Annex II. Estonia and Russia are included in the third countries listed in Annex I. However, Article 19 of Regulation 519/94 specifies that it is not to preclude the adoption or application by Member States of prohibitions on imports justified, inter alia, on grounds of public morality, public policy, public security and the protection of health. [FN8] FN7 [1994] O.J. L67/89. FN8 The same wording also appears in Article 24 of Council Regulation 3285/94 on the common rules for imports and repealing Regulation 518/94 ([1994] O.J. L349/53). That Regulation, which contains the general arrangements for imports of products from third countries, does not apply to imports from the countries listed in Annex I to Regulation 519/94.

The provisions of national law 9. The traditionally restrictive Finnish legislation on imports of alcoholic drinks, consisting of the Alkoholilaki [FN9] (Law on Alcohol) and the Asetus alkoholijuomista ja vakiviinasta [FN10] (Decree on alcoholic drinks and spirits), has been subject to various amendments in recent years. With regard to imports for personal use, the legislation in force from 1992 to 1994 allowed the import, free of import duties, of a small quantity of alcoholic drinks only with respect to journeys lasting more than 24 hours. In 1995, following Finland's accession to the European Union, a special provision was adopted on imports from Member States and the limits on the duration of the journey with regard to imports from a non-Member country were abolished. FN9 Law 459/68, last amended by Law 287/96. FN10 Decree 644 of 1968, last amended by Decree 288 of 1996. 10. In 1996 the legislation was amended again but this time more restrictively. The new Article 10 of the Alkoholilaki, introduced by Law 287 of 1996, allowed the right of travellers arriving from outside the European Economic Area to import alcoholic drinks for personal use to be limited by decree, on grounds of public order, public security and the protection of health, with respect to journeys of short duration. The Asetus alkoholijuomista ja vakiviinasta was subsequently amended by Decree 288 of 1996. The new Article 8, in force at the material time in the case in the national proceedings, confirmed the prohibition on the import by residents of Finland of alcoholic drinks into Finland if: (a) they were returning to Finland other than by air transport from outside the European Economic Area, or (b) the journey lasted less than or equal to 20 hours. The new Decree entered into force on 1 May 1996. 11. The amendments to the Finnish legislation were explained and justified, in the documents preparatory to Law 287 of 1996, in the light*1044 of a series of

circumstances. It was first and foremost pointed out that the interest of Finnish consumers in products from neighbouring countries such as Russia or Estonia was due to the difference in price between alcoholic drinks in Finland and those in the third countries in question. Secondly, it was stated that the application of the duty free legislation had caused severe public order and health problems. A significant increase in crime linked to the consumption of alcohol, violent behaviour and even suicide and cases of drunken driving had been recorded in the frontier areas. In these areas there had also been a spread of "red markets" in which Finnish residents arriving from Russia and Estonia illegally sold alcoholic drinks on the street. In general, following the abolition of the restrictions on the duration of journeys, a significant increase in the consumption of alcohol in relation to previous years was recorded. All these circumstances were considered to be jeopardising the objectives of containing consumption which the Finnish authorities had been trying to achieve by adopting strict protectionist measures. Other arguments, of an economic nature, were also put forward, including the reduction in sales of alcoholic products in East Finland and the fall in tax receipts due to the increase in imports of products free of taxes or duties.

Facts and questions 12. On 14 June 1997 Mr Heinonen, a Finnish national, sailed directly from Helsinki to Tallin (Estonia) and returned in the evening of the same day. The journey lasted about 12 hours in total. On returning to Finland, Mr Heinonen was stopped for a customs check during which he was found to be in possession of 19 0.33 litre cans of beer. The customs authorities issued a notice ordering Mr Heinonen to pay a fine of 721 Mk for unlawfully importing a small quantity of alcoholic drinks into Finland. The quantity of beer in question was also confiscated. 13. On 16 June 1997 Mr Heinonen sent a letter to the Public Prosecutor contesting the customs notice. The Public Prosecutor decided to refer the matter to the Helsingin Karajaoikeus which he asked to order Mr Heinonen to pay a fine for unlawfully importing alcoholic drinks and to confirm the confiscation of those drinks, pursuant to Articles 82 and 95 of the Alkoholilaki. In his defence, Mr Heinonen argued before the Helsingin Karajaoikeus that the Finnish provisions were incompatible with Community law, under which he was authorised to import freely the quantity of beverages contained in his personal luggage. 14.By order of 5 November 1997 the Helsingin Karajaoikeus referred the following questions to the Court: (1)May the Duty Free Regulation and the Travel Directive be interpreted as meaning that national limits laid down by Member States on imports by travellers of beer and other alcoholic drinks, based on grounds referred to in the ninth recital in the preamble to the Duty Free Directive and in Article 36 of the E.C. Treaty or on other*1045 imperative requirements of the public interest, are compatible with the provisions of the Regulation and the Directive? (2)Do facts (a) to (h) set out in point IV(6) of this order for reference constitute grounds such that a Member State's national restrictions based thereon are compatible with the provisions of the Duty Free Regulation and the Travel

Directive? (3)May a rule limiting travellers' imports of alcoholic drinks, which in this question also includes beer, on the basis of the duration of the journey be regarded as compatible with the provisions of the Duty Free Regulation and the Travel Directive?

The first question 15. By its first question, the national court is asking the Court, essentially, whether the provisions of the Regulation and the Directive which relate to the import for personal use of goods free of import duties are to be interpreted as allowing Member States to adopt measures of a general nature which, based on non-economic requirements, in certain circumstances restrict the import from third countries of alcoholic drinks for personal use. 16. I believe that a positive answer should be given to this question: it is evident from their wording and their aims that the two acts do not preclude the possibility of Member States adopting measures such as those indicated in this case. It should first be observed in this respect that the Regulation and the Directive are intended to lay down common rules on, respectively, reliefs from customs duty and tax exemptions for goods imported into the Community. Both of these acts confer on private individuals the right to import into the territory of Member States a specified quantity of goods which is not subject to customs duty or to turnover tax and excise duty, provided that the importation is of a non-commercial nature. These are clearly measures which are aimed, on one hand, at facilitating international travel [FN11] and, on the other, at facilitating the work of the customs authorities of the Member States. In the preamble to the Regulation it is stated in general terms that a customs duty in accordance with the Common Customs Tariff is not justified "in certain well defined circumstances, where by virtue of the special conditions under which goods are imported the usual need to protect the economy is absent". [FN12] This is also applicable, in the light of the provisions of Title XI of the Regulation, in the case of imports of a non-commercial nature. FN11 See, in this respect, the fifth recital of the Directive. FN12 See the second recital of the Regulation. 17. The tax and customs treatment of the goods in point in this case is therefore regulated by the provisions contained in the Directive and the Regulation which allow travellers arriving from third countries to enjoy an exemption from payment of the respective duties and taxes up to the quantitative limits and values indicated therein. With regard to reliefs from customs duty, the preamble to the Regulation states that*1046 the need for common rules, in accordance with the international conventions to which all the Member States are contracting parties, [FN13] is justified by the requirement for customs union. Specifically, the aim is to "eliminate differences in the aim, scope and conditions for application of the reliefs contained in these conventions, and to enable all those concerned to

enjoy the same advantages throughout the Community". [FN14] FN13 Convention on the facilitation of tourism traffic, signed in New York on 4 June 1954 (U.N.T.S., vol. 276, p. 230), in particular Article 3 thereof. FN14 Fourth recital. 18.It should be added that, as the Court has frequently had occasion to point out, the Community legislation on reliefs from customs duty and tax exemptions is exhaustive. The Member States may therefore only derogate from the common rules within the limited scope of the competence granted thereto by the Community provisions in question. [FN15] However, this clarification is to be taken as referring solely to cases where the Member State intends to derogate from the common rules on economic grounds. Thus, for example, in the judgment in E.C. Commission v. Ireland, the Court confirmed the incompatibility with the Community legislation in question of an Irish provision which distinguished, with regard to the application of the relief, between "genuine" travellers and "fiscal" travellers, the latter being excluded from the application of the relief specified in the Directive. In that case--which, moreover, unlike this case, concerned travel from one Member State to another-- the Court did not agree with the view taken by the defendant government which sought to justify measures restricting the application of the relief on the ground that the flow of travellers from Ireland to Northern Ireland, where the lower VAT rate made the purchase of certain goods more advantageous, had caused serious damage to the Irish economy. After confirming that Member States have only the limited power expressly conferred on them to grant reliefs different from those specified in the Directive, the Court stated that: FN15 Case 158/80, Rewe-Handelsgesellschaft Nord mbH and Another v. Hauptzollamt Kiel: [1981] E.C.R. 1805; [1982] 1 C.M.L.R. 449, para. [36]; Case 278/82, Rewe-Handelsgesellschaft Nord mbH and Another v. Hauptzollamt Flensburg and Others: [1984] E.C.R. 721; [1985] 2 C.M.L.R. 719, para. [31]; and Case C-158/88, E.C. Commission v. Ireland: [1990] E.C.R. I-2367; [1990] 3 C.M.L.R. 103, para. [7]. where, on account of the economic [FN16] situation in a Member State, it becomes necessary to adopt exceptional provisions making the grant of exemptions subject to a period of time spent outside national territory, such provisions may be adopted only in pursuance of a directive derogating from Directive 69/169. [FN17] FN16 Emphasis added by Advocate General. FN17 Aforementioned judgment, at para. [9]. 19. The provisions of the Directive and the Regulation, as interpreted by the

Court, do not therefore preclude a Member State from citing non-economic grounds for the adoption, in given*1047 circumstances, of measures restrictive of private imports of a non-commercial nature. The power of Member States to adopt measures of this type is not frustrated by the existence of common rules on reliefs from customs duty and tax exemptions, which clearly presuppose the legality of the importation of a given product. 20. Moreover, this power is expressly recognised in the ninth recital in the preamble to the Regulation, in which it is stated that "this Regulation does not preclude the application by Member States of import or export prohibitions or restrictions which are justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security [or] protection of health". [FN18] A provision of identical content is to be found in Regulation 2913/92 establishing a Community Customs Code. [FN19] It follows that the harmonisation of customs rules, including those on reliefs, does not preclude Member States, in accordance with their international obligations, [FN20] from adopting measures restrictive of imports of alcoholic drinks where those measures are justified by non-economic requirements. FN18 A provision of the same kind is contained in the text of Article 58(2) of Council Regulation 2913/92 ([1992] O.J. L302/1) establishing the Community Customs Code. These provisions are modelled on the text of Article XX--"General Exceptions"--of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 which specifies that "subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any contracting party of measures: (a) necessary to protect public morals; (b) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health". The aforementioned New York Convention on the facilitation of tourism traffic must also be noted, as this specifies in Article 9 (official French text) that "chacun des Etats contractants reconnait que les prohibitions qu'il impose a l'importation ou a l'exportation des objets vises par la presente Convention ne doivent s'appliquer que dans la mesure ou ces prohibitions sont basees sur des considerations qui n'ont pas un caractere economique, telles que des considerations de moralite publique, de securite publique, d'hygiene ou de sante publique, ou d'ordre veterinaire ou phytopathologique". FN19 Aforementioned Article 58(2). FN20 See Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and Article 3 of the New York Convention, cited above. 21. I therefore propose that the Court give the following answer to the first question: the Duty Free Regulation and the international Travel Directive must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national measures limiting non-

commercial imports of alcoholic drinks from third countries, provided that those measures are justified by non-economic requirements.

The second question 22. By its second question, the national court is asking the Court whether the grounds indicated in the Finnish legislation can be such as to justify the restrictive measures adopted on imports of alcoholic drinks by travellers arriving from third countries. 23. It should be observed in this respect that, in the documents preparatory to the Finnish law, non-economic requirements, such as*1048 the protection of public order, public morality and health, were put forward in justification of these restrictive measures. As pointed out by the Finnish Government, the restrictive measures were adopted in order to tackle the serious disruptions of public order caused by the increased consumption of alcohol which in turn resulted from the extreme ease with which, under the previous legislation, residents of Finland could obtain alcoholic drinks at lower prices in neighbouring countries. Social and health requirements and requirements involving the protection of public morality were also cited, easy access to alcoholic products having caused a significant increase in consumption with significant consequences for human health. Finally, an increase in the number of suicides had been recorded. The Finnish Government points out how all these circumstances risked jeopardising the attainment of the objective pursued by the Finnish legislation on this subject, namely the prevention of excessive consumption of alcohol. Traditionally, that objective has been pursued by means of measures aimed at reducing the availability of alcoholic drinks through the application of high tax rates contained in a high consumer price. 24. It therefore falls to be determined whether the requirements cited by Finland to justify the restrictive measures adopted with respect to imports of alcohol for personal use, intended to protect public order, public morality and health, are in conformity with the aforementioned Community provisions. In this respect, while accepting that the specific objectives of the Community customs and tax provisions are not equivalent to those set out in the legislation on the movement of goods in the internal market, I believe that, for our purposes, reference can usefully be made to the case law of the Court on the interpretation of Article 36 of the E.C. Treaty [(now, after amendment, Article 30 E.C.)]. [FN21] FN21 As noted, this provision allows Member States to adopt or maintain in force prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit between the Member States if these measures are justified, inter alia, on grounds of public morality, public policy, public security or the protection of health. 25.It should therefore first be observed that the Court has made it clear on many occasions that: the health and life of humans rank foremost among the property or interests protected by Article 36 of the Treaty and it is for the Member States, within the limits imposed by the Treaty, to decide what degree of protection they intend to

ensure. [FN22] FN22 Case C-320/93, Lucien Ortscheit GmbH v. Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH: [1994] E.C.R. I-5243; [1995] 2 C.M.L.R. 242, para. [16]. See also Case 104/75, Officier Van Justitie v. De Peijper: [1976] E.C.R. 613; [1976] 2 C.M.L.R. 271, para. [15]. Article 129 of the E.C. Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 152 E.C.), on "Public Health", specifies, in para. 1, that "the Community shall contribute towards ensuring a high level of human health protection by encouraging co-operation between the Member States and, if necessary, lending support to their action" (first sub-paragraph) and that "health protection requirements shall form a constituent part of the Community's other policies" (third sub-paragraph). *1049 In its judgment in Case 34/79, R. v. Henn and Another, [FN23] the Court ruled that: FN23 [1979] E.C.R. 3795; [1980] 1 C.M.L.R. 246. in principle, it is for each Member State to determine in accordance with its own scale of values and in the form selected by it the requirements of public morality in its territory, [FN24] FN24 Henn, cited above, para. [15]. while complying, obviously, with the principles of necessity and proportionality of the measures with regard to the requirements to be protected. [FN25] FN25 For all these aspects, see Joined Cases C 1 & 176/90, Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior Sa and Another v. Departamento de Sanidad Y Seguridad Social de la Generalitat de Cataluna: [1991] E.C.R. I-4151; [1994] 1 C.M.L.R. 887, para. [16]. 26. With regard, more specifically, to national measures as part of the campaign against alcoholism, the Court has recently made it clear that the protection of human health against the harmful effects of alcohol "is indisputably one of the grounds which may justify derogation from Article 30 of the Treaty". [FN26] There is therefore no doubt that measures aimed at limiting the consumption of alcohol fall, in principle, within the sphere of the requirements specified in Article 36 or the Community provisions on imports of products of a non-commercial nature from third countries. FN26 Case C-189/95, Criminal Proceedings Against Franzen: [1997] E.C.R. I-5909; [1998] 1 C.M.L.R. 1231, para. [76]. 27. I consider therefore the second question can be answered to the effect that

the protection of public order, morality and health are sufficient grounds to justify restrictions on imports of alcoholic drinks for personal use from third countries.

The third question 28. By its third question, the national court is asking the Court whether the Regulation and the Directive allow Member States to adopt legislation which, based on grounds relating to the public interest, prohibits imports of alcoholic drinks for personal use from third countries following a journey lasting no more than 20 hours. The point which specifically falls for consideration is whether the measures introduced by Finland respond to criteria of necessity and proportionality with regard to the objectives established. 29. It should first be noted in this respect that, in the opinion of the Finnish Government, the measures in question were in fact essential as it was impossible to find a remedy for the serious problems mentioned above by means of measures less restrictive than the prohibition on imports of alcohol with respect to journeys of short duration. The Finnish Government also observes that it is not by chance that the problems in question arose immediately after the repeal of the previous provisions under which imports of alcoholic drinks from third countries were permitted, and benefited from relief, only in the case of*1050 journeys lasting more than 20 hours. Accordingly, the Finnish Government emphasises the relationship of cause and effect between the restrictive measures adopted subsequently and points to an appreciable change for the better in the negative situation linked to the consumption of alcohol. 30. I believe that, in principle, it is the responsibility of the national court, in the light of the elements of fact or law available to it, to decide whether the measures specifically adopted by Finland are capable of putting a halt to the trends described above or whether less restrictive measures could guarantee a similar result. The determination of the question whether the measures adopted are proportionate and effective is made on the basis of assessments of a factual nature which clearly cannot be made by this Court, whose function is, instead, to provide the national court with all such assistance as may enable it to make that assessment. 31. It is therefore the task of the national court to verify the reliability of the data cited by the Finnish Government which demonstrate an appreciable increase in the consumption of alcohol--and therefore in the problems of public order and health which this entails--following the repeal of the previous provisions. It is also the responsibility of the national court to verify the results of the new measures, that is to say, whether those measures have been able, even if only partially, to put a halt to the disruptions of public order and damage to public health cited by the Finnish Government. 32. That said, however, it should be pointed out that the Community provisions in question, even in the light of the interpretation offered by the Court in the context of Article 36 of the E.C. Treaty, seem to allow the Member States a certain margin of discretion in assessing which measures are capable of guaranteeing concrete results in the campaign against alcoholism. In determining the question of proportionality, due account must be taken of the specific nature of the social

contexts in which the measures are applied and the importance which the individual Member State attributes to objectives that are legitimate under Community law, such as the reduction of the consumption of alcoholic drinks. 33. It should next be noted that the Finnish Government explained at the hearing that the provisions adopted, to the extent to which they involve the application of the restrictive measures to the duration of the journey, are to be regarded as provisional and exceptional measures. The Finnish Government has pointed out that it is planned to abandon these measures gradually once this appears to be possible without causing, yet again, serious damage to public order and health. Finally, the Finnish Government observes that negotiations with the Commission are in progress in order to establish a more effective system of border controls. 34. Although this context is in principle favourable to national measures designed to prevent the excessive consumption of alcohol,*1051 doubts remain, however, with regard to the solution actually adopted. The Finnish Government has not explained why, rather than totally prohibiting imports of alcoholic products purchased for personal use and imported into Finland following a journey lasting no more than 20 hours, it has not taken the simpler step of suspending the application of the system of reliefs to those goods, thus applying to them the customs and excise duties prescribed in the relevant Community or national provisions. In other words, alcoholic drinks purchased in third countries at prices significantly lower than those charged in Finland could have been excluded from relief and be subject to tax and customs arrangements which would have made their purchase no more advantageous than purchases made in Finland. Moreover, a measure of this type, less drastic in nature, could act as an effective deterrent, without, in principle, excluding imports of alcoholic drinks from third countries following a journey lasting no more than 20 hours. 35. This type of solution also seems to be more in line with the Community provisions which, in accordance with international obligations, provide for the liberalisation of imports from third countries. [FN27] This solution has a precedent in the aforementioned Directive 92/12, as amended by Directive 96/99, under which Finland retains the power to refuse relief to alcoholic drinks imported by travellers, resident in Finland and arriving from other Member States, who have spent a period of less than 24 hours outside Finland. This provision therefore does not preclude the import of the products in question but allows them to be refused relief from customs duties. [FN28] FN27 See in particular the aforementioned Article 1 of Regulation 519/94 on common rules for imports from certain third countries including Estonia and Russia. FN28 The fifth recital of Directive 96/99 is significant as it states that the derogations granted to Sweden and Finland "were accorded because in a Europe without frontiers where excise rates vary widely, an immediate total removal of excise limitations would have caused an unacceptable diversion of trade and revenue and distortion of competition in the Member States concerned, which have traditionally applied high excise duties to the products concerned

both as an important source of revenue and for health and social reasons". 36. In the light of the foregoing I propose that the Court give the following answers to the questions of the Helsingin Karajaoikeus: (1) The Duty Free Regulation and the international Travel Directive must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national measures limiting non-commercial imports of alcoholic drinks from third countries, provided that those measures are justified by requirements of a non-economic nature. (2) The Duty Free Regulation and the international Travel Directive must be interpreted as meaning that national measures which, in order to protect public health from the damage caused by alcohol and to prevent crime linked to the consumption of alcohol, restrict imports of alcoholic drinks for personal use from third countries are compatible with them. *1052 (3) It is for the national court to determine whether the measures adopted by Finland, in particular those which prohibit imports of alcoholic products from third countries for personal use according to the duration of the journey, are necessary and proportionate with regard to the objectives of protecting health, public morality and public order; in particular, it is for the national court to determine whether those objectives could not be attained by limiting admission to relief of the personal goods of travellers arriving from third countries. JUDGMENT [1] By order of 5 November 1997, received at the Court on 25 November 1997, the Helsingin Karajaoikeus (Helsinki District Court) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the E.C. Treaty (now Article 234 E.C.) three questions on the interpretation of Council Regulation 918/83 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty [FN29] and Council Directive 69/169 relating to exemption from turnover tax and excise duty on imports in international travel. [FN30] FN29 [1983] O.J. L105/1. FN30 [1969] O.J. Spec. Ed. (I) 232. [2] Those questions were raised in criminal proceedings brought against Mr Heinonen for an offence under Article 10 of the Alkoholilaki ("the Law on Alcohol"), as amended by Law 287/96, and under Article 8(1) of the Alkoholijuomista ja vakiviinasta annettu asetus (Decree on alcoholic drinks and spirits, as amended by Decree 288/96, "the Decree"). The provisions of Community law [3] Council Regulation 3285/94 on the common rules for imports and repealing Regulation 518/94, [FN31] which, in accordance with Article 1, is to apply to "imports of products originating in third countries, except for ... products

originating in certain third countries listed in Council Regulation 519/94 on common rules for imports from certain third countries", provides in Article 24(2)(a)(i): FN31 [1994] O.J. L349/53. (a) Without prejudice to other Community provisions, this Regulation shall not preclude the adoption or application by Member States: (i) of prohibitions, quantitative restrictions or surveillance measures on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants, the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value, or the protection of industrial and commercial property. [4] Council Regulation 519/94 on common rules for imports from*1053 certain third countries and repealing Regulations 1765/82, 1766/82 and 3420/83 [FN32] contains an identical provision in Article 19(2)(a)(i). FN32 [1994] O.J. L67/89. [5] Article 1 of Regulation 918/93 sets out "those cases in which, owing to special circumstances, relief from import or export duties shall be granted". According to the second recital in the preamble to that Regulation, those are circumstances where "by virtue of the special conditions under which goods are imported, the usual need to protect the economy is absent". [6] The ninth recital in the preamble to Regulation 918/83 states that that Regulation "does not preclude the application by Member States of import or export prohibitions or restrictions which are justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security, protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants, protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historical or archaeological value or protection of industrial or commercial property". [7] Article 45 of Regulation 918/83 provides: (1) Subject to Articles 46 to 49, goods contained in the personal luggage of travellers coming from a third country shall be admitted free of import duties, provided such imports are of a non-commercial nature. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1): (a) ... (b) "imports of a non-commercial nature" means imports which: -- are of an occasional nature, and -- consist exclusively of goods for the personal use of the travellers or their families, or of goods intended as presents; the nature and quantity of such goods should not be such as might indicate that they are being imported for commercial reasons. [8] Article 46 of that Regulation sets the maximum quantities to which the relief referred to in Article 45(1) is limited in respect of certain goods. It does not set

any maximum quantity in respect of beer. [9] So far as concerns goods other than those listed in Article 46, the first paragraph of Article 47 of Regulation 918/83, in the version contained in Council Regulation 355/94, [FN33] limits the relief to a total value of 175 ECU per traveller. FN33 [1994] O.J. L46/5. [10] Article 49(1) of Regulation 918/83 provides: Member States may reduce the value and/or the quantities of goods allowed to enter duty free if they are imported by: -- persons residing in the frontier zone, -- frontier workers, -- the crews of means of transport used between third countries and the Community ... [11] Article 1 of Directive 69/169, as amended by Fourth Council Directive 78/1033 [FN34] and Council Directive 94/4 amending Directives*1054 69/169 and 77/388 and increasing the level of allowances for travellers from third countries and the limits on tax free purchases in intra-Community travel, [FN35] provides: FN34 [1978] O.J. L366/31. FN35 [1994] O.J. L60/14. Goods contained in the personal luggage of travellers coming from third countries shall be exempt from the turnover tax and excise duty levied on imports if the imported goods have no commercial character and the total value of the goods does not exceed 175 ECU per person. [12] According to Article 4 of Directive 69/169, each Member State is to set quantitative limits for the exemptions from duty on imports listed therein. That provision does not set any quantitative limit on imports of beer, nor does it lay down any restriction on importing alcoholic drinks linked to the duration of the journey. [13] So far as concerns imports of a non-commercial nature, Article 3 of Directive 69/169 reproduces the definition given in Article 45 of Regulation 918/83. [14] Article 5 of Directive 69/169 permits Member States to set lower limits as to value and/or quantity for the exemption of goods under the same conditions as those laid down in Article 49 of Regulation 918/83. Provisions of national law [15] For many years Finland has pursued a restrictive policy on alcohol. Thus, according to the legislation in force from 1 July 1992 until 31 December 1994, it was in principle permissible to import alcohol on returning from travel abroad only

if the journey had lasted 24 hours and only in very small quantities. The legislation was amended with a view to accession to the European Union. At the beginning of 1995, the restrictions linked to the duration of the journey were abolished. [16] In 1996, however, restrictions on imports of alcohol were reintroduced. The Law on alcohol was amended by Law 287/96 with effect from 1 May 1996. Article 10 of that Law provides: The right of persons arriving from outside the European Economic Area to import alcoholic drinks for their own needs may be limited by decree, for the protection of public order and safety and the health of humans, with respect to journeys of short duration. [17] Article 8(1) of the Decree, as amended with effect from the same date, provides: A person resident in Finland who arrives in the country, otherwise than by air transport, from outside the European Economic Area and whose journey has lasted for 20 hours at most may not import alcoholic drinks. [18] The travaux preparatoires gave the following justifications for the amendment of the Law on alcohol: -- the price of alcoholic drinks is much higher in Finland than in neighbouring countries such as Russia or Estonia; *1055 -- the application of Community legislation relating to imports by travellers from third countries caused significant social, health and public order problems in Finland; -- during that period, the number of travellers bringing in alcohol and tobacco products from Russia rose so much that it became more difficult for frontier workers and commercial vehicles to cross the frontier; -- specialist duty free alcohol and tobacco shops were established in the Russian border zone; -- the total consumption of alcohol in Finland increased by about 10 per cent in 1995, and that increase went hand in hand with increased social and health problems; -- public order and public safety in Finland were affected [FN36]; -- sales in the shops of the Finnish alcohol monopoly company declined significantly; -- Finland lost tax revenue estimated at about 400 million Mk. FN36 Drunken driving became common, violence increased in both frequency and seriousness, in particular in certain frontier areas and in ports when ships arrived from Estonia, illegal markets appeared and multiplied, even near schools, alcoholic drinks were sold in the street to minors and drunks, all which problems required action by the police and hindered them in the performance of their other duties. The dispute in the main proceedings

[19] On 14 June 1997 Mr Heinonen, who resides in Finland, sailed from Helsinki to Tallinn (Estonia). He sailed back the same day, after a voyage of less than 20 hours. [20] A routine customs check carried out on Mr Heinonen's return revealed him to be in possession of 19 0.33 litre cans of beer. The customs authorities issued a notice ordering him to pay a fine for smuggling a mildly alcoholic substance into Finland and ordering that substance to be confiscated. [21] On 16 June 1997 Mr Heinonen sent a letter to the Public Prosecutor contesting that notice. The Prosecutor thereupon referred the matter to the Helsingin Karajaoikeus, which he requested to convict Mr Heinonen. The latter maintained that his conduct was not liable to criminal penalties since he was authorised under Community law to import freely at least the quantity of beer in question. [22] The Helsingin Karajaoikeus decided to stay proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: 1. May the Duty Free Regulation and the Travel Directive be interpreted as meaning that national limits laid down by Member States on imports by travellers of beer and other alcoholic drinks, based on grounds referred to in the ninth recital in the preamble to the Duty Free Directive and in Article 36 of the E.C. Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 30 E.C.) or on other imperative requirements of the public interest, are compatible with the provisions of the Regulation and the Directive? *1056 2. Do facts (a) to (h) set out in point IV(6) of this order for reference (para. [18] above) constitute grounds such that a Member State's national restrictions based thereon are compatible with the provisions of the Duty Free Regulation and the Travel Directive? 3. May a rule limiting travellers' imports of alcoholic drinks, which in this question also includes beer, on the basis of the duration of the journey be regarded as compatible with the provisions of the Duty Free Regulation and the Travel Directive? The first question [23] By its first question, the national court is asking, essentially, whether national legislation prohibiting or restricting imports of certain goods by travellers arriving from non-Member countries on grounds of public morality, public policy, public security or protection of health and life of humans is contrary to Regulation 918/83 and Directive 69/169. [24] As stated in the fourth recital in its preamble, the objective of Regulation 918/83 is, in accordance with the requirements of the Customs Union, to eliminate differences in the field of exemptions from customs duties. More specifically, the objective of Articles 45 to 49 is to simplify the clearance through customs of goods contained in the personal luggage of travellers coming from non-Member countries, [FN37] and thus to facilitate passenger traffic.

FN37 Case C-158/80, Rewe-Handelsgesellschaft Nord mbH and Another v. Hauptzollamt Kiel: [1981] E.C.R. 1805; [1982] 1 C.M.L.R. 449, para. [11]. [25] The purpose of Directive 69/169, as its title suggests, is to harmonise exemptions from turnover tax and excise duty on imports in international travel. As is clear from the recitals in its preamble and from those in the preambles to the directives subsequently amending it, the aim is to liberalise the system of taxes on imports in travel in order to facilitate such travel. [26] The ninth recital in its preamble states, however, that Regulation 918/83 does not preclude the application by Member States of import or export prohibitions or restrictions which are justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security, protection of health and life of humans, that is to say, grounds which, even in the context of intra-Community trade, are capable of justifying restrictions on the free movement of goods in accordance with Article 36 of the E.C. Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 30 E.C.). [27] The same interpretation must apply as regards Directive 69/169 which, like Regulation 918/83, is limited to providing for a system of exemptions applicable to goods whose importation is not otherwise prohibited on one of the grounds set out in the preceding paragraph of this judgment. [28] It should be noted, in this connection, that both Article 24(2)(a)(i) of Regulation 3285/94 and Article 19(2)(a)(i) of Regulation 519/94 expressly provide that those Regulations are not to preclude the*1057 adoption or application by Member States of prohibitions, quantitative restrictions or surveillance measures on grounds of public morality, public policy, public security or the protection of health and life of humans. [29] It follows that, while Regulation 918/83 and Directive 69/169 are intended to define the customs and tax rules applicable to imports of a non-commercial nature by travellers from non-Member countries, it is not the objective of that harmonising legislation to govern specifically the protection of the public policy interest requirements referred to in Article 24(2)(a)(i) of Regulation 3285/94 and Article 19(2)(a)(i) of Regulation 519/94, with the result that the Member States retain their competence to adopt the necessary measures to protect those requirements. [30] The answer to be given to the first question must therefore be that national legislation prohibiting or restricting imports of certain goods by travellers arriving from non-Member countries on grounds of public morality, public policy, public security or protection of health and life of humans is not contrary to Regulation 918/83 and Directive 69/169. The second question [31] By its second question the national court is asking, essentially, whether the circumstances described in paragraph [18] of this judgment can be such as to justify a restriction on imports of alcoholic drinks by travellers arriving from third countries. [32] It must first of all be pointed out that economic considerations, such as the

last two circumstances mentioned in paragraph [18] of this judgment, are not included among the reasons which, according to Article 24(2)(a)(i) of Regulation 3285/94 and Article 19(2)(a)(i) of Regulation 519/94, may justify a restriction on imports of products from non-Member countries. [FN38] FN38 See, by analogy, with respect to Article 30 E.C., Case 95/81, E.C. Commission v. Italy: [1982] E.C.R. 2187, para. [27]. [33] By contrast, maintenance of public order and protection of internal security are among the first group of interests referred to in Article 24(2)(a)(1) of Regulation 3285/94 and Article 19(2)(a)(i) of Regulation 519/94. The same is true of protection of health and life of humans, to which the campaign against alcoholism makes a contribution. [FN39] FN39 In the context of Article 30 E.C., see Case C-189/95, Criminal Proceedings Against Franzen: [1997] E.C.R. I-5909; [1998] 1 C.M.L.R. 1231, para. [76]. [34] In those circumstances, the answer to be given to the second question must be that national legislation restricting imports of alcoholic drinks by travellers arriving from non-Member countries in order to maintain public order is not, in principle, contrary to Regulation 918/83 or Directive 69/169. *1058 The third question [35] By its third question, the national court is asking, essentially, whether national legislation restricting imports from third countries by travellers of alcoholic drinks, including drinks with a low alcohol content, on the basis of the duration of the journey, with a view to combating disturbances of public order connected with the consumption of alcohol is contrary to Regulation 918/83 and Directive 69/169. [36] In order to clarify the meaning of that question, it should be borne in mind that, with regard to Article 30 of the E.C. Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 E.C.) and Article 36 of the E.C. Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 30 E.C.), the Court has stated that, while it is for the Member States to decide at what level they wish to protect the interests referred to in Article 30 and how that level is to be attained, they may however do so only within the limits set by the Treaty and, in particular, in compliance with the principle of proportionality. [FN40] FN40 Franzen, para. [75]. [37] As the Advocate General has noted at paragraph 28 of his Opinion, the point at issue here is therefore whether the measure adopted by the Finnish legislature is proportionate to the objective pursued. [38] However, while the objective pursued by Articles 28 and 30 E.C. is to

guarantee respect of the fundamental freedom which is the free movement of goods in the internal market, the objective of the Community customs and tax provisions at issue in the main proceedings is more restricted in that it is intended to facilitate passenger travel from non-Member countries in conformity with the requirements of the customs union. [39] The question whether or not the legislation in question in the main proceedings is appropriate and necessary must be considered in the light of those considerations. [40] As regards the question of its appropriateness, that legislation introduces only a limited derogation from the Community system of customs and tax reliefs applicable to travellers, since it covers only one specific category of goods, alcoholic drinks. That derogation is further limited by the fact that it relates only to journeys which satisfy precise criteria, namely journeys by land or sea lasting less than 20 hours. [41] Those limitations correspond to the typical circumstances singled out by the Finnish authorities as being the chief source of the social and health problems with which they were faced. The Finnish Government has, moreover, stated that it was possible to detect an improvement in the situation as soon as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings was implemented. Those factors are such that it may properly be inferred from them that the legislation in question is appropriate. *1059 [42] With regard to the need for legislation such as that applicable in the main proceedings, the Commission claimed that, by establishing stricter checks on the movement of travellers, the Finnish authorities could have made better use of the opportunities offered by the Community legislation, such as strict application of the concept of "imports of a non-commercial nature", a reduction in the reliefs granted to frontier workers and crews of means of transport and refusing travellers making a purely token journey to another country any relief at all. The Finnish Government replied that recourse to those options would have provided only an inadequate response to the problems it had to resolve. In addition, such recourse would have required material resources, particularly in the computer field, which were either not, or at least not immediately, available, whilst the authorities had to confront serious disturbances of public order connected with a sharp rise in the consumption of alcohol. [43] It should be pointed out that the Member States, which retain exclusive competence as regards the maintenance of public order and the safeguarding of internal security, [FN41] enjoy a margin of discretion in determining, according to particular social circumstances and to the importance attached by those States to a legitimate objective under Community law, such as the campaign against various forms of criminality linked to the consumption of alcohol, the measures which are likely to achieve concrete results. FN41 Case C-265/95, E.C. Commission v. France: [1997] E.C.R. I-6959, para. [33]. [44] In the circumstances described in paragraph [18] of this judgment, the

introduction of a restriction on imports of alcoholic drinks by travellers arriving from non-Member countries would seem to be a necessary measure, since the alternatives proposed by the Commission do not appear to be effective enough to attain the objective pursued. [45] Accordingly, the answer to be given to the third question must be that national legislation restricting imports by travellers arriving from third countries of alcoholic drinks, on the basis of the duration of the journey, with a view to combating disturbances of public order connected with the consumption of alcohol, is not contrary to Regulation 918/83 or Directive 69/169. Costs [46] The costs incurred by the Finnish Government and by the Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Order On those grounds, THE COURT (Fifth CHAMBER), in answer to the*1060 questions referred to it by the Helsingin Karajaoikeus by order of 5 November 1997, HEREBY RULES: 1. National legislation prohibiting or restricting imports of certain goods by travellers arriving from non-Member countries on grounds of public morality, public policy, public security or protection of health and life of humans is not contrary to Council Regulation 918/83 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty and Council Directive 69/169 relating to exemption from turnover tax and excise duty on imports in international travel. 2. National legislation restricting imports of alcoholic drinks by travellers arriving from non-Member countries in order to maintain public order is not, in principle, contrary to Regulation 918/83 or Directive 69/169. 3. National legislation restricting imports by travellers arriving from third countries of alcoholic drinks, on the basis of the duration of the journey, with a view to combating disturbances of public order connected with the consumption of alcohol, is not contrary to Regulation 918/83 or Directive 69/169.

(c) Sweet & Maxwell Limited [2000] 2 C.M.L.R. 1037