Talk:Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

European Union Mid‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title wrong

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The name of the case is actually Rewe-Zentral AG v [...]. The title now has an "E" at the end of Zentral. This is wrong. Source: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/single-market-goods/files/goods/docs/mutrec/cassisdijon_en.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.154.191 (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Sorted --Frans Fowler (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just in case this is queried, the name of the case is apparently given incorrectly in the cited Craig/de Búrca reference. This would appear to be a case where we should rely on the primary source, rather than secondary sources. I also checked against the Handelsregister, which confirmed the spelling without 'e' - though the (formerly) registered name I found was slightly different). --Boson (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Alcohol level wrong

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article stated that the German law required a minimum alcohol level of 25% for wine-spirits, however, that is not correct. The correct value is 32%. It's mentioned in the court documents of the case, in both the German and English versions. I don't know how this 25% level ever came into existence, because no source for that has ever been given. It's quite concerning that the wrong number has been here ever since the very initial write up of this article in 2009. The German version of wikipedia regarding this case also listed the wrong value until someone corrected it in Dec 2012. Please make sure to not just mindlessly translate articles, but also use proper sources to verify what's being claimed. Errors like these are avoidable. 77.182.177.31 (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Draft:Cassis de Dijon Principle

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity. ~Kvng (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ground 4 in the judgment on EUR-Lex states:

[The German laws] lay down that the marketing of fruit liqueurs, such as Cassis de Dijon, is conditional upon a minimum alcohol content of 25%

Can you cite a reference for the correct figure being 32%? Even if you can, it changes little, because Cassis de Dijon has an alcohol content of 15-20%, which is below 25% and 32% --Wheelybloke (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic