Ministere Public v Deserbais - Case Study Example

Ministere Public v Deserbais Introduction The judgment given on any case that has international interest is always bound to raise both fair and unfair criticism from the public and the interested parties. The Advocate General and the court’s various commissions are responsible for giving sound judgment on controversial cases, and they are obliged to do so in a manner that indicates enlightened judgments. The court’s ruling may lead to different interpretations of the judgment and it may raise more questions about the justice system. To avoid such conflicts after judgments, the courts ensure that they make judgments that can be backed up with factual scripts on the law. Cases that generate conflicts are normally those in which the land’s laws are not quite parallel to the provisions of the international laws. Whenever a nation signs an international treaty, the provisions of the treaty may directly affect the laws in the country. The policies of the treaty may dictate one thing while the land law calls for the direct opposite. It is also possible that the treaty may give provisions that are not allowed by the nation in question. There have been several cases that have fuelled heated debates in Europe over the past several decades. One of the most popular cases relating to such conflicts was the Case 286/86 Ministere Public v Deserbais [1988] ECR 4907. This paper will analyse the case between Ministere Public v Deserbais. Case analysis Gerard Deserbais was a director in a dairy products business that was playing in the German and French economies. Deserbais had registered his business under the name “Edam” in France. Edam was the name of the dairy products that the business man was importing to France from Germany. According to analysis done on the imported cheese from Germany, its fats content was 34.3%. Under the French legislation, the name “Edam” is restricted to cheese containing a minimum of 40% fats. According to the Stresa convention adopted in 1951, the dairy businessmen should only use specific names of their cheese if the cheese meets the required standards (Ministere Public v. Gerard Deserbais, 1988). Following the detection of Gerard Deserbais’ cunning business activities, the French authority arrested him and he was charged with the offence of using a restricted trade name without meeting the provisions of the name in question. According to the French legislation, the Cheese was substandard and the business man had been swindling the public of the right to consumption of “Edam” cheese as provided by the name. The most controversial question was whether Deserbais was well acquainted with the provisions of the law in France or not, but in his defence, he suggested that he was well aware of the meaning of the trade name (Ministere Public v. Gerard Deserbais, 1988). The fact that he was ignorant about the French legislation made things worse for his defence. The court did not sympathise with him. Accusation Gerard Deserbais was accused of using a reserved trade name for his cheese in France. He was accused of criminal business activities on grounds that the name “Edam” was specifically reserved by the French law for cheese containing more than 40% fat. The French Legislation passed the law in 1951 and the trade name was specifically only used by traders whose products passed the test of the name’s requirements. Edam cheese was a dairy product that was very popular in Germany and it was 34% made of fats. This information about the content of the cheese was made known to the German public through a clear content list pinned to the cheese containers (Wolf, 1999). The basis of the accusations on Mr. Deserbais were controversial since the French legislation claimed that the use of the name was illegal for the substandard cheese products while in the EEC Treaty, which France was a member state, had an article that allowed the member states to import their products freely. Mr. Deserbais’s defence used Article 234 EEC as the backbone of their case. After the French Court found the businessman guilty and fined him, he opted to appeal to the court of appeal in the nation so as to challenge the ruling by quoting the provisions of the EEC Treaty (Wolf, 1999). Deserbais defence According to the defence forwarded by Mr. Deserbais, his business activities would only be termed illegal or criminal if he was manufacturing the cheese within the boundaries of France. The French legislation is only effective within the French nation; thus, his activities of importation were justified. Regarding the reservation of the trade name “Edam”, Mr. Deserbais defence claimed that the name was only reserved within the French nation to the cheese producers. There was no grounds whatsoever that the nation of France would restrict the use of the name in other states (European Court Reports 1988, 2003). The provisions of the EET Treaty had it that the member states had the right to free marketing of their manufactured products in the economies of the other member states. The conflict between the French Legislation and the provisions of the treaty popularized the controversial case. According to Mr. Deserbais, the French rule was unlawful on grounds of the provisions of Article 28 EC (ex 30) and there were no specific rules addressing the issue. The defence also pleaded innocent on the accusations on grounds that the product in question was manufactured under lawful grounds in Germany and the product was well marketed in Germany (European Court Reports 1988, 2003). In addition to this, the French public had information on the contents of the Cheese. Mr. Deserbais also claimed that given a chance he would have marketed the product with its exact contents information for the French public to make an informed choice when they bought it. Judgement The court of France found Mr. Deserbais guilty of using the trade name “Edam” unlawfully. The accused was declared guilty before the court of law and he was fined for his unlawful activities on French territory. Mr. Deserbais was not satisfied with the court’s ruling; hence his defence appealed to the court of appeal in France to challenge the ruling under the provisions of the EEC Treaty policies. The court of appeal in France raised the question to the rest of the courts to justify the court’s ruling (European Court Reports 1988, 2003). The Court of appeal acknowledged the content brought forward by Mr. Deserbais’ defence. The defence proved that the “Edam” cheese was lawfully manufactured in Germany and its contents were clearly indicated on its content’s list on the containers. The defence also proved that the “Edam” cheese was traditionally produced by the German dairy business firms under the same name; thus, it was not a stolen name for profitability reasons. Following this evidence, the court of appeal was challenged to attempt interpreting the French legislation and the international treaties that were in favour of the accused. The main task was proving that the provisions of the French legislation were justified to white wash those of the EEC Treaty (Vedder, 2009). The counter argument was solely dependent on the interpretation of Article 30 et seq. in the EEC Treaty. The Article claimed that the member states would take regards to the International Convention pertaining to the use of the restricted trade name for cheese. The interpretation of the Article 30 of the EEC Treaty was not guided by a set of principles that would help determine whether judgment embedded on it would be justified according to the rule of reason (Jean Monnet Center, 1998). The Article failed to set the boundary of its applicability when it came to restricted names in one member state being used by other states to name their products and to market them within the state where the names were restricted. Declaring Mr. Deserbais Guilty of criminal business activities would be interpreted as placing quantitative limitation of trade commodities among the member states in the EEC Treaty. This would cause a conflict between the member states since the treaty was signed for the purpose of making it possible to freely market commodities within the economies of the member states. While the French court was looking into protecting the consumers with the guilty ruling, the court of appeal also found the ruling as indirect barring of fair trading among the member states of the EEC Treaty. There was need for the Article 30 to be revised so as to make sure its interpretation was justified within the community law in France. The cheese was lawfully produced in Germany under the name “Edam” and its contents were known to the public. It was also clear that there were no common laws in the community that would limit other nations from naming their products as they wished. It was, therefore, not justified to declare Mr. Deserbais Guilty before reviewing the provisions of the EEC Treaty (Jean Monnet Center, 1998). Conclusion There are many loopholes that are created in the community and international laws and agreements, which may affect the judgment of the courts of law in the affected nations. There is need for the member states of different treaties to ensure that the provisions of the Treaties are parallel to their land’s law. It becomes difficult to interpret the local law when the international law contradicts it. The case of Ministere Public V Deserbais was a practical example of the effects of having treaty rules that are not clearly spelt out to articulate with the local rules and regulation. The conflict was particularly to interpret the controversial Article 30, which would raise debates when interpreted in different ways. There was no justification in using the rule of reason to formulate a clear judgment for the case. References European Court Reports 1988. (2003). Ministere public v Gerard Deserbais. Retrieved from: http://oami.europa.eu/en/mark/aspects/pdf/860286.pdf Jean Monnet Center. (1998). A Survey of Principal Decisions of the European Court of Justice Pertaining to International Law: II. Deserbais. European Journal of International law, 1(1), 1. Ministere Public v. Gerard Deserbais, Case 286/86 (Court of Justice of the European Communities September 22, 1988). Vedder, C. (2009). A Survey of Principal Decisions of the European Court of Justice Pertaining to International Law. Retrieved from: http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/1/1/1142.pdf Wolf, S. (1999). Briefcase on European Community Law. United Kingdom: Routledge. Read More