The ECJ regularly turns its mind to weighty and subtle matters, but many of us could have guessed its conclusions in a treaty freedoms case involving Sweden.

Apparently Sweden levies different excise rates on beer and wine. Given that Sweden, no more than Ireland, is not particularly noted as a wine producing country, the ever vigilant Commission took some umbrage at this. The Commission felt that the higher excise rates levied on wine (produced abroad) were effectively a protectionist measure in favour of the locally produced beers, and thus in contravention of the EU Treaty.

Not so, according to the Court, which pointed out that wine and beer are, to a certain extent, capable of meeting identical needs. (It is unclear from the case the extent of field research, if any, undertaken to support this conclusion.) Wine apparently does not compete with beer per se, it competes with strong beer. When the prices of strong beer and wine are compared, the differential is so small as to dismiss any suggestion of market manipulation through excise duties.

So now we know.