In art. 3 of e-commerce directive, the country-of-origin principle is established, and in terms of cross-border digital marketing actions, it states that marketing actions compliant with the laws of its originating EU member state is considered compliant throughout the union. In contrast to the country-of-origin principle, there is another principle within Swedish marketing law, the country-of-effect principle, stating that any marketing actions that has effect in Sweden, must be compliant with the Swedish law. As general market law is harmonized in the EU the relationship between the two principles is rarely conflicted, and if they are, the country-of-origin principle prevails as EU law takes precedence over national law. However, the country-of-origin principle is subject to exceptions, one being for the benefit of public health, meaning that for such a purpose the country-of-effect principle might be applicable. The possibility to apply the country-of-effect principle as an exception for the benefit of public health has been processed in court, but never really been fully answered. The strongest argument advocating an application of the country-of-effect principle is related to circumstances surrounding strict Swedish alcohol laws, aiming to safeguard the public health by limiting their access to alcoholic beverages. And earlier this year, the Swedish supreme court had the opportunity to provide an answer in the anticipated Winefinder case (nr T 4709-22), but unfortunately, they disregarded the need for clarification. Therefore, this essay will instead, with the circumstances of the Winefinder case in mind, analyze the current possibilities to derogate from the country-of-origin principle in favor of the country-of-effect principle. During the analysis two main issues have been addressed. Firstly, the negative effects that current case law may have on the justification for Sweden’s state-owned monopoly (Systembolaget AB) for the sales of alcoholic beverages. As current case law stands, it allows privately owned e-commerce businesses to compete with Systembolaget, which may give rise to a questioning of the monopoly’s compliance with art. 36 TFEU as it no longer as effectively safeguards the public health. If instead the country-of-effect principle were to be applied in such circumstances, the e-commerce businesses would be infringing on Systembolaget’s exclusive right to retail, which would constitute a useful tool too make sure that the state monopoly still is compliant with art. 36. Finally, the suitability of the two principles were analyzed. In summary, the country-of-effect principle would be a more suitable approach in a modern digital environment. Reason being the simplicity in determining effect in a country and the possibility for national governments to protect vital national interests.

The Swedish alcohol market has for many years been in the hands of the government. The question of the monopoly, its being or not being, has for a long time engaged both Swedish citizens and politicians. Since joining the European Union it has also been on the European agenda, trying to adapt Sweden to the more liberal alcohol politic in Europe. The suppliers find themselves acting on a completely different market than a market based on free competition. The suppliers are faced with one retail channel to the stores which creates dependence and uneven power balance towards the retailer. In addition to this, their marketing activities are strictly limited due to the laws and claims. Corporate Social Responsibility is required goals given from the retailer upon the suppliers. The retailer is also set with strict term and rules from the government and has to gain the Swedish citizens approval in order to maintain their position as the only distribution channel. The supplier, primarily acting on the purpose of selling products and increasing the profit, differ from the retailer who mainly aim to limit and regulate the sales of alcohol. In this difficult market a relationship between the supplier and the distributor is being built up and nourished. The relationship in the supply chain is based on four factors; trust, cooperation, commitment and conflict. These different factors are shaping and affecting the relationship between the supplier and the retailer. The diverse aims of these two organizations, together with the regulations of the market and the dependency between each other, have an effect and shape the relationship. The analyses argue that equal goals can lead to an increased commitment between the supplier and retailer. Further on the members of the supply chains appear to use problem solving to resolve a conflict to be able to maintain good cooperation and increase trust in the relationship. The conclusion is that the retailer possesses the power in the relationship towards the supplier. All the relationship factors are important in this relationship but trust is required in order to obtain cooperation and commitment. Trust is also vital when it comes to solving a conflict.