Flight of the bumble bees case to create quite a buzz in Luxembourg

Two bees or not two bees, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the stings and arrows of outra- geous fortune . . .

The Prince of Denmark will forgive me, I am sure, if I paraphrase him to describe the apian challenge sent recently by his countrymen to the European Court of Justice. The EU's court in Luxembourg, better known for deciding the dreary niceties of European competition law or agricultural regulations, now faces a challenge worthy of A.P. Herbert's celebrated cow (in which, so I recall, it was established, M'Lud, that a cheque written on the side of the said beast was a legitimate instrument for settling a debt).

The problem is whether the free movement rights established in the European Union for workers, capital and goods, also apply to the humble bumblebee. And the man charged with assessing the merits of the case and initially summing up the arguments for his fellow judges as advocate-general is none other than Ireland's own Nial Fennelly.

The brown bees of the small island of Laes are legendary for their honey. Apis mellifera mellifera, for it is she, feeds on the abundant, flavourful heather on this sandy Kattegat island, far from the shore of Rutland.

She had no rival - the ordinary common or garden yellow bee does not have the wingpower to reach the island whose human population of 2,365 lives off summer tourism and the proceeds of the brown bee's endeavours.

That was until 1993 when Ditlev Bluhme arrived from the mainland with 20 hives of the yellow devils to set himself up in competition.

The islanders were not amused. The yellow bees were killing off their brown rivals. And so Ditlev was made, in no uncertain terms, to feel most unwelcome. He was pushed about in the street, verbally abused, and the local grocer went so far as to refuse to serve him.

Pressure on the local authorities led in 1994 to charges of endangering a protected species at the local court of Frederikshavn.

Ostensibly it was an open and shut case, until Ditlev played his European card. Danish regulations were in breach of his and his bees' rights to free movement under the Treaty of Rome, he claimed to Judge Mogens Pedersen.

Pedersen has had a predilection for referring issues to Luxembourg at the drop of a hat. In a previous case he asked the ECJ to rule whether an unmarked dinghy of the Danish fishery protection service was insufficiently identified to effect the search of a trawler suspected of illegal fishing.

And so Ditlev, now living back on the mainland, will get his day in the European Court of Justice (Anklagemydigheden v Ditlev Bluhme). The written pleadings in the case were completed in June and a date for the oral hearing is due to be set. When it happens it should create quite a buzz.

Meanwhile, the court yesterday ruled in favour of Sweden's state monopoly on the sale of strong beer, wine and spirits. The measure was compatible with the EU's rules because it was justified as a health measure.

But the court accepted that the monopoly on importation would have to go.

The ruling arose from an action brought in Sweden by the southern town of Landskrona public prosecutor against a grocer, Harry Franzen, for breaking the monopoly in 1994 and 1995 of Systembolaget - the stateowned alcohol retail chain.

The state shops are one of the most bizarre aspects of Swedish life to those accustomed to the more liberal regimes of southern Europe - they open only for a few hours a week and operate like chemists, with bottles of the demon drink displayed behind glass and customers required to queue to present lists of their requirements to judgmental sales staff. A whiff of alcohol on the breath is likely to disqualify. Prices are astronomical.

The verdict was also important for Finland, which, like Sweden, is an EU member, and Norway, which is not but is part of the wider European Economic Area to which such rulings also apply. Both countries have similarly strict rules to prevent alcohol abuse and both support their Nordic neighbour's case.

For those interested in the usually less exciting rulings of the ECJ, its more recent decision are now available in full on the Internet at the court's recently opened site:http:// europa.eu.int/cj/index.htm