| Abstract: | This note contrasts the approaches taken by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the UK Supreme Court in the high‐profile litigation which preceded the introduction of minimum alcohol pricing in Scotland. The case of Scotch Whisky Association and others v The Lord Advocate and another hinged, ultimately, on the necessity of minimum pricing to achieve important public health goals. The notably differing viewpoints adopted by the domestic and Union courts, however, both illustrate the elusiveness of the proportionality criterion, and expose tensions between domestic and supranational control in the context of internal market regulation. |
