Chapter 5 & 6 Flashcards
Commission v Italy (“Italian Art”) (1968)
Set the definition for “goods”
Payment for Service Rendered
To the IMPORTER
Bresciani v Amministrazione Italiana felle Finanze
The need to specifically benefit the IMPORTER highlighted
Commission v Belgium (“Customs Warehouses”) (1983)
Service to be provided to the importer AT THE REQUEST of the importer
Commission v Germany (“Animal Inspections”)
NOT a CEE where inspection is requied by the EU Law (in order to promote free movement of goods)
Commission v Netherlands (1977)
Charges for inspections as a result of rules of international treaties NOT CEEs
Artile 110 TFEU
On Discriminatory INTERNAL Taxation
Article 110 TFEU
On Discriminatory INTERNAL Taxation
Article 110 (1) TFEU
On Discrimination
Article 110 (2) TFEU
On Protection
Alfons Lutticke case’s relation to Article 110 (+ Article 30)
Tells us that that they mutually exclusive.
Hence important to at first hand, recognise whether we’re dealing with 1) a charge that is prohibited under Article 30; or 2) a tax that is subject to Article 110
Commission v France (“Repographic Machinery”) (1981)
Defined what is meant by “tax” in Article 110
How strict is Article 110?
Not as strict as Article 30.
Whilst Article 30 is absolute, Article 110 CAN be permissible as long as it does not discriminate against imports under Article 110(1) and is not protectionist under Article 110(2).
How strict is Article 110?
Not as strict as Article 30.
Whilst Article 30 is absolute, Article 110 CAN be permissible as long as it does not discriminate against imports under Article 110(1) and is not protectionist under Article 110(2).
Comparison between CEE Test in Statistical Levy v Internal Tax Test in Repographic Machinery
Shows the particular distinctions between them.
CEE applies jut for the reason of goods crossing the border (hence unilterally on either domestic exports or foreign imports).
internal Tax however applies IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ORIGIN OF THE PRODUCTS
Article 110 (1) TFEU
On Similar Products.
Obliges MS to tax similar imprted and domestic goods in the same way.
Goal to prohibit discrimination.
Commissionv Denmark (1986)
Wine from fruit vs wine from grapes
Humblot v Directeur (1985)
Taxation of Cars
Size of ENGINE
Commission v Geece (1990)
Taxation of Cars.
On CYLINDER capacity
Article 11)92) TFEU
On Non-Similar Products
Prohibits the imposition of any taxation on products imported from other MS which is of such a nature a to afford indirect PROTECTION to domestic products
Article 34 TFEU
“Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be pohibited between MS”
- Quantitative
- MEQRs
Commission v Ireland (“Buy Irish”)
Member tates cannot circumvent their obligations under Article 34 TFEU simply by relying on a private company.
Commision v France (“Spanish Strawberries”)
MS will be in breach of its obligations under Article 34 where it has failed to take necessary and appropriate measures to prevent the free movement of goods (inaction)
Geddo v Ente Nazionale Risi (1973)
Defines “Quantitative Restrictions” as Measures which amount to a total OR partial restraint…of imports, exports or goods in transit
Case on the BAN of Imports (example of QR)
R v Henn and Darby (1979)
Case on QUOTAS placed on imports (aexample of QR)
Fruit Company NV v Produktschap voor Groenten (1971)
MEQRs
MEQRs cover a wide ange of measures that can be regarded as “disguised” barriers to trade.
Examples:
-National Rules that regulate the physical requirements that a product has to satisfy (i.e. shape or packaging) before it can be sold to the public.
Source to analyse how EU law defines MEQRs
- Directive 70/50
2. COJ’ definition from Procureur du Roi v DASSONVILLE (1974)
Directive 70/50
Transitional measure directive that only applies to national measures which were in place at the time EEC Treaty was signed.
Indicates how MEQRs were understood by the Commission at THAT time.
This Directive divides MEQRs into 2 groups:
Distinctly Applicable Measures
Indistinctly Applicable Measures
COJ’s Definition of MEQR from Dassonville
4 years after directive 70/50
“All trading rules enacted by MS which are CAPABLE of hindering, directly OR indirectly; actually OR potentially, intra-Community trade are to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to QRs”
Dassonville Formula
Definition set out
Outlined without any mention of Directive 70/50
Doe not define MEQR hence in terms of “distinct” or “not distinct”. Its simple re
Dassonville Formula
Definition set out
Outlined without any mention of Directive 70/50
Doe not define MEQR hence in terms of “distinct” or “not distinct”. Its simple requirement: the trading rule MUST BE CAPABLE*** of hindering trade between MS to be classified as a MEQR.
- Reach may be wider than discrimination? (the wording of the formula makes no reference to discrimination)
Distinctly Applicable Measures
Measures that do NOT apply equally to domestic and imported goods.
Discriminate distinctly in that: makes importation more difficult or costly relative to domestic poducts.
“Higher standards” required for imported goods than domestic goods (Article 2 of Directive 70/50).
Dassonville Formula
Definition set out
Outlined without any mention of Directive 70/50
Doe not define MEQR hence in terms of “distinct” or “not distinct”. Its simple requirement: the trading rule MUST BE CAPABLE*** of hindering trade between MS to be classified as a MEQR.
- Reach may be wider than discrimination? (the wording of the formula makes no reference to discrimination)
Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung… (1979)
Clarified the question for Dassonville’s Formula for MEQR with regards to INDISTINCTLY applicable measures: YES an MEQR prohibited by Article 34 TFEU
(this case was one that applied to alcohol)
Why must be distinguish Distinct and Indistinct applicable measures?
B/C of the potential DEFENCES available to them
Defences for Distinctly Applicable Measures
Article 36 Derogations
Defences for Indistrinct AM
Article 36 Derogations PLUS “Mandatory Requirements”
