CUSTOM DUTIES AND CEE Flashcards
DONCKERWOCKLE
Goods originating from 3rd states and placed in the circulation “are definitely and wholly assimilated to products originating in MSs
COMMISSION v IRELAND
Import license on potatoes from Cyprus (when not a MS) but in free circulation in the UK.
COMMISSION v ITALY
FACTS: imposed tax on articles of an ‘artistic, historical, archaeological or ethnographic nature.’
POL: Art 30 ‘makes no distinction based on purpose of duties and charges the abolition of which it requires.’
GOODS DEFINITION= “Products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as such, of forming the subjct of commercial transactions.”
VEEDFALD
Human body or part of a body classed as a good
Commission v Belgium (‘Walloon Waste’)
Waste is considered to be a good
JAGERSKOID v GUSTAFSSON
Fishing rights. Don’t fit definition
POL: These rights are not goods. may be covered by freedom to provide service and freedom of capital.
COMMISSION v ITALY (Statistical levy)
-Levy on imports and exports purportedly to finance the collation of statistics for benefit of traders.
ADVANTAGES FOR TRADERS ARE TOO UNCERTAIN (If not too general or uncertain then may be permissible but narrow)
“Any pecuniary charge, however small and whatever its designation and mode of application, which is imposed unilaterally on domestic goods by virtue of the fact that they cross a frontier.”- Charges having Equivalent Effect definition
SOCIAAL FONDS.
Grounds of effect/purpose attempt to justify,
Stated immaterial that: 1) charge or duty is not for benefit of MS. 2) purpose is not discriminatory or protective. 3) product is not in competition with domestic competition.
BRESCIANA
FACTS: Italy imposed charge for compulsory veterinary and public health inspections on the importation of raw cowhides. Imposed in general interest. Cannot be regarded as service to importer which can justify pecuniary charge. Not allowed and against article 28
COST “must be met by the general public which, as a whole, benefits from the free movement of goods.”
FORD ESPANA
FACTS: Charge for cost of customs clearance at Ford’s factory allowed in principle due to benefit to Ford. In practice, contrary to ART 30 as percentage related, unrelated to cost of actual service.
POL: Charge for service of direct benefit to trader which represents cost of service not contrary to art 25.
Commission v Germany
Charged for insepection of live animals for import. Inspections required by Community law. Not contrary (COMPARISON TO COMMISSION V BELGIUM- ‘NOT MERELY ALLOWED’ TEST)
NOT CONTRARY TO EU LAW IF: 1) DOES NOT EXCEED ACTUAL COST, 2) PRESCRIBED BY EU LAW IN GENERAL INTEREST OF EU 3) PROMOTE FMofG through neutralising obstacles from unilateral inspection.
