Free Movement - 28/30, 110

Question 1

‘Goods’ definition:

Answer 1

Commission v Italy (Art Treasures): “products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions.”

Question 2

Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse

Answer 2

Goods in question reclassified by Dutch Government so become subject to higher rate of duty. Article 30 used to challenge.
CJEU ruled that as new duty imposed a higher rate upon importer, direct contravention of Art. 30.

Question 3

Purpose of the charge is irrelevant, case:

Answer 3

Commission v Italy (Art Treasures): customs duties imposed by State on certain cultural treasures after having being sold to private collectors and shipped out of the country. Attempted justification through discouragement, preserve national heritage.
CJEU ruled that the purpose of the tax was irrelevant. The mere fact that a tax was prohibited by Art. 30 was enough.

Question 4

Sociaal Fonds voor de Diamondarbeiders

Answer 4

Charge imposed on diamond imports into Belgium. Purpose was to provide a social fund for people working in Belgium in the diamond industry. Argued that because of the benevolent purpose, should not be a breach.
The CJEU held that the effect of the charge, however small, charged at the border, would be an obstacle to the free movement of goods, regardless of the motivation for imposing it.

Question 5

Charges equivalent to customs duties, case:

Answer 5

Commission v Italy: Italian government placed a levy on statistical information because it constituted consideration for a business service.
CJEU defined charged equivalent to customs duties as: “any pecuniary charge, however small and whatever its mode of application, imposed unilaterally on domestic and foreign goods by reason that they cross a frontier…”

Question 6

Limits to Article 30, case:

Answer 6

Commission v Belgium: authorities placed a charge on goods being brought into the country and passing through the customs inspection system. Two aspects to the charge. One compulsory for storage during the period they were kept for inspection. Second optional, if the importers wished to store goods there for longer, awaiting collection.
First charge considered a charge equivalent to a customs duty because not compulsory and applied to all. Second was not, because it was optional, and was in return for a genuine service.

Question 7

Commission v Germany, principle and case:

Answer 7

Health inspections cannot be charged for, for the benefit of State so they should pay. But, inspection required by the EU itself, can be charged for.
Commission v Germany: concerned livestock inspection required by a directive. As these were required in the whole of the EU, the charge to the importer was not prohibited.

Question 8

Article 110 TFEU, two-pronged approach:

Answer 8

1. Prohibition on taxes which discriminate between imports and similar domestic goods.
2. Prohibition on taxes which discriminate between imports and competing domestic goods.

Question 9

Article 110(1): similar goods, case:

Answer 9

John Walker v Ministeriat for Skatter: had to decide whether liqueur fruit wine was similar to whisky. Examined various aspects.
When judging similarity, has to be done objectively on the different characteristics of the two products concerned. In this case, the difference in alcohol content and the fact that one was produced by fermenting, the other by distillation, meant that these were not similar products.

Question 10

Article 110(2): competing goods, cases:

Answer 10

Commission v France: court had to decide whether grain-based products competed with fruit-based products. France produced more fruit-based, but the tax was higher on grain-based.
Despite not being ‘similar’, they did compete with each other because they may be considered to be alternative choices for people as alcoholic beverages.

Commission v UK: Court looked at taxation difference between wines and beers. Just like the above case, considered competing despite differences. In UK, more beers were produced than wines, and the tax was higher on wines.
Discriminatory towards imports, due to the higher tax.

Question 11

Article 110(2), considerations:

Answer 11

1. The products compete;
2. The effect of the tax difference is such that the domestic products are more favourably taxed than imports.
   Because ultimately this results in an internal barrier to the Single Market.