Free Movement of Goods Cases Etc 1 Flashcards
Commission v Italy Italian Art
Goods are products that can be valued in money and which are capable of forming the subject of commercial transactions
- broad definition to “goods”
Van Gend en Loos
Article 30 is directly effective
Commission v Italy Statistical Levy
- Fee was charged to collect statistical evidence but this was of no benefit to traders. CEE.
- any pecuniary charge however small and regardless of how it is described, imposed unilaterally on domestic or foreign goods for crossing a border
- even if not for the benefit of the state, not discriminatory and if the product is not in competition with domestic products
Social Fonds Diamantarbeiders
Charge was to increase social security benefits for diamond workers.
- held to be an unlawful CEE even if it is not protectionist because it made the imported diamonds less competitive
Commission v Germany
a charge on imports will not be a CEE if:
- General system of internal dues, systematically applied, same criteria to foreign and domestic = tax under Art 110
- Payment for service rendered to economic operator of sum in proportion to service
- Charge attaches to inspections carried out to fulfill obligations
Dansk Denkavit
General system of internal dues, systematically applied, same criteria to foreign and domestic = tax under Art 110
Bresciani
NOT a tax because had different criteria for taxes on domestic goods and imports
WAS a CEE because it benefited general public, but not prescribed by EU law so no reason for the importers to pay for it
Commission v Belgium Customs Warehouses
NOT a CEE if:
- consideration for service rendered
- Benefit to importer
- Amount is commensurate with costs of service provided
Commission v Netherlands
Same rules apply to inspections obliged by international conventions
Lutticke
-Art 110 is directly effective
-Art 30 and Art 110 are mutually exclusive
(important because an Art 30 CEE will be unlawful but an Art 110 tax may be permissible if it does not discriminate against imports or is protectionist)
Commission v France Reprographic Machinery
a CEE is borne solely by imports while a tax is borne by both imports and domestic products
Illustrates difference between CEE and taxes
- Art 110 taxes:
-general system of internal dues
-applied systematically in accordance with same criteria
- to domestic and imported products alike
Commission v Denmark
Wine from fruit and wine from grapes are similar. Under Art 110(1) need to see if goods are similar
John Walker
Whiskey is different to fruit liquors.
- manifestly different characteristics
Tarantik
Goods are similar if:
- their characteristice and the needs they serve
-place them in competitive relationship.
The degree of competition depends on product-specific factors
Commission v Italy (Regenerated Oil)
- local and imported oil similar
- Discount for regenerated oil only available to domestic oil producers on basis that can’t tell if foreign oil is regenarated. Direct discrimination
Humblot
Lower engine sizes taxed far less but only French cars have small engines. Indirect discrimination because the higher tax was so disproportionate
Commission v Greece
Tax on larger engine sizes for environmental concerns.
- Indirect discrimination can be objectively justifiable if it meets a legitimate EU aim.
- Here taxes weren’t extreme enough to have a discriminatory effect anyway
Commission v France Spirits
- Art 110(2) applies where goods are not similar but are in competition, even partial, indirect or potential.
- Whiskey , fruit based spirits are in competition with each other.
- Substitutability used to determine if goods are in competition even if they aren’t similar
- caught under Art 110(2)
Commission v UK Wine and Beer
Beer and wine are in competition with each other. Substitutability used to determine goods are in competition even if they aren’t the same goods, be it partially, indirectly or potentially
SO caught under Art 110(2)
Co-Frutta
Bananas are the only fruit grown in Italy that Italy taxes to import:
- NOT discriminatory under Art 110(1) because bananas are different
- IS discriminatory under Art 110(2) as table fruit and bananas are partly competitive. Substitutiability test used.
SO caught under Art 110(2)
Art 110(2) remedy?
protective effect needs to be removed
Article 110(1) remedy?
MS must equalise the tax regime in respect of the similar product
Art 110(2)
- regulates taxation on non-similar products
- in order to prohibit indirect protection to domestic products
Rewe-Zentrale
to tell if products are similar
- at the same stage of production or marketing
- did the products have similar characteristics (objectively)?
- did they meet the same needs from the point of view of consumers?
Art 110(1)
MS must tax similar imported and domestic goods in the same way
-Similarity between products determined on the basis of similar and comparable use
Charges for inspections to fulfil oblgiations imposed by Community law
Commission v Germany
1 Charge must not exceed costs of inspections
2 Inspections obligatory/uniform for all relevant products in Union
3 Inspections prescribed by EU law in general interest of EU
4 Inspections promote free movement goods
Arts 34, 35, 36 TFEU
- 34, 35: prohibition of quantitive restrictions and all measures having equivalent effect
- 36: permissible derogations
Art 110 TFEU
prohibition of discriminatory taxation - ie internal fiscal barriers to trade
Art 30 TFEU
prohibition of customs duties and charges having equivalent effect
