Free Movement of Goods (Fiscal Barriers)

Question 1

Commission v Italy (Art Treasures)

Answer 1

Defined goods as ‘products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions.’

Question 2

Article 30 TFEU

Answer 2

Prohibits customs duties on imports and exports and charges having equivalent effect.

Question 3

Commission v Italy (Statistical Levy)

Answer 3

Defined a CEE as ‘any pecuniary charge… imposed unilaterally on domestic or foreign goods by reason of the fact they cross a frontier and which is not a customs duty in the strict sense constitutes a CEE.’ Unlawful CEE.

Question 4

Social Fonds voor de Diamantarbeiders

Answer 4

Unlawful CEE, even though non-protectionist (funded benefits for diamond workers) and the levied imported diamonds were not in competition with any domestic products.

Question 5

Commission v Germany (Animal Inspections)

Answer 5

Outlined charges falling outside Article 30 TFEU

1) relate to general system of internal dues applied unilaterally
2) proportionate fees for services rendered to importer
3) charges for inspections carried out to fulfill EU obligations

Question 6

Commission v Belgium (Customs Warehouses)

Answer 6

Any charge levied when goods cross borders is a CEE unless it represents a reasonable payment for services the trader has requested. (Here they didn’t give traders a choice)

Question 7

Bresciani

Answer 7

Amounted to illegal customs duty; inspection was in the public interest rather than the benefit of the importer.

Question 8

Lutticke

Answer 8

Established that Article 110 had direct effect in a MS.

Question 9

Commission v France (Levy on Reprographic Machinery)

Answer 9

Defined internal taxation as a ‘general system of internal dues applied systematically to categories of products in accordance with objective criteria irrespective of the product’s origin.’

Question 10

Article 110(1)

Answer 10

1) The imported and domestic products are similar

2) Taxation must not discriminate against the imports

Question 11

Rewe-Zentrale v Haptzollampt

Answer 11

Similarity test:

1) Similar characteristics at same stage of marketing or production
2) Meet the same need from the point of view of consumers.

Question 12

Commission v France (Spirits)

Answer 12

1) Relates to Article 110(1); based on similar and comparable use, NOT whether products are strictly identical.
2) Related to Article 110(2): products fall under this which without being similar are nevertheless in competition, even partial, indirect or potential with certain goods of the importing country.

Question 13

John Walker Ltd

Answer 13

Relates to Article 110(1); characteristics of goods = objective test. Needs are evaluated from the point of view of the consumer.

Question 14

Commission v Italy (Regenerated Oil)

Answer 14

Established that direct discrimination of similar goods under Article 110(1) will never be justified.

Question 15

Commission v Denmark (Fruit and Grape Wines)

Answer 15

Relates to indirect discrimination under Article 110(1). Fruit and grape wines were similar, manufactured same way and met the same consumer needs. Different tax rules could not be justified if the lower tariffs applied to the products produced internally in a member country.

Question 16

Chemical Farmaceutici

Answer 16

Provided grounds for justifying indirect discrimination under Article 110 (1).

1) tax must differentiate between products on basis of objective criteria
2) must pursue economic policy objectives compatible with EU law
3) detailed rules must not discriminate