Free Movement Of Goods, Fiscal Barriers

Front 1

Fiscal covered by which Articles?

Back 1

30&10

Front 2

Article 30 = Prohibition of

Back 2

- Customs Duties and

- Charges having equivalent effect (CEEs)

Front 3

Article 110 = Prohibition of

Back 3

discriminatory and protectionist taxes.

Front 4

Non-Fiscal Barriers covered by

Back 4

Articles 34 to 36

Front 5

Articles 34 & 35 = Prohibition of

Back 5

- Quantative restrictions and

- Measures having equivalent effect

Front 6

What case defines 'Goods'

Back 6

Commission v Italy (Art Treasures)

Front 7

Art Treasures says goods are

Back 7

"Products that can be valued in money and are capable, as such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions."

Front 8

Article 30

Prohibits Customs Duties and CEEs.

Applies to

Back 8

- Customs duties

- CEEs

Prohibiting them.

Front 9

Article 30 has what, by which case

Back 9

- Direct effect

- Van Gend en Loos

Front 10

Who defines customs duty?

Back 10

Woods and Watson

Front 11

Woods and Watson say

Back 11

"Charges levied on goods - imports or exports - on crossing of a border"

Front 12

What does art treasures say about the purpose of a duty?

Back 12

It's irrelevant if the effect is to hinder.

Front 13

What is a CEE

By which case?

Back 13

"any pecuniary charge... whatever its designation and mode of application, imposed unilaterally on domestic/foreign goods because they crossed a frontier and not a customs duty in the strict sense"

Commission v Italy (Statistical Levy)

Front 14

"Even if...

Back 14

"it is NOT imposed for the benefit of the State, nor discriminatory or protective in effect.... and if goods are NOT in competition with domestic product."

Front 15

So material requirements are -

Back 15

- pecuniary charge

Front 16

- imposed

Back 16

unilaterally on

Front 17

- domestic or foreign goods

- because

Back 17

they crossed a frontier and

Front 18

- not a customs duty in the strict sense

is a -

Back 18

CEE

Front 19

Irrelevant factors are

- even if charge not imposed for

Back 19

the benefit of the State, nor

Front 20

- discriminatory or

Back 20

protective,

and if the goods are

Front 21

- not in competition with

Back 21

domestic products.

Front 22

For example -

Back 22

Statistical Levy:

where

Front 23

10 lire charge to fund compilation of statistics.

Also -

Back 23

Sociaal Fonds voor de Diamantarbeiders

levy for Diamond workers = CEE

Front 24

What falls outside Article 30? From which case?

Back 24

Commission v Germany (Animal Inspections)

Says

Front 25

1. relate to a general system of internal dues applied systematically to imported and domestic products.

2. Proportionate fees for...

Back 25

services rendered to the importer.

3. Charges for inspections carried out to

Front 26

fulfil EU Law obligations.

Back 26

...

Front 27

Internal Dues (Tax)

Which case distinguishes 30 & 110?

Back 27

Lutticke

Front 28

Payment for services rendered is not

Back 28

a charge under Article 30.

for example:

Front 29

1. Trader Requested the service

Back 29

Commission v Belgium (Customs Warehouses)

Front 30

2. Trader benefits from the service

Back 30

Statistical Levy??????

Bresciani

Front 31

3. Charge is proportionate to the cost of the service.

Back 31

Statistical Levy

Front 32

Charges for EU inspections =

Back 32

outside Article 30 if

Front 33

1. Not exceeding actual cost.

2. The inspection was

Back 33

obligatory.

3. Required in general interest of

Front 34

the EU.

4. Promotes the

Back 34

free movement of goods.

Case?

Front 35

Animal Inspections

further, same applies if required by

Back 35

International treaty.

Commission v Netherlands.

Front 36

Article 110 applies to

Back 36

Internal Taxation

Front 37

Prohibits

Back 37

Discriminatory taxation

Protectionist taxation

Front 38

Does it have direct effect

Back 38

Yes, Lutticke

Front 39

Scope of 110

Back 39

Commision v France (Levy on Reprographic Machinery)

says internal taxation =

Front 40

"a system of internal dues applied

Back 40

systematically to categories of products, in accordance with

Front 41

objective criteria, irrespective of

Back 41

the origin of the products."

Front 42

How is an internal tax distinguished from a CEE?

Back 42

Levy on Reprographic Machinery

internal system of dues...

Applied

Front 43

irrespective of the origin of the products.

case

Back 43

Dansk Denkavit (110)

Whereas a CEE

Front 44

Imposed unilaterally on domestic or foreign goods

Back 44

Statistical Levy

Front 45

by reason of

Back 45

crossing a frontier.

Bresciani

Front 46

Article 110 says

Back 46

"No Member State may impose directly or indirectly, on

Front 47

products of other Member States, any

Back 47

internal taxation of any kind in

Front 48

excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on

Back 48

similar domestic products.

Requirements, 110 -

Front 49

110 (1)

Back 49

- products are similar

- tax doesn't discriminate against the import.

Front 50

Test for similarity?

Back 50

Rewe-Zentrale v Hauptzollampt

says

Front 51

- Similar characteristics at same stage of marketing/production

Back 51

- meet the same needs from the point of view of the consumer

for example:

Front 52

Commission v France (Spirits)

Back 52

similar and comparable use, not that they are identical.

also

Front 53

John Walker c.f. Denmark (Fruit and Grape Wines)

Back 53

Characteristics (objective test)

Needs, from POV of consumer.

Front 54

Two types of discrimination -

Back 54

Direct

Less favourable treatment on grounds of origin, not justified - case

Front 55

Commission v Italy (regenerated oil)

Indirect -

Back 55

on its face in law not about origin but in reality

Front 56

burdens imports

case

Back 56

Commission v Denmark

examples:

Front 57

Humbolt

Back 57

Indirect discrimination - cars (16 CV higher tax and coincidentally all imported)

c.f.

Front 58

Commission v Greece

Back 58

Also cars, but legitimate spread of burden.

Front 59

Can be objectively justified -

Back 59

Chemial Farmaceutici

1. tax differentiates on

Front 60

objective criteria.

2. pursues economic

Back 60

policy objectives compatible with

Front 61

EU Law.

3. Detailed rules must

Back 61

not discriminate.

Front 62

110 (2)

Back 62

no internal tax affording indirect protection to other products.

what products?

Front 63

Commission v France (Spirits)

Back 63

"products which, without being similar = in competition, even partial,

Front 64

indirect or

Back 64

potential."

2. Prohibits

Front 65

protective taxation

Back 65

Commission v Belgium

Front 66

does the tax reduce

Back 66

even potential consumption?

Commission v UK c.f.

Commission v Belgium