FMG - Fiscal - Cases/facts

Question 1

1. Comm v Italy (Art Treasures)

Answer 1

– Charges for Italian Art leaving the country, example of article 30 charge

Question 2

2. Article 30

Answer 2

Pecuinary charges a state borders are prohibited

Question 3

3. Comm v Italy (Statistical Levy)

Answer 3

Products entering the country had to pay for statistics gathered by Italian government. This is an example of a charge having equivalent effect. Effectively is a charge

Question 4

4. Comm v Belgium (Warehouse)

Answer 4

Products had to be warehoused for a time period. Not service wanted, and charged for. Example of charge having equivalent effect

Question 5

5. Diamantarbeiders

Answer 5

Charge levied on diamond importers. Designed to held diamond miners, however still has effect of being pecuniary charge – CEE

Question 6

Exceptions to article 30 Comm v Germany (Animal inspections)

Answer 6

a. Internal dues
b. Fees for services rendered
c. Mandatory inspections

Question 7

Dansk Denkavit

Answer 7

Flat charge applied to imported and domestic products. Example of justified internal dues

Question 8

Bresciani

Answer 8

Charges only applied to imported products. Example of internal dues not justified

Question 9

When are services rendered valid?

Answer 9

a. In consideration for service
b. Trader benefitted from service
c. Charge commensurate to benefit

Question 10

Comm v Germany (Animal Inspection); When inspections are justified;

Answer 10

1. Does not exceed actual cost
2. Inspection is obligatory
3. Required in general interest of EC
4. Promotes the free movement of goods

Question 11

Comm v Netherlands

Answer 11

Charges for inspections are justified if fulfilling an international treaty which all MS are party to, if treaty encourages free movement of goods

Question 12

Article 110

Answer 12

No indirect or direct internal taxation on similar products which only applies to imported products

Question 13

Alfons Lutticke

Answer 13

Germany had to remove discriminatory taxation. Demonstrates positive obligation of article 110

Question 14

Comm v France (Repographic machinery)

Answer 14

A general system of internal dues applied systematically to categories irrespective of origin

Question 15

Rewe-Zentrale

Answer 15

The products are similar if; similar characteristics and meet the same needs

Question 16

Comm v France (Spirits)

Answer 16

Similar and comparable use

Question 17

John Walker (Fruit Liquors and spirits)

Answer 17

Fruit based liquors taxed more cheaply than spirits. Ok as different production, materials and use

Question 18

Comm v Denmark (Fruit wines and grape wines)

Answer 18

Taxed grape wines more. Protectionist as similar, and Denmark produces fruit wines (indirect discrimination)

Question 19

Tarantik (cars)

Answer 19

Different taxation for cars based on price, size, comfort and performance- justified as not similar products

Question 20

Comm v Italy (regenerated oil)

Answer 20

Tax break available for domestic regenerated oil, not available to imported regenerated oil. Direct discrimination

Question 21

Humblot

Answer 21

Huge tax hike on engines over certain size. All French cars have engines under that size, therefore indirectly discriminatory. Tried to justify on basis of environmental concerns. Tax rise too large, could be justified if more incremental rises

Question 22

When is indirect effect of internal taxation justified?

Answer 22

a. Must be based on objective criteria
b. Must pursue economic policy objectives compatible with EU law
c. Detailed must not discriminate

Question 23

Chemial Farmaceutici

Answer 23

Synthetic fuel taxed higher than agricultural fuel. Justified even though protectionist as fulfilling economic and ecological policy objectively and without and not protectionist in detail

Question 24

Comm v Greece (cars)

Answer 24

Indirectly discriminatorily taxation justified on basis of environmental protection. Incremental rise in taxes, contrast with Hublot, which failed due to huge jump.

Question 25

Art 110(2)

Answer 25

No internal taxation which affords indirect protection to domestic products of a non-similar nature

Question 26

Comm v France (Spirits)

Answer 26

Taxed spirits higher than fruit liquor, france produces fruit liquor but not spirits. Effect was to afford benefit to domestic product

Question 27

Comm v UK (Wine v Beer)

Answer 27

Beer taxed less than wine. Competitive as confirmed by table test. Protectionist as UK produces beer. Beer tax increases, wine decreases as a result

Question 28

Comm v Belgium (Beer)

Answer 28

Taxes beer very low, but wine high. Protectionist as produces lots of beer

Question 29

Coopertive Co-Frutta

Answer 29

Taxes Bananas heavily. Argued cannot be protectionist as they don’t produce bananas. However competitive with other fruit that Italy does produce so affords other fruit benefit.

Question 30

Nadasdi and Nemeth

Answer 30

Hungarian car case, indirectly discriminatory tax through effect