FMG - Fiscal - Cases/facts Flashcards Preview

EU Law (Adam) > FMG - Fiscal - Cases/facts > Flashcards

Flashcards in FMG - Fiscal - Cases/facts Deck (30):

1. Comm v Italy (Art Treasures)

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


2. Article 30

Pecuinary charges a state borders are prohibited


3. Comm v Italy (Statistical Levy)

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


4. Comm v Belgium (Warehouse)

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


5. Diamantarbeiders

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


Exceptions to article 30 Comm v Germany (Animal inspections)

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


Dansk Denkavit

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



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


When are services rendered valid?

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


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

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


Comm v Netherlands

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


Article 110

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


Alfons Lutticke

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


Comm v France (Repographic machinery)

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



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


Comm v France (Spirits)

Similar and comparable use


John Walker (Fruit Liquors and spirits)

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


Comm v Denmark (Fruit wines and grape wines)

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


Tarantik (cars)

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


Comm v Italy (regenerated oil)

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



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


When is indirect effect of internal taxation justified?

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


Chemial Farmaceutici

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


Comm v Greece (cars)

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


Art 110(2)

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


Comm v France (Spirits)

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


Comm v UK (Wine v Beer)

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


Comm v Belgium (Beer)

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


Coopertive Co-Frutta

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.


Nadasdi and Nemeth

Hungarian car case, indirectly discriminatory tax through effect