Free Movement of Goods Cases Etc 1 Flashcards Preview

EU Law > Free Movement of Goods Cases Etc 1 > Flashcards

Flashcards in Free Movement of Goods Cases Etc 1 Deck (29):

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



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



-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



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



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)



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 30 TFEU

prohibition of customs duties and charges having equivalent effect


Art 110 TFEU

prohibition of discriminatory taxation - ie internal fiscal barriers to trade


Arts 34, 35, 36 TFEU

- 34, 35: prohibition of quantitive restrictions and all measures having equivalent effect
-36: permissible derogations


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


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



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(2)

- regulates taxation on non-similar products
- in order to prohibit indirect protection to domestic products


Article 110(1) remedy?

MS must equalise the tax regime in respect of the similar product


Art 110(2) remedy?

protective effect needs to be removed