Financial Barriers to Trade

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Edward
  • Created on: 25-02-16 09:40
Commission v Italy (1969)
CJEU: CHEE=duties whatever their description or techniques imposed unilaterally, which apply specifically to a product imported by a MS, but NOT to a similar national product and which by altering the price, have the same effect upon the free movemen
1 of 22
Chougal Diamond
CJEU: customs duties and CHEEs were prohibited regardless of the purpose for which they were intro’d
2 of 22
Van Gend en Loos
Customs duties make the imported goods more expensive to the consumer thus placing them at a disadv in the domestic market providing an unfair adv to the domestic national product – charges by virtue of crossing the border fall within art 30 and can
3 of 22
Dansk Denkavit
CJEU: a charge levied to fund cost of checking imported samples of foodstuffs for quality, which was imposed using same criteria as applied to domestic products was not a CHEE, but part of an internal system of dues covered by Art 110
4 of 22
Bresciani
The public health inspections on domestic and imported cowhides were seen by CJEU as being in the public int and thus should be paid for out of public funds, however, as there were different criterie for the levies on domestic goods and imports, the
5 of 22
Commission v Germany (1988)
Charges outside scope of art 30 TFEU: gen system of internal dues appluied; constitutes payent for a service rendered to the eco operation of a sum in proportion to the service; if charge attaches to inspections carried out to fulfil oblig’ns imposed
6 of 22
Commission v Germany
If a charge is imposed by a state because they have to due to Union law, then this falls outside Art 30
7 of 22
Commission v Belgium (Customs Warehouse case)
Charge will not be seen as a CHEE if: it is consideration for a service rendered; is of benefit to the importer; the amount charged is commensurate with the costs of the services provided
8 of 22
Commission v France (Reprographic Machinery)
A general tax which is a gen system of internal dues applied systematically and in acc with the same criteria to domestic products and imported products alike is not a breach of Art 110
9 of 22
Commission v France (Spirits case)
Re similar goods, question is based on similarity and comparable use of the goods
10 of 22
Rewe-Zentrale
Test= whether, at the same stage of production or marketing, the products had similar characteristics and met the same needs from the point of view of consumers
11 of 22
Commission v Denmark
Wines had similar manufacturing processes and met the needs of the consumer as they can be consumed in same way: used to quench thirst, alcohol contents also broadly same – thus, similar
12 of 22
John Walker
Whiskey (cereal based, made by distillation and 20% alcohol) and fruit liquer (fruit-based, made by natural fermentation and 40% alcohol) were not similar
13 of 22
Tarantik
Products e.g. cars are similar for purposes of Art 110(1) if their characteristics and the needs which they serve place them in a competitive relationship –degree of comp depends on extent to which the meet vaious req’ts e.g.price, size, comfort etc.
14 of 22
Wine and Beer case
UK govt lowered tax on wine and increased tax on beer, but did noty apply the same regime to both
15 of 22
Co Frutta
While CJEU accepted that bananas and table fruit had diff characteristics, they could still be in partial competition with each, so breaching art 110(2)
16 of 22
Commission v Belgium
0CJEU: wine and beer were in a competitive relationship
17 of 22
Commission v UK (Wine and Beer case)
Wine and beer are in competition- it was clear that the tax burden on cheaper types of wine was considerably higher than that on beer
18 of 22
Commission v France (Spirits case)
Test for partial competition: if one product is rendered more expensive, are consumers likely to switch to the other product?
19 of 22
Humblot
Indirect disc’n= where there are similar goods, the tax system, although on its face it makes no overt distinction between domestic and imported goods, has the effect of discriminating against imported goods in practice
20 of 22
Commission v Italy (Regenerated Oil)
Direct disc’n= where there are similar goods and the imported goods are treated less favourably than domestic goods
21 of 22
Commission v Greece
May be case that a tax may be justifiable even though it appears discrimn’y on the surface – although here, the disparity in levels of tax was not as extreme as Humblot
22 of 22

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

CJEU: customs duties and CHEEs were prohibited regardless of the purpose for which they were intro’d

Back

Chougal Diamond

Card 3

Front

Customs duties make the imported goods more expensive to the consumer thus placing them at a disadv in the domestic market providing an unfair adv to the domestic national product – charges by virtue of crossing the border fall within art 30 and can

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

CJEU: a charge levied to fund cost of checking imported samples of foodstuffs for quality, which was imposed using same criteria as applied to domestic products was not a CHEE, but part of an internal system of dues covered by Art 110

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

The public health inspections on domestic and imported cowhides were seen by CJEU as being in the public int and thus should be paid for out of public funds, however, as there were different criterie for the levies on domestic goods and imports, the

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all EU resources »