Free Movement of Goods Cases

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Amy
  • Created on: 11-04-17 20:05
Case 57/65 Lutticke – the application of Art 30 and Art 110 are mutually exclusive
Art 30 applies when a charge is imposed on imported goods and not on domestic goods (unlawful per se and difficult to justify). Art 110 applies where a charge is imposed on both imports and domestic goods and it is only unlawful if discriminatory.
1 of 41
Case 193/85 Cooperative Co-Frutta – Differences between Art 30 and Art 11
Charge on an import when there is no identical or similar domestic product constitutes internal taxation within the meaning of Art 110.
2 of 41
Case 7/68 Commission v Italy - Customs duties
Pecuniary burden imposed upon the price of imported goods which hinders their trade.
3 of 41
Case 24/68 Commission v Italy – Charges having equivalent effect
Any pecuniary charge imposed unilaterally on domestic or foreign goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier.
4 of 41
Case 78/76 Steinike and Weinlig - broad scope of Article 30 TFEU
So long as duty is imposed by reason of goods crossing frontier, it does not actually have to be imposed at frontier.
5 of 41
Case 7/68 Commission v Italy - broad scope of Article 30 TFEU and Justifying a breach.
Charges are prohibited regardless of purpose or destination of revenue raised. There is no express Treaty derogations applicable to an Art 30 breach.
6 of 41
Case 2-3/69 Social Fonds – broad scope of Article 30 TFEU
Imported goods need not be in competition with domestic products.
7 of 41
Case 87/75 Bresciani – Charges capable of objective justification.
Imposed as consideration for specific service rendered by MS to individual importers of an amount commensurate with that service.
8 of 41
Case 46/76 Bauhuis – Charges capable of objective justification.
Charge levied to cover actual cost of complying with obligation imposed by Community secondary legislation.
9 of 41
Case 26/62 Van Gen den Loos – Consequences of breaching Art 30 TFEU
Art 30 TFEU has direct effect.
10 of 41
Case 252/86 Bergandi – Art 110 supplements Art 30.
Art 110 TFEU aims to ensure FMW in MS is normal conditions for competition by the elimination of all forms of protection which may result from taxation that discriminates against other MS.
11 of 41
Case 168/78 Commission v France – are the imported and domestic goods ‘similar’?
Products need not be strictly identical – ‘similarity’ is assessed according to the products’ characteristics and whether they meet the same consumer needs.
12 of 41
Case 148/77 Hansen – Art 110 outlaws direct discrimination
Applying blatantly different criteria to foreign and domestic goods.
13 of 41
Case 112/84 Humblot – Art 110 outlaws indirect discrimination
Applying prima facie identical criteria to both imported and domestic goods, where those criteria in fact impose greater burdens on foreign products. Indirect discrimination can be justified by factors unrelated to origin of relevant goods.
14 of 41
Case 170/78 Commission v UK – are the goods in competition with each other?
Chief criterion: degree of inter-substitutability – how far will someone swap and change between the product to serve the same need?
15 of 41
Case 356/85 Commission v Belgium – if they are in competition – does the tax advantage domestic goods?
Chief criterion: whether differences in tax have the effect of reducing potential consumption of imported goods to advantage competing domestic goods.
16 of 41
Case 57/65 Lutticke – consequence of breaching Art 110
Article 110 TFEU has direct effect.
17 of 41
Case 28/67 Molkerei – consequence of breaching Art 110
Discriminatory internal taxation not unlawful in its entirety – only unlawful excess can be recovered.
18 of 41
Case 2/73 Geddo – definition of Quantitative restrictions
Measures which amount to a total or partial restraint of imported goods.
19 of 41
Case 8/74 Dassonville – definition of measures having equivalent effect
All trading rules enacted by MS which are capable of hindering directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Union trade.
20 of 41
Case 249/81 Buy Irish – trading rules enacted by MS
Includes bodies controlled by Member States.
21 of 41
Case 266/87 R v Pharmaceutical Society, ex parte API - trading rules enacted by MS
Includes self-regulatory bo dies woven into system of government.
22 of 41
Case 51-54/71 International Fruit – direct discriminatory measures
Blatantly subject imported goods to more onerous trading conditions.
23 of 41
Case 207/83 Commission v UK – indirect discriminatory measures
Prima facie neutral, but in fact have greater impact upon imported goods.
24 of 41
Case 120/78 Cassis de Dijon – defining the scope of Article 34 TFEU
Obstacles to free movement resulting from mere differences between national rules are caught by Article 34 and presumed unlawful. Difficultly – exactly which disparities between domestic rules create obstacles within scope of Art 34?
25 of 41
Case C-470/93 Mars – product requirements – measures affecting physical integrity of imported products
Requiring alterations to size, weight, composition, presentation, labelling, packaging etc. increase the difficulties and costs involved in process of importation and so constitute an obstacle – creating double regulatory burden.
26 of 41
Selling Arrangements
Measures that regulate time/manner/place of sale. Reducing opportunities for sale of all goods – reduce the total volume of trade within MS – reduce the total value of trade between MSs.
27 of 41
Cases C-267-268/91 Keck and Mithouard – Selling arrangements
MEE’s include rules applied without distinction but selling arrangements do not fall within this formula provided they apply to all traders and affect in the same manner. Presumed to fall outside Art 34 unless they breach these provisions.
28 of 41
Case C-34-36/95 De Agostini – selling arrangement – general advertising ban
Sweden had a ban on TV ads aimed at children – selling arrangement – presumed outside scope. Indirect discrimination as domestic goods are already well known, TV ads important to imports.
29 of 41
Case C-405/98 Gournet International – selling arrangements
Should not prevent access to market for imported goods or impede access any more than impedes access of domestic goods.
30 of 41
Case C-110/05 Commission v Italy – Towards a single ‘market access’ test for MEEs?
CJEU recognised that Italian rules on trailers could be regarded as a MEE contrary to EU law but could be justified to protect road safety.
31 of 41
Case 355/85 Driancourt v Michel Cognet – Reverse Discrimination
Rules which make production/sale of domestic more costly than imports is not prohibited by Art 34.
32 of 41
Case C-184/96 Commission v France – actual or potential hindrance to intra-Union trade
Irrelevant whether imports actually have been reduced as long as potential for doing so exists.
33 of 41
Case C-67/97 Bluhme – actual or potential hindrance to intra-Union trade
unnecessary to demonstrate that hindrance to intra-Union trade affects certain goods or has certain financial value.
34 of 41
Case 34/79 Henn and Darby – justifying a breach of Article 34 – Express Derogation – Article 36: Public Morality
Presumption that it is up to MS how to define public morals. Overall UK policy to protect morality, these measures were justified.
35 of 41
Case 72/83 Campus Oil - justifying a breach of Article 34 – Express Derogation – Article 36: Public security
Rule that all petrol stations in Ireland had to buy a third of their oil from this refinery. Clear breach but argued a justification through national security. CJ accepted the justification but went on to say fixing prices is not acceptable.
36 of 41
Case 178/84 German Beer- justifying a breach of Article 34 – Express Derogation – Article 36: Public health
Restriction on beer imported as it had additives in it. Accepted in all other MS just Germany who saw it as affecting health. Allowed the additives in other things – no justification.
37 of 41
Case 120/78 Cassis de Dijon – justifying a breach of Article 34 - Mandatory requirements
Obstacles must be accepted insofar as necessary to satisfy mandatory requirements of public interest – no valid reason why goods lawfully made in MS A should not be introduced in MS B – up to MS B to prove measures are necessary to protect public int
38 of 41
Case 302/86 Danish Bottles - justifying a breach of Article 34 - Mandatory requirements
Mandatory requirements are non-exhaustive list.
39 of 41
Case C-254/98 Heimdienst – Principle of proportionality
Measures must be necessary to achieve objective in question and must pick that which is lease restrictive.
40 of 41
Case 45/87 Dundalk Water – Principle of proportionality
Importance of mutual recognition between MS of equivalent regulatory standards.
41 of 41

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Charge on an import when there is no identical or similar domestic product constitutes internal taxation within the meaning of Art 110.

Back

Case 193/85 Cooperative Co-Frutta – Differences between Art 30 and Art 11

Card 3

Front

Pecuniary burden imposed upon the price of imported goods which hinders their trade.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Any pecuniary charge imposed unilaterally on domestic or foreign goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

So long as duty is imposed by reason of goods crossing frontier, it does not actually have to be imposed at frontier.

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 Law resources »