Custom duties or discriminatory taxation
Must be able to tell the difference between the attire and how we treat them
Fiscal Barriers to Free Movement of Goods
Reading:
● Paul Craig and Gráinne de Búrca, EU Law: Texts, Cases, and Materials
(6th edn, OUP, 2015), ch.18.
Two ways of restricting trade: MEQR, and tariffs
Tariffs deemed to be more protectionist, since the war there has been a significant reduction in
tariffs
Article 28 - customs union, no custom duties between member states and common tariff with
respect to third parties
Article 30 TFEU-tariffs
Customs duties (tariffs) on imports and exports and
charges having equivalent effect shall be prohibited
between Member States.
Why do we need two Articles covering if they are basically
identical?
No equivalent of Article 36 (defences and justifications)
It is significantly stricter as there is no expection to the rule
Distinctively applicable measures
Indistinctive applicable measures
And so different approaches
Duty- measures by metric/quantity (tend to come in two forms:
excise duty (apply internally, charged at production or sale)Article
110 and custom duty (charged at border)Article 30)
Tax- measured by value
In problem question: an ability to tell the difference between these
type of measures is useful
Definition of goods?
● Case 7/1968, Commission v Italy [1968] ECR 423.
9 Italy imposes tax on exports of artistic, historical, or
archaeological items.(to try and stop people from
exporting these historical items)
9 Italy advances two arguments:
, 9 Such items are not goods;
9 The tax has no revenue raising purpose.(only to discourage)
9 Held, “[b]y goods, within the meaning of that provision, there must be
understood products which can be valued in money and which are capable,
as such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions.”
9 Further held that the purpose of the charge is irrelevant: restrictive trade
effect.
9 Art. 30 TFEU applicable, charge contrary to Treaty obligations.
Cineteck (cultural prevention Article 34) does not apply to Article 30 a very strict approach
● Case C-275/92, HM Customs & Excise v Schindler [1994] ECR I-1078
9 Schindler bros are independent agents for a number
of lotteries organised by German Lander.
9 Schindlers send envelopes to UK nationals, each containing a letter
inviting the addressee to participate in the lottery, application forms for
participating, and a pre-printed reply envelope. The envelopes are seized by
HM Customs and Excise.
9 It is not disputed that lotteries are, undoubtedly,
services, and not goods, and therefore not covered by Title
II, but by Title IV.
9 Schindlers argue that the envelopes and their contents are goods,
and the seizure was therefore a breach of Art. 34 TFEU.
9 Held, “the importation and distribution of objects are
not ends in themselves”. The items are ancillary to the
primary activity, which
is a service.
Goods must be subject to a commercial transaction
Customs Duties and Charges having Equivalent Effect (CEEs)
● Cases 2 & 3/1969, Diamond Workers [1969] ECR 211.
9 Belgium levies ⅓ of one per cent charge on the value
of all diamond imports be paid into a social fund for
workers.
9 Must they show all the features of a charge of a fiscal nature? The
charge doesn’t contribute to the exchequer.