European Union Law Essay Example

Article 90 is specifically meant to prevent discriminatory internal taxation from undermining the objectives of Article 25.

Article 90 is divided into two sections. The first section, known as section 1, compares similar products that have comparable characteristics and meet the same consumer needs. The second section, referred to as subsection (2), covers all forms of indirect tax protection for products that may not be similar under Article 90(1) but are still in competition. It is important that tax rates do not provide indirect protection to competing domestic goods, although they do not have to be the same. In addition, a Notice was issued by the EU requiring a health inspection for all imports of Spanish oranges and lemons.

Although the outbreak was eventually contained, Carlos faced charges for a health inspection after importing non-infected oranges into France. France still considered Spanish oranges and lemons a health risk. France's potential justification for these charges could be that they are not considered a Charge Equivalent Effect, which is prohibited under Article 25. However, if France still intends to conduct public health inspections despite the controlled outbreak, it cannot be considered a service provided by the importer. This decision falls in line with the ECJ's ruling in the Bresciani v. case.

According to the Amministrazione Italiana delle Finanze (case 87/75) 1976 ECR 1294, any unilateral pecuniary charge levied on goods imported from another Member State because of crossing a border constitutes an Effect Equivalent to a custom duty, and is therefore illegal. In addition, France has the responsibility to pay for any necessary inspections for products being imported that are necessary to maintain public health, rather than charging the importer.

This ensures that the importer is not saddled with additional costs that should be part of the product's production expenses.

There are some exceptions to the requirement for charges on inspection of goods under EU Law. For compulsory or mandatory inspections, a reasonable charge may be necessary. However, since the outbreak is under control, it can be argued that the EU Notice is no longer necessary. In this case, if an individual country chooses to inspect goods without being required to do so by the EU, a charge cannot be imposed. In regards to exported goods to Italy, taxes must be paid in accordance with Article 90(1).

The tax rate on imported goods should be equivalent to that of comparable domestic goods to avoid discriminatory effects against imports. Any disparity in taxation may unfairly favor domestic production. In Case 148/77, Hausen v. Hauptzollampt Flensbury (1978) ECR 1787, Germany provided tax relief to certain producers of spirits in the country to support small businesses. The state argued that this tax served an economic purpose, aiding small wine producers such as those in Italy faced with Carlos' situation. Nonetheless, the ECJ ruled that this benefit must also extend to small businesses importing goods into Germany.

The importer's treatment was not different for similar drinks, as it would be perceived as direct discrimination, similar to Carlos' situation with Blanca in Italy. However, one could argue about the indirect discrimination of a Member State that imposes higher taxes on imported goods than on domestic goods. This situation was observed in the case of Humblot v. Directeur des services Fiscaux (case 112/84)6, where the French government imposed a higher tax rate on cars

with more than 16 c.v engine capacity, which was the highest engine capacity allowance for cars made in France.

In Commission v. U, the ECJ deemed a system that imposed a higher tax on imported goods to be a violation of Article 90 (ex 95), as it favored domestic products in competition. This ruling serves as a clear illustration of the issue.

In the case of K and Commission v. Italy7, it was determined that a significant tax difference between competing products could influence consumer drinking habits and lead them to purchase the less expensive option. Therefore, it is crucial to establish whether or not Rossa and Blanca are similar products when the United Kingdom imposes a higher tax on Rossa compared to beer and taxes Blanca like certain spirits sold in the UK. This approach is illustrated by the ECJ's decision in John Walker v.

Ministeriet for skatter. In the case of Case 243/84 [1986] ECR 8758, the question at hand was if fruit liqueur wine was akin to whisky under the previous article 95(1). After examining the objective qualities of the products, the ECJ stated that they were dissimilar, and hence should be regulated by Article 90(2). As for the rivalry between beer and wine, in Case 170/78 - Commission v., the ECJ determined that both drinks could satisfy comparable needs.

The court in the case of United Kingdom [1983] ECR 2265, [1983] 3 CMLR 512 considered whether consumers believed that goods could be substituted for each other and also took into account the influence of the tax system on consumer behavior. In another case, 184/85 [1987] Commission v. Italy ECR 2013 10,

the court maintained a similar approach and concluded that bananas were not comparable but directly competed with other fresh fruits.

Regarding Carlos, the case of Commission v United Kingdom11 determined that wine and beer were competitive, but the court then examined whether the tax system was protective of beer. Rossa and beers are competitive but not similar and can be subject to taxes. However, it can be argued that Rossa is taxed much more than beers with similar strength, mostly produced in the UK. It seems that the UK is safeguarding beers by implementing a higher tax on Rossa, which could encourage consumers to choose beer instead. This situation violates Article 90 (2).

Referring to the case Commission v. Belgium [1987] ECR 3299 Case 356/85 [1988] 3 CMLR 27712, it is not always sufficient to establish protectionism under Article 90(2) merely by the existence of a tax differential between domestic and imported products. As long as the difference in tax does not confer a protective advantage, there is no breach of this Article. Therefore, Blanca would compete with certain spirits as they both have high alcohol content and can be substituted for each other. Since they are subject to the same tax, there is no violation of Article 90(2). However, further research is necessary to determine the exact relationship between Blanca and these spirits.

As previously mentioned, a state-imposed charge can be exempt from Article 25 if it is for a service provided by the importer, such as unloading and checking goods. While Fruits Ltd's handling fee may not be illegal, there is room to debate its purpose. Is the fee for conducting a health inspection due

to concerns about Spanish oranges and lemons?