#2515 - Goods Additional Cases - European Law

EU Law Goods Additional Cases Commission v Italy (statistical levy case): Italians levied a small charge, a few pence, on all importers and exporters of goods into italy, to cover cost of collecting trade statistics. Commission said that that charge was CEE contrary to art 30 and court agreed. Court said: "Any pecuniary (fiscal matter) charge, however small (no de minis rule) and whatever its designation and mode of application, which is imposed unilaterally on domestic or foreign goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier ... constitutes a CHEE ... even if it is not imposed for the benefit of the state, is not discriminatory or protective in effect and if the product on which the charge is imposed is not in competition with the domestic product. i.e, total prohibition. Legros [1992] ECR I-4625: Facts: Charge levied on Reunion, from Germany via mainland France. All goods originating in Reunion were exempt from the charge. All other goods including those from France had to pay the charge. Was art 30 engaged? Talking about crossing of regional frontier because Reunion is part of France. Striking feature about case, court said yes, art 30 will apply. "A charge levied at a regional frontier by reason of the introduction of products into a region of a Member State constitutes an obstacle to the free movement of goods which is at least as serious as a charge levied at the national frontier by reason of the introduction of the products into the whole territory of a Member State." (emphasis added) Bergandi v Directeur general des impots [1988] ECR 1343(games machines); Facts: French law had system of taxing game machines that were morally corrupting at higher tax than good games machines. Were there objective criteria? Yes, nothing to do with origin, therefore states are free to tax, no breach of art 110. Case 140/79 Chemial Farmaceutici SpA v DAF SpA [1981] ECR 1 (denatured synthetic alcohol). Italy taxed DSA with pretrol at its base with petrol at its base, at higher rate than denatured alchohol obtained by fermentation. Reason: promote agriculture and reserve petrol for more important uses. Courts said that policy did not breach Art 110, it was based on objective criteria (protection of finite resources), so no breach of art 110. Case 106/84 Commission v Denmark : fruit wines were similar to wines made from grapes. Manufactured from same raw product and by the same process, natural fermentation. Organoleptic properties were similar, they tasted much the same, had similar alchohol content, and also met the same needs from the point of view of the consumers in as much as they could be consumed in the same way, quench thirst at meal times. Cour twent on to say that you couldn't call this into question by saying that fruit wine was less popular.