Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2010:520
Date: 2010-09-14
Language of the case: Dutch
Subject matter: Anti-discrimination;Non-discrimination on grounds of nationality
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the Judgment 1. Customs union – Customs territory of the Union – Principality of Monaco (Arts 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU; Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 3(2)(b)) 2. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect (Art. 34 TFEU) 1. Pursuant to Article 3(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, the territory of the Principality of Monaco is to be considered to be part of the customs territory of the European Union. As no customs duty or charge having equivalent effect can, consequently, be applied to trade between Monaco and the Member States, goods originating in Monaco, exported directly to a Member State, must be treated as if they originated in those Member States. The result of that assimilation to goods originating in Member States is that goods originating in Monaco are covered by the rules of the Treaty on the free movement of goods. (see para. 14) 2. Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State from requiring the provision of security pending judgment, by a claimant of Monegasque nationality which has brought proceedings before one of the civil courts of that State against a national of that State in order to obtain payment of invoices relating to the delivery of goods assimilated to Community goods, although such a requirement is not imposed on nationals of that Member State. Admittedly, a measure of that sort has the effect of making traders wishing to bring proceedings subject to different procedural rules according to whether or not they have the nationality of the Member State concerned. Nevertheless, the possibility that nationals of other Member States would therefore hesitate to sell goods to purchasers established in that Member State who have the nationality of that State is too uncertain and indirect for it to be possible for that national measure to be regarded as liable to hinder intra-Community trade, for the causal link between the possible distortion of intra-Community trade and the difference in treatment at issue cannot thus be considered to have been established. (see paras 17, 21, operative part)