Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1999:57
Date: 1999-02-04
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Taxation;Free movement of goods;Customs Union
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

summary stated, and their statement 
was not challenged, that Citizen Band sets are high-powered 
transmitting-receiving sets operating on 40 channels, as deter­
mined under the applicable rules, which chiefly permit com­
munication between correspondents within a narrow cir­
cumference. Such apparatus, CRT explained further, is used 
chiefly by lorry drivers who wish to communicate amongst 
themselves in random manner, and thus are not seeking to 
be connected to a specific correspondent, as happens with 
the telephone, but are seeking out at random any inter­
locutor who happens to be nearby. In CRT's view, such 
apparatus does not enjoy a good reputation with the French 
administrative authorities because it is suspected of being 
used either by the abovementioned drivers in order to cir­
cumvent official checks or radar controls or by protesters. 
70 — See above paragraph 44. 
71 — See, inter alia, judgment in Case C-327/90 Commission ν 
Greece [1992] ECR I-3033, paragraph 20. 
I - 2262 
CRT FRANCE INTERNATIONAL ν DIRECTEUR RÉGIONAL DES IMPÔTS DE BOURGOGNE 
products are concerned. 72 On that point the 
Court, in regard to the relationship, as defined 
in its case-law, as between Article 95 and 
Article 30 et seq. of the Treaty, has held that 
where it is not a case in which the prohibi­
tions under Article 95 apply and the internal 
taxation, owing to its considerable extent, is 
likely to have an adverse effect on the free 
movement of goods 'the only possibility of 
appraising an adverse effect of that kind ... is 
by reference to the general rules contained in 
Article 30 et seq. of the Treaty ...'. 73 In the 
event of its being applied by the national court 
it may not be superfluous for some clarifica­
tion to be provided concerning Article 30 of 
the Treaty, notwithstanding the fact that the 
national court has made no request for its 
interpretation. 74 
49. At the outset it should be pointed out 
that Article 30 of the Treaty, which prohibits 
all measures having equivalent effect to quan­
titative restrictions on imports, applies, on 
the one hand, to products imported from 
other Member States and, on the other, to 
products originating in non-Member States in 
free circulation within the Community, except 
where the Member State has been authorised 
by the Commission under Article 115 of the 
Treaty not to apply Community treatment to 
the products in question. 75 Conversely, meas­
ures having equivalent effect to quantitative 
restrictions affecting imported products origi­
nating directly in non-Member States do not 
come within Article 30 but form part of the 
common commercial policy under Articles 
113 and 115 of the Treaty and under the spe­
cial unilateral or contractual arrangements 
made by the Community under those provi­
sions. 76 However, it is for the Court, as I 
have already stated, 77 to determine as a matter 
of fact the precise origin of the imported CB 
sets in order also to reach a decision as to the 
extent of any application of Article 30 of the 
Treaty on the basis of the matters set out 
above. 
50. I should also point out that it has been 
consistently held, starting with the Court's 
judgment of 11 July 1974 Dassonville, 78 that 
any measure capable of hindering, directly or 
indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-
Community trade is to be deemed to be a 
measure having equivalent effect to a quanti­
tative restriction within the meaning of Article 
30 of the Treaty. 
72 — See Stier judgment and Commission ν Denmark (paragraphs 
12 and 13) both cited in footnote 10. 
73 — Judgment in Commission ν Denmark (paragraph 13) cited 
above in footnote 10. 
74 — The Court has held that, as part of its mission, which is to 
assist in the administration of justice in the Member States, 
and in order to provide the national court with a useful 
answer, it is its duty to interpret all provisions of Commu­
nity law which national courts need in order to decide the 
actions pending before them. For that reason it may indeed 
need to give consideration to provisions not expressly indi­
cated in the questions referred to the Court of Justice by 
those courts. See, for example, judgments in Case C-280/91 
Viessmann [1993] ECR I-971, paragraph 17, Case C-114/91 
Claeys [1992] ECR I-6559, paragraphs 10 and 11 and Case 
35/85 Tissier [1986] ECR 1207, paragraph 9. 
It is also worth noting that there is nothing in the pleadings 
to support the inference that the national court intended to 
request a preliminary ruling only on the interpretation of 
Articles 9, 12 and 95 of the Treaty. See to the opposite effect 
judgment in Case 247/86 Alsatel [1988] ECR 5987 in which 
the national court was ruled to have tacitly refused to put a 
question to the Court on the interpretation of a provision 
on which the order for reference was silent (paragraph 8). 
75 — See judgments in Case 212/88 Levy [1989] ECR 3511, para­
graph 17 and Case C-131/93 Commission v Germany [1994] 
ECR 1-3303, paragraph 10. 
76 — Judgment in Joined Cases 51/71 and 54/71 International 
Fruit Company [1971] ECR 1107, paragraph 10. 
77 — See above paragraph 40. 
78 — Case 8/74 Dassonville [1974] ECR 411. 
I - 2263 
OPINION OF MR COSMAS — CASE C-109/98 
In light of that case-law a judgment will have 
to be made, then, as to whether the charge at 
issue on imported CB sets is of such an 
amount as to restrict the possibility of imports 
of those products and in general terms the 
free movement thereof in the sphere of intra-
Community trade. 7 9 
According to CRT's observations, 8 0 the 
amount of that charge was of such an amount 
as to have doubled the price of CB sets, sig­
nificantly reduced sales and severely affected 
both domestic — French — and Community 
trade, with the result that the conclusion to 
be drawn is that the charge at issue is capable 
of restricting imports. 
The correctness of the matters relied on by 
CRT and the resulting effect which they are 
likely to have on intra-Community trade must 
in my view be adjudged after the criterion as 
to the charge of such an amount has been 
applied. For I consider that the answer on 
that point is provided by the judgment in 
Stier according to which 'a restraint on the 
free movement of goods cannot however be 
presumed to exist when the rate of taxation 
remains within the general framework of the 
national system of taxation of which the tax 
in question is an integral part ' . 8 1 
Thus, in the present case, the amount of the 
charge on CB sets will have to be deemed to 
be of such an amount as to cause the adverse 
effects on intra-Community trade mentioned 
above, if the rate of the tax charge goes 
beyond the general framework of the national 
system of taxation of which the charge at issue 
is presumed to form part such as to give it the 
character of an internal due. 8 2 
In that connection, since, apart from certain 
general references to the relevant national 
provisions, the pleadings in the case do not 
contain all the essential elements, it is for the 
national court, which knows best and in 
greatest detail the national provisions con­
cerning the various charges imposed on the 
use of the telecommunications network or on 
the apparatus operating within them, to clarify 
the general context as regards rates charged 
within the system of internal taxation of which 
the charge at issue forms part and whether 
the rate of tax as regards the charge at issue 
goes beyond that framework or departs from 
that norm. 
79 — I consider that, in light of the decision in Commission ν 
Denmark (see paragraph 48 above) only the issue of the 
restriction of free circulation as a result of the amount of the 
charge can be raised here and not other issues such as dis­
crimination between domestic and Community products; 
those issues which presuppose that there is domestic pro­
duction fall to be determined, if there is such production, in 
the light of the provisions of Article 95 of the Treaty. 
80 — See above paragraph 41. 
81 — Cited above in footnote 10. 
82 — See above paragraphs 21 et seq. 
However, it is worth pointing out on this point the diffi­
culty that exists in the present case in comparing the rate of 
the charge at issue with rates charged on the use of other 
kinds of apparatus operating within the telecommunications 
network, inasmuch as the charge at issue relates to the value 
of the apparatus whilst in other cases the charge appears to 
be dependent upon the breadth of frequencies granted. That 
difficulty is not without significance as regards the prelimi­
nary issue as to whether in the final analysis the charge at 
issue forms part of a general system of internal taxation. 
Conversely it makes apparent the difficulty in accepting such 
a view (see above paragraphs 29 and 32). 
I - 2264 
CRT FRANCE INTERNATIONAL ν DIRECTEUR RÉGIONAL DES IMPÔTS DE BOURGOGNE 
VI — Conclusion 
51. In light of the foregoing I propose that the Court should reply as follows to the 
questions submitted by the Tribunal administratif, Dijon, for a preliminary ruling: 
— In light of Articles 9, 12 and 95 of the Treaty a national provision, such as the 
charge to tax imposed by France on the manufacturers, importers and sellers 
within the Member State in question of transmitting-receiving sets operating 
on citizen-band frequencies under Article 302 bis (X) of the General Tax Code, 
constitutes a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty within the 
meaning of Articles 9 and 12 of the Treaty. 
— Articles 9, 12 and 113(1) of the Treaty preclude a national provision imposing 
a charge to tax having equivalent effect to a customs duty, such as the above-
mentioned charge, provided that there are no special contractual or unilateral 
Community provisions seeking uniformity of the common commercial policy, 
thus allowing charges having equivalent effect to customs duty to be imposed 
in the sphere of the Member State's direct trade with the non-Member States 
from which the products charged to tax are imported. 
I - 2265