Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Free movement of goods ° Customs duties ° Charges having an equivalent effect ° Concept ° Ad valorem charge levied by a Member State on goods imported from another Member State by reason of their entry into a region of the first Member State' s territory ° Covered ° Similar charges levied on goods of domestic origin and on exports from the same region ° Irrelevant

(EEC Treaty, Art. 9 et seq.)

2. Free movement of goods ° Customs duties ° Charges having an equivalent effect ° Concept ° Ad valorem charge levied by a Member State on goods exported to other Member States by reason of their leaving a region of the first Member State' s territory ° Covered ° Similar charges levied on goods dispatched to other parts of the Member State' s territory ° Irrelevant

(EEC Treaty, Art. 9 et seq.)

3. Free movement of goods ° Customs duties ° Charges having an equivalent effect ° Concept ° Ad valorem charge levied by a Member State on goods entering a region of its territory from, or dispatched from that region to, other parts of the same State ° Covered

(EEC Treaty, Art. 9 et seq.)

4. Preliminary rulings ° Interpretation ° Temporal effects of rulings on interpretation ° Retroactive effect ° Limits ° Legal certainty ° Discretion of the Court

(EEC Treaty, Art. 177)

Summary

1. An ad valorem charge levied by a Member State on goods imported from another Member State by reason of their entry into a region of the first Member State' s territory constitutes a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty on imports and is incompatible with Article 9 et seq. of the Treaty, notwithstanding the fact that it is also levied on goods entering that region from another part of the same State' s territory.

That finding is not altered by the fact that an ad valorem charge is also levied on goods exported from the region in question and that the charge is therefore levied not in order to restrict imports but to provide the local administrative authorities with financial resources.

First of all, it follows from the customs union system provided for by the Treaty, in particular Articles 9, 12, 13 and 16, and from the general and absolute nature of the prohibition of all customs duties applicable to goods moving between Member States, that customs duties are prohibited regardless of the purpose for which they were introduced and the destination of the revenue from them. Second, any pecuniary charge which is imposed unilaterally on domestic or foreign goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier, and which is not a customs duty in the strict sense, constitutes a charge having equivalent effect, within the meaning of Articles 9, 12, 13 and 16 of the Treaty, even if it is not imposed for the benefit of the State and is not discriminatory or protective in effect. Lastly, it does not matter, for the purposes of the Treaty, whether a charge is treated as a general charge or two distinct charges, one on exports and the other on imports. Imposed on all goods crossing the frontier, a charge such as the charge in question hampers the interpenetration sought by the Treaty and thus has an effect on the free circulation of goods equivalent to that of a customs duty.

2. An ad valorem charge levied by a Member State on goods exported to another Member State by reason of their leaving a region of the first Member State' s territory constitutes a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty on exports and is incompatible with Article 9 et seq. of the Treaty.

That finding is not altered by the fact that the charge is also levied on goods leaving that region for another part of the territory of the same State. A charge levied at a regional frontier by reason of the dispatch of goods from one region of a Member State to other regions of the same 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 export of goods from all the territory of a Member State.

3. Ad valorem charges levied by a Member State on goods entering or leaving a region of its territory constitute charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties on imports and exports respectively, not only in so far as they are levied on goods entering that region from other Member States or dispatched from that region to other Member States, but also in so far as they are levied on goods entering that region from another part of the same State or dispatched from that region to other regions of the same State.

4. Since the communal charge on imports and exports levied in the Greek region of the Dodecanese calculated on the value of the goods imported into and exported from that region must be treated as a charge of the same kind as the dock dues levied in French overseas departments, with regard to which the Court held, in the preliminary ruling given in its judgment of 16 July 1992 in Case C-163/90 Legros and Others, that, owing to overriding considerations of legal certainty, the Treaty provisions relating to charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties on imports could not be relied on in support of claims for refunds of charges such as dock dues paid before the date of that judgment except by claimants who had, before that date, initiated legal proceedings or raised an equivalent claim, the Hellenic Republic could reasonably believe until 16 July 1992 that the abovementioned communal charge was in conformity with Community law.

For that reason, it is appropriate for the Court to take into account the same considerations of legal certainty, and consequently to rule that the temporal limitation imposed in the Legros judgment must also apply to claims for refunds of sums levied by way of the communal charge in issue.