Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . CUSTOMS DUTIES - ELIMINATION - CHARGES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - CONCEPT

( EEC TREATY , ARTICLES 9 , 12 , 13 AND 16 )

2 . FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - RESTRICTIONS - ELIMINATION - DEROGATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 36 OF THE EEC TREATY - STRICT INTERPRETATION

3 . FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - RESTRICTIONS - ELIMINATION - DEROGATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 36 OF THE EEC TREATY - FEES FOR VETERINARY AND PUBLIC HEALTH INSPECTION - PERMISSIBILITY - DUTIES - LEVY - PROHIBITION

4 . CUSTOMS DUTIES ON EXPORTS - CHARGES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - CONCEPT - VETERINARY AND PUBLIC HEALTH INSPECTIONS - FEES - INTERNAL MARKETING AND EXPORT ( ARTICLE 95 )

5 . CUSTOMS DUTIES ON EXPORTS - CHARGES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - CONCEPT - VETERINARY AND PUBLIC HEALTH INSPECTIONS IMPOSED BY A PROVISION OF COMMUNITY LAW - FEES - IMPOSITION BY EXPORTING MEMBER STATE - PERMISSIBILITY

( EEC TREATY , ARTICLE 16 , DIRECTIVE NO 64/432/EEC )

6 . QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS - CHARGES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - BOVINE ANIMALS AND SWINE - EXPORT TO ANOTHER MEMBER STATE - VETERINARY AND PUBLIC HEALTH IN ADDITION TO THE EXCEPTIONS LAID DOWN TO DIRECTIVE NO 64/432/EEC - PROHIBITION - FEES - IMPOSITION - INCOMPATIBILITY WITH COMMUNITY LAW

Summary

1 . ANY PECUNIARY CHARGE , WHATEVER ITS DESIGNATION AND MODE OF APPLICATION , WHICH IS IMPOSED UNILATERALLY ON 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 . THE POSITION WOULD BE DIFFERENT ONLY IF THE CHARGE IN QUESTION IS THE CONSIDERATION FOR A BENEFIT PROVIDED IN FACT FOR THE EXPORTER REPRESENTING AN AMOUNT PROPORTIONATE TO THE SAID BENEFIT OR IF IT RELATED TO A GENERAL SYSTEM OF INTERNAL DUES APPLIED SYSTEMATICALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAME CRITERIA TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTS AND IMPORTED PRODUCTS ALIKE .

2 . ARTICLE 36 IS TO BE INTERPRETED STRICTLY SINCE IT CONSTITUTES A DEROGATION FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF THE ELIMINATION OF ALL OBSTACLES TO THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES . IT IS NOT TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS AUTHORIZING MEASURES OF A NATURE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE CONTEMPLATED BY ARTICLES 30 TO 34 .

3 . ARTICLE 36 , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS WHICH IT PRESCRIBES , DOES NOT PREVENT THE RETENTION OF CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS . IN THIS RESPECT IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT THE INSPECTIONS CARRIED OUT BY IMPORTING STATES ON THE OCCASION OF THE CROSSING OF THE FRONTIER ARE REPLACED BY INSPECTIONS INITIALLY CARRIED OUT BY THE EXPORTING MEMBER STATE . HOWEVER ARTICLE 36 DOES NOT PERMIT THE COLLECTION OF DUTIES CHARGED ON THE GOODS SUBJECTED TO THESE INSPECTIONS SINCE THIS COLLECTION IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE PROCESS PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 36 AND THEREFORE CONSTITUTES AN ADDITIONAL OBSTACLE TO INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE .

4 . IF THE FEES FOR VETERINARY AND PUBLIC HEALTH INSPECTIONS ARE DEMANDED IN THE CASE OF INTERNAL MARKETING AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF EXPORTATION THEN THEY FORM PART OF A GENERAL SYSTEM OF DOMESTIC CHARGES AND ARE NOT CHARGES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO A CUSTOMS DUTY ON EXPORTS BUT FALL WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMI- NATION UNDER ARTICLE 95 OF THE TREATY .

5 . FEES CHARGED FOR VETERINARY AND PUBLIC HEALTH INSPECTIONS , WHICH ARE PRESCRIBED BY A COMMUNITY PROVISION , WHICH ARE UNIFORM AND ARE REQUIRED TO BE CARRIED OUT BEFORE DESPATCH WITHIN THE EXPORTING COUNTRY DO NOT CONSTITUTE CHARGES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO CUSTOMS DUTIES ON EXPORTS , PROVIDED THAT THEY DO NOT EXCEED THE ACTUAL COST OF THE INSPECTION FOR WHICH THEY WERE CHARGED .

6 . APART FROM THE EXCEPTIONS LAID DOWN BY THE DIRECTIVE ITSELF , ANY ADDITIONAL INSPECTION OF BOVINE ANIMALS OR SWINE FOR EXPORT TO ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IMPOSED UNILATERALLY BY A MEMBER STATE , WHETHER ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE OR IN ORDER TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE , WHICH ARE NO LONGER JUSTIFIED , WOULD CONSTITUTE A MEASURE HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO A QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTION AND ANY FEE CHARGED ON THIS OCCASION WOULD , FOR THAT REASON , BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW .