Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . TAX PROVISIONS - INTERNAL TAXATION - PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN IMPORTED PRODUCTS AND SIMILAR DOMESTIC PRODUCTS - SIMILAR PRODUCTS - CONCEPT - INTERPRETATION - CRITERIA - WINE MADE FROM GRAPES AND WINE MADE FROM OTHER FRUIT

( EEC TREATY , ART . 95 , FIRST PARAGRAPH )

2 . TAX PROVISIONS - INTERNAL TAXATION - PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN IMPORTED PRODUCTS AND SIMILAR DOMESTIC PRODUCTS - DISCRIMINATION - CONCEPT - SCOPE

( EEC TREATY , ART . 95 , FIRST PARAGRAPH )

3 . TAX PROVISIONS - INTERNAL TAXATION - SYSTEM OF DIFFERENTIAL TAXATION - PERMISSIBILITY - CONDITIONS - PURSUIT OF OBJECTIVES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW - NO DISCRIMINATORY OR PROTECTIVE EFFECT

( EEC TREATY , ART . 95 )

Summary

1 . IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER PRODUCTS ARE SIMILAR WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE PROHIBITION LAID DOWN IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 95 OF THE TREATY , IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THEY HAVE SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS AND MEET THE SAME NEEDS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF CONSUMERS . AS THE CONCEPT OF SIMILARITY MUST BE GIVEN A BROAD INTERPRETATION , THE SIMILARITY OF PRODUCTS MUST BE ASSESSED NOT ACCORDING TO WHETHER THEY ARE STRICTLY IDENTICAL BUT ACCORDING TO WHETHER THEIR USE IS SIMILAR AND COMPARABLE .

HENCE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER TWO CATEGORIES OF BEVERAGES ARE SIMILAR , IT IS NECESSARY FIRST TO CONSIDER CERTAIN OBJECTIVE CHARACTERISTICS , SUCH AS THEIR ORIGIN , THE METHOD OF MANUFACTURE AND THEIR ORGANOLEPTIC PROPERTIES , IN PARTICULAR TASTE AND ALCOHOL CONTENT , AND SECONDLY TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT BOTH CATEGORIES OF BEVERAGES ARE CAPABLE OF MEETING THE SAME NEEDS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF CONSUMERS , WHICH MUST BE ASSESSED ON THE BASIS NOT OF EXISTING CONSUMER HABITS BUT OF THE PROSPECTIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE HABITS AND , ESSENTIALLY , ON THE BASIS OF OBJECTIVE CHARACTERISTICS WHICH ENSURE THAT A PRODUCT IS CAPABLE OF MEETING THE SAME NEEDS AS ANOTHER PRODUCT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF CONSUMERS . THE CUSTOMS CLASSIFICATION OF BEVERAGES , WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF EXTERNAL TRADE , CANNOT PROVIDE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE APPRAISAL OF THE CRITERION OF SIMILARITY . NOR IS IT RELEVANT THAT ONE OF THE CATEGORIES OF BEVERAGES IN QUESTION IS COVERED BY A COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET WHILST THE OTHER IS NOT .

IT IS CLEAR FROM A COMPARISON OF WINE MADE FROM GRAPES AND WINE MADE FROM OTHER FRUIT , WHICH IS BASED ON THOSE CRITERIA , THAT THEY ARE SIMILAR PRODUCTS .

2 . THE MERE DIFFERENCE IN THE TAX BURDEN BORNE BY DOMESTIC PRODUCTS AND SIMILAR IMPORTED PRODUCTS , WHETHER IT IS THE RESULT OF THE RATE OF TAX , THE MODE OF ASSESSMENT OR OTHER DETAILED IMPLEMENTING RULES , IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 95 OF THE TREATY .

3 . AT ITS PRESENT STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY LAW DOES NOT RESTRICT THE FREEDOM OF EACH MEMBER STATE TO LAY DOWN TAX ARRANGEMENTS WHICH DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN CERTAIN PRODUCTS , EVEN PRODUCTS WHICH ARE SIMILAR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 95 OF THE TREATY , ON THE BASIS OF OBJECTIVE CRITERIA , SUCH AS THE NATURE OF THE RAW MATERIALS USED OR THE PRODUCTION PROCESSES EMPLOYED . SUCH DIFFERENTIATION IS COMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW IF IT PURSUES OBJECTIVES OF ECONOMIC POLICY WHICH ARE THEMSELVES COMPATIBLE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TREATY AND ITS SECONDARY LEGISLATION , AND IF THE DETAILED RULES ARE SUCH AS TO AVOID ANY FORM OF DISCRIMINATION , DIRECT OR INDIRECT , IN REGARD TO IMPORTS FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES OR ANY FORM OF PROTECTION OF COMPETING DOMESTIC PRODUCTS . HOWEVER , SUCH DIFFERENTIAL TAXATION IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW IF THE PRODUCTS MOST HEAVILY TAXED ARE , BY THEIR VERY NATURE , IMPORTED PRODUCTS .