THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS . BUT TO CONCLUDE THAT IT PROHIBITS THE IMPOSITION OF ANY INTERNAL TAXATION ON IMPORTED GOODS WHICH DO NOT COMPETE WITH DOMESTIC PRODUCTS WOULD BE TO GIVE IT A SCOPE EXCEEDING ITS PURPOSE . INTERNAL TAXES, AND TURNOVER TAX IN PARTICULAR, ARE ESSENTIALLY FISCAL IN PURPOSE . THERE IS THEREFORE NO REASON WHY CERTAIN IMPORTED PRODUCTS SHOULD BE GIVEN PRIVILEGED TREATMENT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT COMPETE WITH ANY DOMESTIC PRODUCTS CAPABLE OF BEING PROTECTED . WHERE SUCH A TAX IS IMPOSED AT THE IMPORT STAGE, EVEN ON PRODUCTS WHICH DO NOT COMPETE WITH DOMESTIC PRODUCTS, ITS PURPOSE IS TO PUT EVERY KIND OF PRODUCT, WHATEVER ITS ORIGIN, IN A COMPARABLE FISCAL SITUATION IN THE TERRITORY OF THE STATE IMPOSING THE TAX . IT MUST THEREFORE BE CONCLUDED THAT ARTICLE 95 DOES NOT PROHIBIT MEMBER STATES FROM IMPOSING INTERNAL TAXATION ON IMPORTED PRODUCTS WHEN THERE IS NO SIMILAR DOMESTIC PRODUCT, OR ANY OTHER DOMESTIC PRODUCTS CAPABLE OF BEING PROTECTED .
NOR DOES INTERNAL TAXATION IMPOSED UNDER THE CONDITIONS SET OUT ABOVE COME WITHIN THE PROHIBITION ON QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS AND MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 30 OF THE TREATY . SUCH RESTRICTIONS, WHICH ARE INTENDED TO LIMIT THE QUANTITIES IMPORTED, ARE IN FACT DIFFERENT BOTH IN THEIR PURPOSE AND THE WAY IN WHICH THEY OPERATE FROM MEASURES OF A FISCAL NATURE . FURTHERMORE, SINCE ARTICLE 30 ET SEQ ., ON THE ONE HAND, AND ARTICLE 95, ON THE OTHER, LAY DOWN DIFFERENT PERIODS OF TIME AND DIFFERENT PROCEDURES FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE RESTRICTIONS TO WHICH THEY REFER, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO CONCEDE THAT ONE AND THE SAME TAX COULD BE BOTH A MEASURE HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO A QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTION AND INTERNAL TAXATION .
THE DIRECT EFFECT OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 95 ( QUESTION 3 )
IN ITS THIRD QUESTION THE COURT MAKING THE REFERENCE ASKS THE COURT OF JUSTICE TO RULE WHETHER ' THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 95 HAS DIRECT EFFECTS AND CREATES INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WHICH NATIONAL COURTS MUST PROTECT '.
P . 232
THIS PROVISION CONTAINS A STRAIGHTFORWARD PROHIBITION AGAINST PROTECTION WHICH IS THE NECESSARY COMPLEMENT TO THE PROHIBITION SET OUT IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE ARTICLE . THE OBLIGATION WHICH RESULTS FROM THAT PROHIBITION IS UNCONDITIONAL, AND NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE PART OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY OR THE MEMBER STATES FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION OR ITS ENTRY INTO FORCE . THE PROHIBITION IS THEREFORE SELF-SUFFICIENT AND LEGALLY COMPLETE, AND IS THUS CAPABLE OF HAVING DIRECT EFFECTS ON THE LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES AND THOSE SUBJECT TO THEIR JURISDICTION . ALTHOUGH THIS PROVISION INVOLVES THE EVALUATION OF ECONOMIC FACTORS, THIS DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF NATIONAL COURTS TO ENSURE THAT THE RULES OF THE TREATY ARE OBSERVED WHENEVER THEY CAN ASCERTAIN, IN THE LIGHT OF THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN BELOW IN ANSWER TO QUESTIONS 2, 4 AND 5, THAT THE CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE ARTICLE