OF 18 MARCH 1969 AND THE AMENDMENTS THERETO , THUS ENABLED IMPORTERS TO CONVEY THEIR GOODS FROM THE FRONTIER TO PUBLIC WAREHOUSES SITUATED IN THE INTERIOR OF THE COUNTRY WITHOUT PAYING DUTIES AND TAXES . IN THOSE WAREHOUSES , IMPORTERS MAY HAVE CUSTOMS CLEARANCE OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT AND THEY ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PLACE THE GOODS IN TEMPORARY STORAGE THERE , IN PARTICULAR WHEN THEY DO NOT WISH TO ASSIGN THE GOODS IMMEDIATELY TO A SPECIFIC CUSTOMS PROCEDURE .
6 THIS CASE CONCERNS THE LEVYING OF STORAGE CHARGES ON GOODS DEPOSITED IN SUCH PUBLIC WAREHOUSES SITUATED IN THE INTERIOR OF THE COUNTRY .
7 THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS THAT THE STORAGE CHARGES LEVIED BY THE LUXEMBOURG AUTHORITIES REPRESENT CHARGES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO CUSTOMS DUTIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLES 9 AND 12 OF THE TREATY , INASMUCH AS THE PAYMENT OF THE CHARGES DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSIDERATION FOR A SERVICE RENDERED TO THE IMPORTER BUT IS CONNECTED SOLELY WITH THE COMPLETION OF THE CUSTOMS FORMALITIES .
8 THE LUXEMBOURG GOVERNMENT CONSIDERS THAT THE CHARGES IN QUESTION CANNOT BE DESCRIBED AS CHARGES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO CUSTOMS DUTIES BECAUSE THE EVENT GIVING RISE TO THE DISPUTED CHARGES IS IN LAW NEITHER THE CROSSING OF THE FRONTIER NOR THE COMPLETION OF CUSTOMS FORMALITIES , BUT THE USE BY IMPORTERS OF THE PUBLIC WAREHOUSES MADE AVAILABLE TO THEM BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES . SUCH A USE AMOUNTS TO A SERVICE RENDERED TO THE IMPORTERS AND IS CAPABLE OF JUSTIFYING THE LEVYING OF CHARGES .
9 IT IS APPROPRIATE TO RECALL , IN THE FIRST PLACE , THAT ACCORDING TO THE ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW OF THE COURT , ANY PECUNIARY CHARGE , HOWEVER SMALL AND WHATEVER ITS DESIGNATION AND MODE OF APPLICATION , WHICH IS IMPOSED UNILATERALLY ON THE 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 LEVIED BY THE STATE . THE POSITION IS DIFFERENT ONLY IF THE CHARGE IN QUESTION IS THE CONSIDERATION FOR A SERVICE ACTUALLY RENDERED TO THE IMPORTER AND IS OF AN AMOUNT COMMENSURATE WITH THAT SERVICE , WHEN THE CHARGE CONCERNED , AS IN THIS CASE , IS PAYABLE EXCLUSIVELY ON IMPORTED PRODUCTS .
10 THE PROHIBITION OF CHARGES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO CUSTOMS DUTIES , LAID DOWN IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY , IS JUSTIFIED ON THE GROUND THAT PECUNIARY CHARGES IMPOSED BY REASON OR ON THE OCCASION OF THE CROSSING OF THE FRONTIER REPRESENT AN OBSTACLE TO THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS .
11 IT IS IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE PRINCIPLES THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DISPUTED STORAGE CHARGES MAY BE CLASSIFIED AS CHARGES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO CUSTOMS DUTIES MUST BE ASSESSED . IT SHOULD THEREFORE BE NOTED , IN THE FIRST PLACE , THAT THE