Charalampos Dounias v Ypourgio Oikonomikon.
Date: 2000-02-03
36 The first point to note is that, although the Court has no jurisdiction, in proceedings brought under Article 177 of the Treaty, to rule on the question whether provisions of national legislation are compatible with Community law, it may provide the national court with all such criteria for the interpretation of Community law as may enable it to answer that question (see Case 97/83 Melkunie [1984] ECR 2367, paragraph 7).
39 It should first be recalled that the scope of Article 30 does not extend to the obstacles to trade covered by other specific provisions of the Treaty, and that obstacles of a fiscal nature or having an effect equivalent to customs duties, which are covered by Articles 9 and 12 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 23 EC and 25 EC) and Article 95 of the Treaty, do not fall within the prohibition laid down in Article 30 (see Joined Cases C-78/90 to C-83/90 Compagnie Commerciale de l'Ouest and Others v Receveur Principal des Douanes de La Pallice-Port [1992] ECR I-1847, paragraph 20).
41 It is settled law that a system of taxation may be considered compatible with Article 95 of the Treaty only if it is so arranged as to exclude any possibility of imported products being taxed more heavily than similar domestic products (see, in particular, Case C-68/96 Grundig Italiana v Ministero delle Finanze [1998] ECR I-3775, paragraph 12).
42 As regards the existence of similar domestic products, it should be recalled that the goods in question in the main proceedings are second-hand photocopiers. As the Advocate General noted in point 28 of his Opinion, even if there is no production of photocopiers in Greece, that does not mean that there is no market there for used photocopiers. As the Court has already ruled, imported used goods and those bought locally constitute similar or competing products (see Case C-47/88 Commission v Denmark [1990] ECR I-4509, paragraph 17).
45 Given the fact that domestic and imported products are marketed differently, it is no easy matter, as the national court observed, to determine the taxable value of imports on the basis of provisions designed to apply to domestic goods. On the other hand, in respect of the transaction to which the taxes in question attach, there is a similarity between products imported from non-member countries and those from Member States. That being so, it can be accepted that a Member State may find it practical to use Regulation No 1224/80 as a yardstick for establishing the basis of assessment for imported products, and that the mere reference to that regulation for the purposes of determining taxable value in order to calculate the various taxes at issue is not in itself contrary to the Treaty.
58 The Court has consistently held that, in the absence of Community rules governing a matter, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from the direct effect of Community law. However, such rules must not be less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions; nor may they make it impossible or excessively difficult in practice to exercise rights conferred by Community law (see, in particular, Case C-312/93 Peterbroeck v Belgian State [1995] ECR I-4599, paragraph 12).
64 As was pointed out in paragraph 58 above, if such an administrative procedure is to be compatible with Community law, it must not be less favourable than the procedure governing similar domestic actions; nor may it make it impossible or excessively difficult in practice to exercise rights conferred by Community law. Moreover, the Court has consistently held that the existence of a judicial remedy against any decision of a national authority refusing the benefit of a fundamental right conferred by the Treaty is essential in order to secure for the individual effective protection for his right (see Case 222/86 Unectef v Heylens and Others [1987] ECR 4097, paragraph 14, and Case C-18/88 Régie des Télégraphes et des Téléphones v GB-Inno-BM [1991] ECR I-5941, paragraph 34).
69 It should be recalled that, under the principle of cooperation laid down in Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), it is for the courts of the Member States to ensure the legal protection which individuals derive from the direct effect of Community law (see Peterbroeck, cited above, paragraph 12). However, in fulfilling that obligation, Member States must ensure that the rules of evidence applicable to actions relating to a breach of Community law are not less favourable than those applying to similar domestic actions, and that they do not make it impossible or excessively difficult in practice for individuals to exercise rights conferred by Community law (see, to that effect, Case 199/82 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v San Giorgio [1983] ECR 3595, paragraph 14).