natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
THE COURT (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts and L. Bay Larsen, Presidents of Chambers, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Schiemann, P. Kūris (Rapporteur) and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges,
EUROOPA KOHUS (suurkoda), koosseisus: president V. Skouris, kodade esimehed P. Jann, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts ja L. Bay Larsen, kohtunikud R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Schiemann, P. Kūris (ettekandja) ja A. Ó Caoimh, kohtujurist: P. Mengozzi, kohtusekretär: ametnik C. Strömholm, arvestades kirjalikus menetluses ja 8. mai 2007. aasta kohtuistungil esitatut, olles 18. juuli 2007. aasta kohtuistungil ära kuulanud kohtujuristi ettepaneku,
By its application, the Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should declare that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 90 EC, by imposing internal taxes of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to beer, which is mainly produced in Sweden, as compared with wine, which is mainly imported from other Member States.
Euroopa Ühenduste Komisjon palub oma hagis Euroopa Kohtul tuvastada, et Rootsi Kuningriik on rikkunud EÜ artikli 90 teisest lõigust tulenevaid kohustusi, kuna ta on kohaldanud riigimakse, mis võimaldavad peamiselt Rootsis toodetava õlle kaudset kaitset võrreldes veiniga, mida imporditakse peamiselt teistest liimesriikidest.
Law 1994:1564 on excise duty on alcohol
Alkoholiaktsiisi seadus (1994:1564)
The Swedish legislation concerning the excise duty applicable to alcoholic beverages, the subject of the present action, is contained in Law 1994:1564 on excise duty on alcohol (lagen (1994:1564) om alkoholskatt) of 15 December 1994 (SFS 1994 No 1564), as amended by Law 2001:822 (‘the lagen om alkoholskatt’).
Käesolevas hagis kõne all olev alkohoolsetele jookidele kohaldatavat aktsiisi käsitlev Rootsi regulatsioon sisaldub 15. detsembri 1994. aasta seaduses 1994:1564 alkoholiaktsiisi kohta (lagen om alkoholskatt; SFS 1994, nr 1564), muudetud seadusega 2001:822 (edaspidi „alkoholiaktsiisi seadus”).
Paragraph 2 of the lagen om alkoholskatt states as follows:
Alkoholiaktsiisi seaduse artikkel 2 on sõnastatud järgmiselt:
‘Excise duty shall be payable on beer under [Combined Nomenclature] Heading 2203 if its alcoholic strength exceeds 0.5% vol.
„Aktsiisimaksu tuleb tasuda [kombineeritud nomenklatuuri] rubriiki 2203 kuuluvalt õllelt, kui selle etanoolisisaldus on üle 0,5 mahuprotsendi.
Excise duty must also be paid on products containing a mixture of beer and nonalcoholic beverages under [CN] Heading 2206 if the alcoholic strength of the mixture exceeds 0.5% vol.
Aktsiisimaksu tuleb tasuda ka [kombineeritud nomenklatuuri] rubriiki 2206 kuuluvalt õlle ja alkoholivabade jookide segult, kui segu etanoolisisaldus on üle 0,5 mahuprotsendi.
Excise duty per litre is payable at the rate of [SEK] 1.47 per percentage of alcohol by volume.
Aktsiisimäär on 1,47 [Rootsi krooni] etanoolisisalduse ühe mahuprotsendi kohta liitris.
Beers with a maximum alcoholic strength of 2.8% are exempt.’
Õlled, mille etanoolisisaldus ei ole suurem kui 2,8 mahuprotsenti, on aktsiisist vabastatud.”
Article 3 of that law is worded as follows:
Sama seaduse artikkel 3 on sõnastatud järgmiselt:
‘Excise duty shall be payable on wine under [CN] Headings 2204 and 2205 if the alcoholic strength is the result exclusively of fermentation and
„Aktsiisimaksu tuleb tasuda [kombineeritud nomenklatuuri] rubriikidesse 2204 ja 2205 kuuluvalt veinilt, kui selle etanoolisisaldus tuleneb üksnes kääritamisest ja
1. if the alcoholic strength exceeds 1.2% vol. but is lower than or equal to 15%, or
1. kui etanoolisisaldus on suurem kui 1,2 mahuprotsenti, kuid mitte üle 15 mahuprotsendi, või
2. if the alcoholic strength exceeds 15% vol. but is lower than or equal to 18%, and if the wine is produced without additives.
2. kui etanoolisisaldus on suurem kui 15 mahuprotsenti, kuid mitte üle 18 mahuprotsendi, ja kui vein ei sisalda mingeid lisaaineid.
Excise duty shall be payable per litre: on beverages with an alcoholic strength higher than 2.25% vol. but lower than or equal to 4.5% vol., at a rate of [SEK] 7.58; on beverages with an alcoholic strength higher than 4.5% vol. but lower than or equal to 7% vol., at a rate of [SEK] 11.20; on beverages with an alcoholic strength higher than 7% vol. but lower than or equal to 8.5% vol., at a rate of [SEK] 15.41; on beverages with an alcoholic strength higher than 8.5% vol. but lower than or equal to 15% vol., at a rate of [SEK] 22.08; and on beverages with an alcoholic strength higher than 15% vol. but lower than or equal to 18% vol., at a rate of [SEK] 45.17.
45,17 [Rootsi krooni], kui joogi etanoolisisaldus on suurem kui 15 mahuprotsenti, kuid mitte üle 18 mahuprotsendi.
Wines with a maximum alcoholic strength of 2.25% vol. are exempt.’
Veinid, mille etanoolisisaldus ei ole suurem kui 2,25 mahuprotsenti, on maksust vabastatud.”
Following complaints received regarding the Swedish rules governing excise duty on wine, allegedly discriminatory by comparison with those applicable to beer, the Commission examined the legislation in question and reached the conclusion that, contrary to the second paragraph of Article 90 EC, the Kingdom of Sweden was imposing internal taxes of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to beer, which is mainly produced in Sweden, to the detriment of wine, which is mainly imported from other Member States.
Kaebuste alusel, milles väideti, et Rootsis veinile kohaldatav aktsiisikord on võrreldes õllele kohaldatava korraga diskrimineeriv, uuris komisjon kõnesolevat regulatsiooni ja jõudis järeldusele, et Rootsi Kuningriik kohaldas EÜ artikli 90 teist lõiku rikkudes riigimakse, mis võimaldasid kaudset kaitset õllele, mida toodetakse peamiselt Rootsis, võrreldes veiniga, mida imporditakse peamiselt teistest liikmesriikidest.
After giving the Kingdom of Sweden formal notice, by letters notified on 28 February 2000 and 1 July 2002, to submit its observations, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion and an additional reasoned opinion dated, respectively, 19 June 2001 and 7 July 2004.
Komisjon palus 28. veebruari 2000. aasta ja 1. juuli 2002. aasta märgukirjaga esitada nimetatud liikmesriigil oma seisukoht ning esitas seejärel 19. juunil 2001 põhjendatud arvamuse ja 7. juulil 2004 täiendava põhjendatud arvamuse.
Since the Commission did not consider the legislative amendments introduced after 19 June 2001 by Laws 2001:517 and 2001:822 to be satisfactory and since the Kingdom of Sweden took the view that it was not required to accept the argument set out by the Commission in the additional reasoned opinion, the Commission decided to bring the present action.
Kuna komisjon ei pidanud pärast 19. juunit 2001 seadustega 2001:517 ja 2001:822 tehtud muudatusi rahuldavaks ja Rootsi Kuningriik leidis, et ta ei pea nõustuma täiendavas põhjendatud arvamuses väljendatud komisjoni seisukohaga, otsustas komisjon esitada käesoleva hagi.
By order of the President of the Court of 16 September 2005, the Republic of Latvia was granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Kingdom of Sweden
Euroopa Kohtu presidendi 16. septembri 2005. aasta määrusega lubati Läti Vabariigil astuda Rootsi Kuningriigi nõuete toetuseks menetlusse.
The Commission and the Kingdom of Sweden agree that, in Sweden:
Komisjon ja Rootsi Kuningriik on üksmeelel selles, et Rootsis:
— beer is mainly a domestic product and wine is mainly an imported product;
— on õlu peamiselt kodumaine toode ja vein peamiselt importtoode;
— the most commonly consumed wines, which are generally the lighter wines, share a sufficient number of characteristics with beer to constitute, for the consumer, a substitute for it, so that such wines may be considered to be in competition with beer for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 90 EC;
— enim tarbitavatel veinidel, mis on üldiselt kõige odavamad, on õllega piisavalt palju ühiseid omadusi, et olla tarbija jaoks õlle asendustoode, nii et neid veine võib pidada õllega konkureerivaks EÜ artikli 90 teise lõigu mõttes;
— the taxation of beer and wine is traditionally linked to the alcohol content of those beverages, that is to say, it is in proportion to their alcoholic strength by volume;
— õlle ja veini maksustamine on tavapäraselt seotud nende jookide etanoolisisaldusega, st on proportsionaalne nende etanoolisisaldusega mahuprotsentides;
— there is a difference in the taxation by volume of beer and wine; and
— õlle ja veini etanoolisisalduse mahuprotsentide järgi maksustamises on lahknevusi ning
— taxation can influence consumer behaviour.
— maksustamine võib mõjutada tarbija käitumist.
Nevertheless, the Kingdom of Sweden qualifies the statements set out in the second and fifth indents above, asserting that beer and wine are only partly in competition and that taxation is only one of the factors likely to influence consumer behaviour.
Eelmise punkti teises ja viiendas taandes märgituga seoses esitab Rootsi Kuningriik siiski teatavaid täpsustusi. See liikmesriik leiab, et õlu ja vein konkureerivad omavahel üksnes osaliselt ning maksustamine on vaid üks teguritest, mis võivad tarbija käitumist mõjutada.
The Commission and the Kingdom of Sweden also agree that when the latter acceded to the European Union on 1 January 1995, the rate of duty applied, on the basis of alcoholic strength by volume, to strong beer — defined by Law 1994:1738 on alcohol (alkohollagen (1994:1738)) of 16 December 1994 (SFS 1994:1738) as beer of an alcoholic strength in excess of 3.5% vol. — and the rate of duty applied, on the basis of alcoholic strength, to wine of 11% vol. were almost identical.
Komisjon ja Rootsi Kuningriik on üksmeelel ka selles, et kui see liikmesriik Euroopa Liiduga 1. jaanuaril 1995 ühines, oli kange õlle — mis oli 16. detsembri 1994. aasta seaduses 1994:1738 alkohoolsete jookide kohta (alkohollagen (1994:1738); SFS 1994, nr 1738) määratletud kui õlu, mille etanoolisisaldus on üle 3,5 mahuprotsendi — maksustamine mahuprotsentide järgi peaaegu samasugune kui ligi 11-mahuprot-sendilise etanoolisisaldusega veini maksustamine etanoolisisalduse mahuprotsentide järgi.
With effect from 1 January 1997, excise duty on beer was reduced by approximately 40%.
Alates 1. jaanuarist 1997 on õlleaktsiis vähenenud umbes 40%.
With regard to that reduction, the Kingdom of Sweden states that its Government had found in 1996 that, because of the difference between Sweden and Denmark in terms of the taxation of beer, the crossborder trade in beer between those two Member States had reached such proportions that it was necessary to reduce the level at which beer was taxed in Sweden.
Selle kohta täpsustab Rootsi Kuningriik, et 1996. aastal tõdes valitsus, et piiriülene õllekaubandus Taaniga, mis tulenes õlle maksustamise erinevusest neis kahes liikmesriigis, on võtnud sellise ulatuse, et õlleaktsiisi vähendamine on vajalik.
The Kingdom of Sweden states further that no crossborder trade in wine has grown up in parallel to that crossborder trade in beer, despite the fact that the wine is taxed much more heavily in Sweden than in Denmark.
Veel täpsustab Rootsi Kuningriik, et veini puhul ei ole niisugust piiriülest kaubandust täheldatud nagu õlle puhul, kuigi ka veini maksumäärad on Rootsis märgatavalt kõrgemad kui Taanis.
Accordingly, in the view of the Kingdom of Sweden, there is no need to adjust the excise duty on wine, just as there was no reason to revise the rates of taxation applied to wine when the decision was taken to reduce the excise duty on beer.
Seetõttu ei ole selle liikmesriigi sõnutsi mingit vajadust veiniaktsiisi korrigeerida ning ei ole mingit põhjust paralleelselt õlleaktsiisi vähendamisega — kui see otsustatakse — muuta veinile kohaldatavaid maksumäärasid.
However, the Kingdom of Sweden adds
Nimetatud liikmesriik lisab siiski, et komisjoni avaldatud surve tõttu on seaduse 2001:822
Thus, the tax treatment of wine and the tax treatment of beer are now equivalent.
Seega on need kaks maksukoormust praegu võrdsed.
In Sweden, the retail selling of wine, strong beer and spirits is a monopoly, responsibility for which has been entrusted to a company wholly owned by the Swedish State, Systembolaget AB (‘Systembolaget’).
Rootsis kehtib veini, kange õlle ja kangete alkohoolsete jookide müügi suhtes monopol, mis on antud täielikult Rootsi riigi omandis olevale aktsiaseltsile Systembolaget AB (edaspidi „Systembolaget”).
According to the explanations provided by the Kingdom of Sweden, which have not been contradicted by the Commission, that monopoly system is Sweden’s main policy instrument in its campaign against alcoholism, being designed to channel the retail selling of alcoholic beverages so as to make sure that the age of consumers is checked and that the sales prohibitions in force are complied with, while ensuring that the products concerned are accessible.
Rootsi Kuningriigi esitatud selgitustest — millele komisjon vastu ei vaielnud — nähtub, et see süsteem on peamine vahend selle liikmesriigi alkoholismivastase võitluse poliitikas ning selle eesmärk on alkohoolsete jookide jaemüügi koondamine, et tagada tarbijate vanuse kontrollimine ja kehtivate müügikeeldude järgimine, tagades samas asjaomaste toodete kättesaadavuse.
The Commission submits that Swedish beer, the product which dominates sales of alcohol on the Swedish market, is subject to lower excise duty than the competing category of wine.
Komisjon väidab, et aktsiis, mida kohaldatakse Rootsi õllele, mis on enimmüüdud alkohoolne jook Rootsi turul, on väiksem kui konkureeriva kategooria veinile kohaldatav aktsiis.
In its view, that difference in taxation influences consumer choice, in that the structure and characteristics of the tax arrangements in question reinforce the preference, claimed to be traditional, of Swedish consumers for beer.
Komisjoni arvates mõjutab maksustamise erinevus tarbija valikuid, kuna kõnesoleva maksusüsteemi struktuur ja omadused tugevdavad traditsioonilist õlle eelistamist Rootsi tarbija poolt.
Such a situation is unfavourable to wine, which is mainly imported from other Member States, and consequently has a protective effect, prohibited under the second paragraph of Article 90 EC, in favour of beer, which is mainly produced in Sweden.
Selline olukord on ebasoodus peamiselt teistest liikmesriikidest imporditavale veinile ning seetõttu on sellel õllele kaitsev mõju, mis on EÜ artikli 90 teise lõigu alusel keelatud.
On analysing the thrust of the relevant Swedish tax provisions, the Commission submits that, despite a reduction in excise duty on wine with effect from 1 December
Asjaomaseid Rootsi maksusätteid uurides leiab komisjon, et hoolimata seaduse 2001:822 alusel veiniaktsiisi vähendamisest alates 1. detsembrist 2001 kohaldatakse
COMMISSION v SWEDEN
KOMISJON VS.
2001 pursuant to Law 2001:822, not only does wine remain subject to higher excise duty than beer but in addition it is taxed progressively according to its alcoholic strength by volume, in accordance with the excise duty scales set out in the second subparagraph of Paragraph 3 of the alkohollagen.
ROOTSI veinile mitte üksnes suuremat aktsiisi kui õllele, vaid ka etanoolisisaldusest sõltuvat progressiivset maksumäära vastavalt alkoholiaktsiisi seaduse artikli 3 teises lõigus ette nähtud maksuskaalale.
Thus, the Commission points out, on a wine with an alcoholic strength of 12.5% vol. — which the Commission regards as normal — the excise duty applicable is SEK 1.77 per percentage of alcohol by volume, which differs by approximately 20% from the excise duty on beer (SEK 1.47 per percentage point of alcohol by volume).
Komisjon märgib, et tavalise 12,5-mahuprotsendilise etanoolisisaldusega veini puhul on aktsiisimääraks 1,77 Rootsi krooni etanoolisisalduse mahuprotsendi kohta, mis tähendab umbes 20% erinevust õlleaktsiisi määrast (1,47 krooni etanoolisisalduse mahuprotsendi kohta).
The Commission points out that the final price also includes value added tax (‘VAT’) at 25%, arguing that since the VAT is calculated on the basis of the price inclusive of excise duty and wine is subject to higher excise duty than beer, the result of applying VAT is to widen the existing disparity, thus reinforcing the protective effect of the tax arrangements at issue.
Ta rõhutab, et lõpphinda kuulub ka käibemaks 25%, mis arvutatakse hinnast koos aktsiisiga, mille tagajärjeks on, et kuna veinile kohaldatakse suuremat aktsiisi kui õllele, suurendab käibemaks hinna lahknevust, mis tugevdab kõnesoleva maksusüsteemi kaitsvat mõju.
It follows that wine is taxed more heavily than beer and that tax accounts for a higher proportion of the price of bestselling wines (those with an alcoholic strength of between 8.5 vol. and 15% vol. and a final selling price ranging between SEK 49 and SEK 70; ‘the intermediate category’) than of the price of beer.
Sellest tulenevalt maksustatakse veini kõrgemalt kui õlut ning maksu osakaal on enimmüüdavate veinide (8,5–15-mahuprotsendilise etanoolisisaldusega ja lõpliku müügihinnaga 49–70 Rootsi krooni, edaspidi „keskmine kategooria”) hinnas suurem kui õlle hinnas.
As regards competition between beer and wine, the Commission takes the view that, in Sweden, there is competition between strong beer, the product which dominates sales on the Swedish market, and wines in the intermediate category.
Õlle ja veini vahelise konkurentsi osas on komisjon arvamusel, et Rootsis on konkurents kange õlle — mis on Rootsi turul enimmüüdud toode — ja keskmise kategooria veinide vahel.
It points out that wine must be bought at Systembolaget sales outlets, as must strong beer, whereas beer with an alcoholic strength lower than 3.5% vol. is available in food shops.
Ta märgib, et veini nagu kanget õlutki tuleb osta Systembolageti müügipunktidest, samas kui alla 3,5-mahuprotsendilise etanoolisisaldusega õlu on saadaval toidupoodides.
Strong beer and wine are therefore in competition at the same sales outlets.
Kange õlu ja vein konkureerivad seega samades müügipunktides.
The Commission goes on to point out that wine and beer are available only in specially licensed restaurants and catering establishments where, in consequence, the two beverages may also be in competition.
Lisaks täpsustab komisjon, et vein ja õlu on saadaval ainult eriluba omavates restoranides ja toitlustusasutustes, kus need kaks jooki võivad samuti omavahel konkureerida.
The Commission makes a comparison of the effect on beer and wine of the tax arrangements at issue, in terms of price, alcohol content and volume, in order to argue that, whatever method of comparison is used, the tax imposed on wine is clearly higher than that on beer.
Komisjon võrdleb kõnesoleva maksusüsteemi mõju, arvestades õlle ja veini hinda, alkoholisisaldust ja kogust, ning jõuab järeldusele, et olenemata kasutatavast võrdlusmeetodist on veini maksukoormus selgelt suurem kui õllel.
In that context, the Commission points out that the effect of the taxation is most marked in the case of wines with a final selling price in the range between SEK 41 and SEK 70, that is to say, the wines which account for by far the greater part of retail sales of the product (78.7% in 2003).
Selles kontekstis märgib ta, et maksustamise mõju on kõige märgatavam 41–70 Rootsi kroonise lõpphinnaga veinide puhul, mis moodustavad valdava osa selle toote jaemüügist (2003. aastal 78,7%).
As regards the assessment, in the light of the second paragraph of Article 90 EC, of the protective nature of the tax arrangements at issue, the Commission maintains that it is essential not only to establish that those arrangements afford protection but also to show the effect of that protection on the consumer, who may be induced directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, to choose a domestic product which, but for that protection, is equivalent to an imported product and, accordingly, in competition with it.
Mis puudutab kõnesoleva maksusüsteemi kaitsva laadi hindamist EÜ artikli 90 teise lõigu alusel, siis leiab komisjon, et oluline on mitte üksnes tuvastada selle süsteemi kaitsev laad, vaid ka tõendada selle mõju tarbijale, keda võidakse otse või kaudselt, tegelikult või potentsiaalselt kallutada valima kodumaist toodet, mis niisuguse elemendi puudumisel oleks võrdväärne imporditud tootega ja järelikult oleks selle konkurent.
The Commission takes the view that the tax arrangements at issue in the present action have the same purpose as those referred to in paragraph 27 of the judgment in Case 170/78 Commission v United Kingdom [1983] ECR 2265, which, according to the Court, had the effect of subjecting wine imported from other Member States to additional taxation so as to afford protection to domestic beer production, inasmuch as beer production constituted the most relevant reference criterion from the point of view of competition.
Komisjoni arvates on käesolevas asjas kõne all oleva maksusüsteemi eesmärk samasugune nagu see, millest oli juttu 12. juuli 1983. aasta otsuses kohtuasjas 170/78: komisjon vs. Ühendkuningriik (EKL 1983, lk 2265), kus Euroopa Kohus tõdes, et selle tulemusel maksustati teistest liikmesriikidest pärit veini kõrgemalt, et tagada kodumaise õlletoodangu kaitse, kuna see on konkurentsi vaatepunktist sobivaim võrdluskriteerium.
The Commission, referring to the judgment in Case 170/78 Commission v United Kingdom [1980] ECR 417, paragraph 14, maintains that
Komisjon leiab, tuginedes 27. veebruari 1980. aasta otsusele kohtuasjas 170/78: komisjon vs. Ühendkuningriik (EKL 1980, lk 417, punkt 14),
COMMISSION v SWEDEN those arrangements crystallise consumer habits by reinforcing the advantage of beer (the domestic product) and subjecting to discrimination the marketing possibilities of wine, the product from other Member States.
KOMISJON VS. ROOTSI et kõnesolev maksusüsteem kinnistab tarbimisharjumusi, tugevdades kodumaist päritolu õlle eelisseisundit ning tekitades diskrimineerimise teistest liikmesriikidest pärit veini kommertspotentsiaali suhtes.
The Commission submits that the Kingdom of Sweden uses taxation in this way to influence consumer behaviour with regard not only to choice of product but also to choice between competing products.
Komisjon väidab, et Rootsi Kuningriik kasutab maksustamist tarbija käitumise mõjutamiseks mitte üksnes toodete valikul, vaid ka konkureerivate toodete vahel valimisel.
In its view, it is clear from the statistics published by Systembolaget that, before the 40% reduction in the excise duty on beer and the slight concomitant increase in the tax on wine on 1 January 1997, the sales volumes of beer and wine were relatively similar and that, following those amendments, sales of wine dropped by 3.7%, whilst sales of beer rose by 8.9%.
Komisjoni sõnutsi nähtub Systembolageti avaldatud statistikast, et enne õlleaktsiisi langetamist 40% ja sellega kaasnenud veiniaktsiisi mõningast suurendamist 1. jaanuaril 1997 olid õlle ja veini müügimahud suhteliselt sarnased ning et muudatuste järel vähenes veinimüük 3,7% ja õllemüük suurenes 8,9%.
After the reduction — described as ‘slight’ — in the excise duty on wine, which was implemented with effect from 1 December 2001, sales of wine increased by 11%, which is the highest increase seen between 1995 and 2004.
Pärast veiniaktsiisi mõningast vähendamist alates 1. detsembrist 2001 suurenes veinimüük 11%, mis on suurim täheldatud kasv ajavahemikul 1995–2004.
However, the same statistics also show that, alongside that increase in wine sales, sales of beer increased by a much higher percentage.
Kuid samadest statistilistest andmetest nähtub ka see, et veinimüügi suurenemise kõrval kasvas õllemüük protsentuaalselt palju rohkem.
The Commission adds that that data must be examined in the knowledge that the Kingdom of Sweden uses taxation as an instrument to reinforce a pattern in the consumption of the products concerned.
Komisjon lisab, et nende andmete uurimisel tuleb arvesse võtta, et Rootsi Kuningriik kasutab maksustamist kui vahendit tugevdamaks tarbimise orienteeritust asjaomastele toodetele.