767291
Description
Mind Map by Joshua Moneч, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Joshua Moneч
about 10 years ago
|
|
Free Movement of Goods
- European Union has two rules
concerning the movement of goods
between member states.
- There must not be any tariffs or
charges imposed on goods moving
between Member States
- Article 28 TFEU - The community shall
be based upon a customs union which
shall cover all trade in goods and which
shall involve the prohibition between
Member States of customs duties on
imports and exports and of all charges
having equivalent effect, and the
adoption of a common customs tariff in
their relations with third countries.
- Article 30 TFEU - Customs
duties on imports and
exports and charges having
equivalent effect shall be
prohibited between Member
States. This prohibition shall
also apply to customs
duties of a fiscal nature.
- Article 30 is absolute and unlike
Article 34 does not have the scope for
Member States to justify charges.
Furthermore the purpose of the
charge is irrelevant
- Case 7/68 Commission v Italy [1968] Case concerned
customs duties imposed by the Italian state upon
certain cultural treasures and artefacts which had been
sold to private buyers and where being shipped out of
the country. The italian government attempted to justify
this by claiming that the charges were there in order to
discourage people from taking such treasures out of
Italy in order to preserve their cultural heritage. It was
held by the ECJ that the purpose of this export tax was
irrelevant. The mere fact that the tax was prohibited by
Article 30 was enough for Italy to be considered in
breach of the Law.
- Case 7/68 Commission v Italy [1968] Case concerned
customs duties imposed by the Italian state upon
certain cultural treasures and artefacts which had been
sold to private buyers and where being shipped out of
the country. The italian government attempted to justify
this by claiming that the charges were there in order to
discourage people from taking such treasures out of
Italy in order to preserve their cultural heritage. It was
held by the ECJ that the purpose of this export tax was
irrelevant. The mere fact that the tax was prohibited by
Article 30 was enough for Italy to be considered in
breach of the Law.
- Article 30 is absolute and unlike
Article 34 does not have the scope for
Member States to justify charges.
Furthermore the purpose of the
charge is irrelevant
- Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos [1963] - Case
concerned Art 30 of the Treaty, which prohibited
new customs duties being imposed, or existing
customs duties being increased.
- ECJ held he could enforce this against the Dutch
government if the following three requirements were
fullfilled
- 1 -That it was clear and unconditional prohibition
- 2 -That it imposed a duty without any discretion given to the Member States
- 3- That it produced direct effects between Member States and Citizens.
- All three were fulfilled, and therefore the national court could enforce Art 30 in favour of Van Gend.
- All three were fulfilled, and therefore the national court could enforce Art 30 in favour of Van Gend.
- 3- That it produced direct effects between Member States and Citizens.
- 2 -That it imposed a duty without any discretion given to the Member States
- 1 -That it was clear and unconditional prohibition
- ECJ held he could enforce this against the Dutch
government if the following three requirements were
fullfilled
- Article 28 TFEU - The community shall
be based upon a customs union which
shall cover all trade in goods and which
shall involve the prohibition between
Member States of customs duties on
imports and exports and of all charges
having equivalent effect, and the
adoption of a common customs tariff in
their relations with third countries.
- There must not be restrictions
concerning quantity of goods
moving between Member States.
- Article 34 TFEU - Elimination of
quantitive restrictions on
imports and measures having a
equivalent effect
- Article 35 TFEU - Elimination of
quantitive restrictions on exports
and measures having a equivalent
effect
- Measures having a equivalent effect (MEQR)
- Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v Dassonville
[1974] - gave definition as All trading rules
enacted by Member States which are
ca[pable of hindering, directly or indirectly,
actually or potentially, inta - Community
trade
- The First Rule of Cassis - The Rule of Reason Restrictions would be
allowed for indistinctly applicable measures if they could satisfy satisfy
certain mandatory requirements: - effectiveness of fisical supervision,
protection of public health, fairness of consumer transactions, a defence of
the consumer.
- Case 60 & 61/84 Cinetheque - There was a exception under the rule
of reason due to the protection of a member states culture
- Case 302/86 EC Commission v Denmark [1988] - Another exception due to the protection of the Enviroment
- Case 302/86 EC Commission v Denmark [1988] - Another exception due to the protection of the Enviroment
- Case 60 & 61/84 Cinetheque - There was a exception under the rule
of reason due to the protection of a member states culture
- The Second Casis Rule - Mutual Recognition. Provided the products have
been lawfully introduced into one Member State then there should be no
reason why they should not be imported into another.
- Case 16/83 Criminal Proceedings
Against Prantl [1984] - Import of
Italian wine into Germany in
bottles whose shape was normally
restricted This was allowed
because the wine was legally
market in Italy.
- Case 261/81 Walter Rau
Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PVBA
[1982] - Belgian law restricting margarine
to cube-shaped tubs prohibited because
margarine was lawfully sold in other types
of packaging elsewhere in the EU
- Case 178/84 Commission v Germany
(Beer Purity Laws) [1987] Beer from other
EU States that did not comply with the
German beer purity law could be imported
and could be called beer because it was
lawfully sold in other EU States.
- Case 178/84 Commission v Germany
(Beer Purity Laws) [1987] Beer from other
EU States that did not comply with the
German beer purity law could be imported
and could be called beer because it was
lawfully sold in other EU States.
- Case 261/81 Walter Rau
Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PVBA
[1982] - Belgian law restricting margarine
to cube-shaped tubs prohibited because
margarine was lawfully sold in other types
of packaging elsewhere in the EU
- Case 16/83 Criminal Proceedings
Against Prantl [1984] - Import of
Italian wine into Germany in
bottles whose shape was normally
restricted This was allowed
because the wine was legally
market in Italy.
- Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v Dassonville
[1974] - gave definition as All trading rules
enacted by Member States which are
ca[pable of hindering, directly or indirectly,
actually or potentially, inta - Community
trade
- Article 34 TFEU - Elimination of
quantitive restrictions on
imports and measures having a
equivalent effect
- There must not be any tariffs or
charges imposed on goods moving
between Member States
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.