EU Law Free Movement of Goods
Student Exam Number 164971
Free Movement of Goods
The European Union works around the rationale of an internal market or the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people following Article 26 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)1. This is so the European market resembles that of a national state. This essay will focus on the free movement of goods, ‘goods’ defined in the case Commission v Italy2 as ‘products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions’ in this particular case cheese and yoghurt. Obstacles such as frontiers or the diversity of laws and culture must be removed in order to achieve a single market as expressed in the Gaston Schul case of 19823. This would mean removing custom duties and charges having an equivalent effect, taxes discriminating against imports, imposition of quotas or measures having equivalent effect to quotas.
Michael’s first legal challenge deals with the issue of customs duties on imports and exports and charges having equivalent effect to custom duties (CEE). Under Article 284 and under Article 305 all charges of custom duties or CEE’s are prohibited. The charge imposed by France on all imported dairy products in this case can be seen as a CEE because under the definition used in Commission v Italy6 it is a pecuniary charge imposed unilaterally by reason of the fact that it has crossed a frontier. The prohibitions of custom duties or CEE’s see no exemptions or derogations. They are seen as general absolute prohibitions by the European Court of Justice. The idea of states raising money because a good has crossed a frontier is incompatible with the ideal of a common market. Even though the charge imposed by France is one that is of good purpose it is illegal nevertheless. This is followed from the Diamantarbeiders7 case where the Belgian government imposed a levy on imported diamonds in order to provide social security benefits for
Free Movement of Goods
The European Union works around the rationale of an internal market or the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people following Article 26 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)1. This is so the European market resembles that of a national state. This essay will focus on the free movement of goods, ‘goods’ defined in the case Commission v Italy2 as ‘products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions’ in this particular case cheese and yoghurt. Obstacles such as frontiers or the diversity of laws and culture must be removed in order to achieve a single market as expressed in the Gaston Schul case of 19823. This would mean removing custom duties and charges having an equivalent effect, taxes discriminating against imports, imposition of quotas or measures having equivalent effect to quotas.
Michael’s first legal challenge deals with the issue of customs duties on imports and exports and charges having equivalent effect to custom duties (CEE). Under Article 284 and under Article 305 all charges of custom duties or CEE’s are prohibited. The charge imposed by France on all imported dairy products in this case can be seen as a CEE because under the definition used in Commission v Italy6 it is a pecuniary charge imposed unilaterally by reason of the fact that it has crossed a frontier. The prohibitions of custom duties or CEE’s see no exemptions or derogations. They are seen as general absolute prohibitions by the European Court of Justice. The idea of states raising money because a good has crossed a frontier is incompatible with the ideal of a common market. Even though the charge imposed by France is one that is of good purpose it is illegal nevertheless. This is followed from the Diamantarbeiders7 case where the Belgian government imposed a levy on imported diamonds in order to provide social security benefits for
Bibliography: