Odbor kompatibility s právem ES Úřad vlády ČR	I S A P Informační Systém pro Aproximaci Práva
	Databáze č. 17 : Databáze judikatury

ă Odbor kompatibility s právem ES, Úřad vlády ČR - určeno pouze pro potřebu ministerstev a ostatních ústředních orgánů


	Číslo (Kód CELEX): Number (CELEX Code):		61994J0045

	Název: Title:		Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 1995. Camara de Comercio, Industria y Navegacion de Ceuta v Ayuntamiento de Ceuta. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía - Spain. Free movement of goods - Act of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain - Provisions applicable to Ceuta and Melilla - Charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty. Case C-45/94.

	Publikace: Publication:		European Court Reports 1995 page I-4385

	Předmět (klíčová slova): Keywords

	Související předpisy: Corresponding acts:

	Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty: Corresponding Judgements:		Leplat Case C-260/90 Leplat v Territory of French Polynesia [1992] ECR I-643 · Lancry Joined Cases C-363, 407 and 411/93 Lancry v Direction Générale des Douanes [1994] ECR I-3957 · Schul Case 15/81 Schul v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen [1982] ECR 1409 · [569] Dias Case C-343/90 Dias v Director da Anfândega do Porto [1992] ECR I-4673 · Bergandi Case 252/86 Bergandi v Directeur-Général des Impôts [1988] ECR 1343


	Plný text: Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:
Ceuta and Melilla are Spanish territories onthe coast of North Africa. Pursuant to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Spain and the adjustments to the Treaties
Of 12 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 302, p. 23).
(hereinafter the “Act of Accession”) they enjoy a special status. In particular, the customs territory of the Community is not to include the Canary Islands and Ceuta and Melilla (Article 1(2) of the Protocol No 2 to the Act of Accession). However, products originating in the customs territory of the Community shall qualify for exemption from the customs duties and charges having an equivalent effect (Article 6(1) of Protocol No 2) and “customs duties existing in the Canary Islands and in Ceuta and Melilla and the charge konwn as the ‘arbitrio insular - tarifa general’ [hereinafter: “the arbitrio”] existing in the Canary Island shall be abolished (…)” (Article 6(2) of Protocol No 2). Furthermore, Article 31 of the Act of Accession provides for the abolition, by 1 January 1993 at the latest, of customs duties on imports.
The “arbitrio” mentioned above was (also) levied in Ceuta on the import of goods. In order to maintain that charge after the accession of the Kingdom of Spain to the European Communities, the Spanish legislature decided to extend the scope of that charge to goods produced in Ceuta.
The Cámara de Comercio, Industria y Navegación, Ceuta, considering the arbitrio to be unlawful, brought an action for the annulment before the Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Andalusia. The Tribunal Superior found that while the arbitrio in its new form applied to both, goods produced in Ceuta as well as imported goods, it was nonetheless structured in such a way as to result in the “almost total absence of any additional tax burden on internal operations” while at the same time maintaining an actual charge on imports from the customs territory of the Community. It therefore stayed the proceedings and referred to the Court of Justice the question whether the arbitrio was compatible with the Act of Accession.

Názor soudu a komentář:
The Court had to resolve two issues: (i) whether, under the Act of Accession, the provisions of the Treaty relating to customs duties and charges having an equivalent effect (Articles 9, 12) and to internal taxation (Article 95) also applied to the territory of Ceuta and, if so, (ii) whether the arbitrio is incompatible with Articles 9, 12
Respectively Article 4(a) of the ECSC Treaty which contains an equivalent prohibition.
or Article 95 of the Treaty.
The Court affirms the first question. The Municipality of Ceuta had argued that, following the wording of Protocol No 2, only customs duties existing in Ceuta were to be abolished but not also charges having an equivalent effect. The Court rejects this argument, relying on its established case-law according to which “a measure dealing with customs duties but not expressly mentioning charges having an equivalent effect may be understood as being intended also to refer to such charges” (
Leplat
). Thus, the prohibition of customs duties and charges having an equivalent effect (Articles 9 and 12 of the Treaty) also applied to Ceuta and, as the Court specifies, this is true not only in respect of products imported from Spain but also to products imported from the rest of the Community territory (
Lancry
). The applicability of Article 95 of the Treaty followed from Article 25 of the Act of Accession.
The Court, however, was unable to give a conclusive answer to the second question since it found that the order for reference, speaking of the “almost total absence of any additional tax burden on internal operations” did sufficiently clearly establish the effect of the arbitrio. The Court therefore merely gives some guidelines under which the national court was to assess the compatibility of the arbitrio with Community law.
With regard to the relation between measures having an equivalent effect to customs duties (Articles 9, 12) on the one hand and internal taxation (Article 95) on the other, the Court points out that “any pecuniary charge, whatever its designation and mode of application, which is imposed unilaterally on domestic or foreign 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 an equivalent effect within the meaning of Articles 9, 12, 13 and 16 of the Treaty. However, such a charge may not be so characterized if it forms part of a general system of internal dues applying systematically to categories of products according to objective criteria applied without regard of the origin of the products” (
Schul;
[569]
Dias
).
The Court goes on to give instructions as to the interpretation of Article 95 of the Treaty. This provision intends to ensure free movement of goods in normal conditions of competition, not distorted by any discrimination resulting from fiscal dues. Requiring the neutrality of Internal taxation as regards competition between domestic products and imported products, Article 95 “applies whenever a fiscal levy is likely to discourage imports of goods originating in other Member States to the benefit of national production” (
Bergandi
). The national court therefore has to ascertain whether the legislation as well as its application by the administration is “such as to establish, in a transparent manner, a general system applying, on the basis of objective criteria, without distinction to local products and to imports”. With regard to the fact that the legislation at issue lays down, separately, the system applying to imported products and that applying to local products, the Court adds that this does not necessarily mean that it is not a general system of internal taxation. If, however, as a consequence, either the rules are so opaque that objective criteria unrelated to the origin of imported and local products can not be recognized or the administrative authorities apply the rules so as to systematically disadvantage imported products, then they cannot be regarded as constituting a system of internal taxation within the meaning of Article 95.

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):