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):		61975J0045
Název:
Title: 		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 17 FEBRUARY 1976. REWE-ZENTRALE DES LEBENSMITTEL-GROSSHANDELS GMBH V HAUPTZOLLAMT LANDAU/PFALZ. PRELIMINARY RULING REQUESTED BY THE FINANZGERICHT RHEINLAND-PFALZ. GERMAN SPIRITS MONOPOLY. CASE 45-75.
Publikace:
Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1976 PAGES 0181 - 0201
Předmět (klíčová slova):
Keywords		FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS;QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS;STATE MONOPOLIES OF A COMMERCIAL CHARACTER;TAXATION;
Související předpisy:
Corresponding acts:		157E095;157E037
Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty:
Corresponding Judgements:
Plný text:
Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:


Názor soudu a komentář:


Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1. ALTHOUGH, IN THE CONTEXT OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY, IT IS NOT FOR THE COURT TO RULE ON THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF A NATIONAL LAW WITH THE TREATY, IT DOES, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAVE JURISDICTION TO PROVIDE THE NATIONAL COURT WITH ALL THE CRITERIA OF INTERPRETATION RELATING TO COMMUNITY LAW WHICH MAY ENABLE IT TO JUDGE SUCH COMPATIBILITY.

2. THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 95 PRODUCES DIRECT EFFECTS AND CREATES INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WHICH NATIONAL COURTS MUST PROTECT.

3. A COMPARISON MUST BE MADE BETWEEN THE TAXATION IMPOSED ON PRODUCTS WHICH, AT THE SAME STAGE OF PRODUCTION OR MARKETING, HAVE SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS AND MEET THE SAME NEEDS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF CONSUMERS. IN THIS RESPECT, THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE DOMESTIC PRODUCT AND THE IMPORTED PRODUCT UNDER THE SAME HEADING IN THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF CONSTITUTES AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THIS ASSESSMENT.

4. THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 95 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF TAXATION ON AN IMPORTED PRODUCT ACCORDING TO A METHOD OF CALCULATION OR MANNER OF IMPOSITION WHICH DIFFERS FROM THOSE APPLYING TO THE TAX IMPOSED ON THE SIMILAR DOMESTIC PRODUCT AND LEADS TO HIGHER TAXATION ON THE IMPORTED PRODUCT, SUCH AS THE IMPOSITION OF A UNIFORM AMOUNT IN ONE CASE AND A GRADUATED AMOUNT IN THE OTHER, EVEN IF SUCH DISPARITY ONLY OCCURS IN A MINORITY OF CASES, AND THAT IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE POSSIBLY DIFFERENT EFFECTS OF SUCH TAXATION ON THE PRICE LEVELS OF THE TWO PRODUCTS.

5. THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 95 DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE IMPOSITION OF THE SAME TAXATION ON AN IMPORTED PRODUCT AND A SIMILAR DOMESTIC PRODUCT, EVEN IF A PART OF THE TAX LEVIED ON THE DOMESTIC PRODUCT IS ALLOCATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF FINANCING A STATE MONOPOLY, WHILST THAT LEVIED ON THE IMPORTED PRODUCT IS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL BUDGET OF THE STATE.

6. WHEN THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD HAS EXPIRED, THE DUTY LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 37 (1) IS NO LONGER SUBJECT TO ANY CONDITION, NOR CAN ITS PERFORMANCE OR EFFECTS BE SUBJECT TO THE ADOPTION OF ANY MEASURE EITHER BY THE COMMUNITY OR THE MEMBER STATES, AND, BY ITS VERY NATURE, IT IS CAPABLE OF CONFERRING ON THOSE CONCERNED INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WHICH NATIONAL COURTS MUST PROTECT.

7. THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 37 (1) IS NOT LIMITED TO IMPORTS OR EXPORTS WHICH ARE DIRECTLY SUBJECT TO THE MONOPOLY BUT COVERS ALL MEASURES WHICH ARE CONNECTED WITH ITS EXISTENCE AND AFFECT TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES IN CERTAIN PRODUCTS, WHETHER OR NOT SUBJECT TO THE MONOPOLY, AND THUS COVERS CHARGES WHICH WOULD RESULT IN DISCRIMINATION AGAINST IMPORTED PRODUCTS AS COMPARED WITH NATIONAL PRODUCTS COMING UNDER THE MONOPOLY. HOWEVER, THAT PROVISION DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE IMPOSITION OF IDENTICAL TAXATION ON AN IMPORTED PRODUCT AND A SIMILAR DOMESTIC PRODUCT, EVEN IF THE CHARGE IMPOSED ON THE LATTER IS, IN PART, ALLOCATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF FINANCING THE MONOPOLY, WHILST THE CHARGE LEVIED ON THE IMPORTED PRODUCT IS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL BUDGET OF THE STATE.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):