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):		61994J0126

	Název: Title:		ECJ Judgement of 7 November 1996 Case C-126-94 Société Cadi Surgelés, Société Sofrigu, Société Sofroi and Société Sofriber v Ministre des Finances and Directeur général des douanes Preliminary Ruling [1996] ECR I-5647 "Cadi Surgelés"

	Publikace: Publication:

	Předmět (klíčová slova): Keywords

	Související předpisy: Corresponding acts:

	Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty: Corresponding Judgements:		· Legros Case C-163/90 Administration des Douanes et Droits Indirects v Legros and Others [1992] ECR I-4625 · Lancry Joined Cases C-363/93, C-407/93, C-408/93, C-409/93, C-410/93 and C-411/93, Lancry and Others v Direction Générale des Douanes and Others [1994] ECR I-3957 · Diamantarbeiders Joined Cases 37/73 and 38/83 Diamantarbeiders v Indiamex [1973] ECR 1609


	Plný text: Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:
The plaintiffs, companies incorporated under French law with registered offices in the French overseas departments (DOM), have imported into the DOM goods from other regions of France, other Member States of the EC and third countries for several years. On the entry of thoses goods into the DOM, the plaintiffs have been required by the customs authorities to pay two charges, the "octroi de mer" (dock dues) and a "droit additionel" (additional duty). When the Common Customs Tariff (CCT) was introduced on 1 July 1968, a charge termed "octroi de mer", introduced by a 1946 law, was being levied on all imports. At the time of this case, a charge with the same name was levied as a "consumption tax" under a 1984 law, its basis of assessement being the customs value of the goods at the point of entry. This law also conferred on the DOM the option of introducing a 1% "droit additionnel" to be levied on the same basis.
In its Legros judgement of 16 July 1992, which concerned the "octroi de mer" as levied under the 1984 law, the Court ruled that a charge, proportional to the customs value of goods, levied by a Member States on goods, imported from another Member State by reason of their entry into a region of the former Member State constitutes a prohibited charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty, notwithstanding the fact the the charge is also imposed on goods entering that region from another part of the same State. In addition, in its Lancry judgement of 9 August 1994, the Court held that the "octroi de mer" constitutes a prohibited charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty also in so far as it is levied on goods entering that region from another part of the same State.
On the view that both duties were incompatible with the Treaty, the plaintiffs instituted proceedings for reimbursement of the charges levied and paid before the Tribunal d' Instance, Paris XII. On 5 January 1995, the Tribunal reformulated an earlier reference question on the interpretation of Arts. 23, 25, 133 and 229(2) TEC (ex Arts. 9, 12, 113 and 227(2)), asking the Court whether a Member State is precluded from levying charges having effects equivalent to customs duties even on goods from non-member countries not connected to the EC by a special agreement, even though goods imported by other Member State from the same non-member countries are not subject to that charge.

Názor soudu a komentář:
The Court first points to Art. 23 (ex Art. 9) TEC, under which the EC is based on a customs union which covers all trade in goods and which involves the abolition of internal taxes and the adoption of a CCT with regard to trade with non-member countries. According to the Diamantarbeiders judgement , the CCT is intended to achieve an equalisation of customs charges on products from third countries, in order to avoid any distortion of free internal circulation or of competitive conditions. Summarising this judgement, the Court concludes that a Member State may not, after 1 July 1968, unilaterally introduce new charges on goods imported from third countries or raise the level of those in existence at that time (existing duties). While, consequently, a Member State has no right unilaterally to add national charges to Community duties, it may introduce charges which have an effect equivalent to existing duties. Even though such are equally incompatible with the principle of uniformity underlying the CCT, their reduction and elimination is a matter for the Community institutions only. Since Member States' option to retain existing duties constitutes, therefore, an exception to the uniformity principle, it must be narrowly construed. Accordingly, only a charge sharing all essential characteristics of an existing duty is still allowed.
This categorisation is the task of the national court which must, consequently, take into account all the characteristic elements of a charge, in particular its designation, the chargeable event, the basis of assessment, the criteria for its application, the taxable persons and the way in which the revenue raised is applied. Along these lines, while a mere change, as part of an administrative reorganisation, in the authority responsible for collecting a charge does not per se change the character of an existing charge, the mere fact that a currently applied charge is still designated by the same name as an existing charge is not enough. Should the national court decide that the "octroi de mer" is to be categorised as an existing charge, it must then verify whether it has been increased since 1 July 1968. According to the Court, it is clear from the judgement in Diamantarbeiders that any increase since that date, however small, is incompatible with EC law. As regards the "droit additionnel", such a tax is at any rate incompatible with the Treaty, irrespective of whether it is categorised as an increase in the "octroi de mer" or as a new charge.
In respect of the request of the French Government to limit the effects of the present judgement in time on account of overriding considerations of legal certainty, the Court fixes the date of the Legros judgement (16 July 1992) as the deadline for reimbursement claims. As regards the subsequent period, the Court holds that the French Government could not reasonably continue to believe that the "droit additionnel" or the "octroi de mer" were consistent with EC law; the latter in its entirety, if categorised by the national court as a new charge, or, if categorised as an existing charge, in so far as it had subsequently been increased.
Viewed in context, this decision is, after the Legros , Lancry and Diamantarbeiders judgements , but the logical completion of the restrictive overall regime the Court applies to custom duties and charges having equivalent effect levied by the Member States after the introduction of the CCT on 1 July 1968.

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):