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):		61969J0002
Název:
Title: 		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 1 JULY 1969. SOCIAAL FONDS VOOR DE DIAMANTARBEIDERS V SA CH. BRACHFELD AND SONS AND CHOUGOL DIAMOND CO.. PRELIMINARY RULING REQUESTED BY THE VREDERECHTER, ANTWERP. JOINED CASES 2 AND 3-69.
Publikace:
Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1969 PAGES 0211
Předmět (klíčová slova):
Keywords		FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS;CUSTOMS UNION;CHARGES HAVING AN EQUIVALENT EFFECT;COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF;TAXATION;
Související předpisy:
Corresponding acts:		157E009;157E012;368R0950
Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty:
Corresponding Judgements:
Plný text:
Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:


Názor soudu a komentář:


Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1. CUSTOMS DUTIES ARE PROHIBITED INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY CONSIDERATION OF THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE INTRODUCED AND THE DESTINATION OF THE REVENUE OBTAINED THEREFROM.

2. ANY PECUNIARY CHARGE, HOWEVER SMALL AND WHATEVER ITS DESIGNATION AND MODE OF APPLICATION, WHICH IS IMPOSED UNILATERALLY ON DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN GOODS WHEN THEY CROSS A FRONTIER, AND WHICH IS NOT A CUSTOMS DUTY IN THE STRICT SENSE, CONSTITUTES A CHARGE HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLES 9 AND 12 OF THE TREATY, EVEN IF IT IS NOT IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STATE, IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY OR PROTECTIVE IN EFFECT OR IF THE PRODUCT ON WHICH THE CHARGE IS IMPOSED IS NOT IN COMPETITION WITH ANY DOMESTIC PRODUCT.

3. (A) THE PROHIBITION OF NEW CUSTOMS DUTIES OR CHARGES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT, LINKED TO THE PRINCIPLE OF THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS, CONSTITUTES A FUNDAMENTAL RULE WHICH, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY, DOES NOT PERMIT OF ANY EXCEPTIONS. (B) IT FOLLOWS FROM ARTICLES 95 ET SEQ. THAT THE CONCEPT OF A CHARGE HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT DOES NOT INCLUDE TAXATION WHICH IS IMPOSED IN THE SAME WAY WITHIN A STATE ON IMPORTED PRODUCTS AND SIMILAR DOMESTIC PRODUCTS, OR WHICH FALLS, IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPARABLE DOMESTIC PRODUCTS, WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF GENERAL INTERNAL TAXATION, OR WHICH IS INTENDED TO COMPENSATE FOR TAXATION OF THIS NATURE WITHIN THE LIMITS LAID DOWN BY THE TREATY. THE RENDERING OF A SPECIFIC SERVICE MAY IN CERTAIN SPECIFIC CASES WARRANT THE PAYMENT OF A FEE IN PROPORTION TO THE SERVICE ACTUALLY RENDERED.

4. THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY LAYING DOWN PROHIBITIONS ON CUSTOMS DUTIES AND CHARGES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT IMPOSE PRECISE AND CLEARLY-DEFINED OBLIGATIONS ON MEMBER STATES WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SUBSEQUENT INTERVENTION BY COMMUNITY OR NATIONAL AUTHORITIES FOR THEIR IMPLEMENTATION. FOR THIS REASON, THESE PROVISIONS DIRECTLY CONFER RIGHTS ON INDIVIDUALS CONCERNED.

5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY LIMITATIONS WHICH MIGHT BE IMPOSED IN ORDER TO ATTAIN THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF, PECUNIARY CHARGES OTHER THAN CUSTOMS DUTIES PECUNIARY CHARGES OTHER THAN CUSTOMS DUTIES IN THE STRICT SENSE APPLIED BY A MEMBER STATE BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF THAT TARIFF ON GOODS IMPORTED DIRECTLY FROM THIRD COUNTRIES ARE NOT, ACCORDING TO THE TREATY, INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING THE GRADUAL ALIGNMENT OF NATIONAL CUSTOMS TARIFFS ON THE COMMON EXTERNAL TARIFF.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):