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):		61976J0046

	Název: Title:		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 25 JANUARY 1977. W.J.G. BAUHUIS V THE NETHERLANDS STATE. PRELIMINARY RULING REQUESTED BY THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK OF THE HAGUE. CASE 46-76.

	Publikace: Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1977 PAGES 0005 - 0022

	Předmět (klíčová slova): Keywords		FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS;QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS;AGRICULTURE;BEEF AND VEAL;PIGMEAT;VETERINARY LEGISLATION;TAXATION;CUSTOMS UNION;CHARGES HAVING AN EQUIVALENT EFFECT;

	Související předpisy: Corresponding acts:		157E016;364L0432;157E030

	Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty: Corresponding Judgements:		·[484a] Bakker · Denkavit Case 132/78 Denkavit v France [1979] ECR 1923 · Case 152/82 Commission v Denmark [1983] ECR 3573 · Case 18/87 Commission v Germany [1988] ECR 5427


	Plný text: Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:
Mr Bauhuis, a cattle dealer, from 1966 to 1971 exported live animals from the Netherlands to other Member States. The exportation was subject to prior veterinary and public health inspections carried out by the Netherlands administrative authorities for which Mr Bauhuis was required to pay fees. The fees were charged, (1) on the occasion of veterinary and public inspections provided for by Council Directive 64/432/EEC
Of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (OJ English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 164).
and (2) on the occasion of veterinary and public health inspections other than those laid down in this directive and (3) on animals other than those referred to in the directive and coming solely within the provisions of national law.
Subsequently, Mr Bauhuis initiated proceedings against the Netherlands seeking a refund of the fees paid, arguing that these fees are charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties on exports prohibited as from 1 January 1962 by Article 16 of the Treaty. The Arrondissementsrechtbank, The Hague, stayed the proceedings and referred to the Court the questions whether the fees charged were compatible with Community law.

Názor soudu a komentář:
The Court first establishes the legal framework within which the questions referred have to be answered. For the purpose of abrogating obstacles to the free movement of goods which would result from pecuniary charges imposed on goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier and from the administrative formalities resulting from such charge, Article 16 of the Treaty provides that the Member States shall abolish between themselves customs duties on exports and charges having an equivalent effect. “[A]ny pecuniary charge, whatever its designation and mode of application, which is imposed unilaterally on 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 equivalent effect within the meaning of Articles 9, 12, 13 and 16 of the Treaty, even if it is not imposed for the benefit of the State. This position would be different only if the charge in question is the consideration for a benefit provided in fact for the exporter representing an amount proportionate to the said benefit or if it related to a general system of internal dues applied systematically in accordance with the same criteria to domestic products and imported products alike” (see also [484a]
Bakker; Denkavit;
Case 152/82) The derogation contained in Article 36 of the Treaty cannot be invoked to justify a “charge having an equivalent effect”. As a derogation of the basic rule of free movement of goods, this provision is to be construed strictly and thus cannot be understood as authorizing measures of a different nature from those referred to in Articles 30 to 34. “Consequently, although Article 36 does not prevent veterinary and public health inspections, it cannot nevertheless be interpreted as thereby permitting the imposition of charges levied on imported goods subjected to the said inspections and intended to cover the costs thereof.”
The Court then addresses the different inspections which gave rise to the fees charged separately. As regards the fee charged under the inspection undertaken pursuant to Directive 64/432, the Court points out that these charges, which are intended to cover the actual costs of a veterinary inspection required by Community law, cannot be regarded as charges having an equivalent effect (see also [484a]
Bakker
; Case 18/87). In fact, it would appear contradictory if the costs for such inspection, which is required by a Community measure intended to establish a harmonized system of inspections to the end of facilitating the free movement of goods, would be regarded as incompatible with the Treaty.
However, fees charged by the exporting State for veterinary and public health inspections carried out by the authorities of that State, which are not required by a Community regulation or directive but which have been prescribed for the purpose of checking whether the conditions to which the Member State of destination has made the importation subject have been complied with, constitute charges having an equivalent effect to customs duties. While Article 36 may justify the restriction to the free movement of goods resulting from such inspection, this provision cannot - in addition - permit the collection of duties charged on the goods subjected to these inspections, since this collection is not necessary for the exercise of the powers provided for by Article 36 and therefore constitutes an additional obstacle to intra-Communtiy trade.

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1. ANY PECUNIARY CHARGE, WHATEVER ITS DESIGNATION AND MODE OF APPLICATION, WHICH IS IMPOSED UNILATERALLY ON 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 EQUIVALENT EFFECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLES 9, 12, 13 AND 16 OF THE TREATY, EVEN IF IT IS NOT IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STATE. THE POSITION WOULD BE DIFFERENT ONLY IF THE CHARGE IN QUESTION IS THE CONSIDERATION FOR A BENEFIT PROVIDED IN FACT FOR THE EXPORTER REPRESENTING AN AMOUNT PROPORTIONATE TO THE SAID BENEFIT OR IF IT RELATED TO A GENERAL SYSTEM OF INTERNAL DUES APPLIED SYSTEMATICALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAME CRITERIA TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTS AND IMPORTED PRODUCTS ALIKE.

2. ARTICLE 36 IS TO BE INTERPRETED STRICTLY SINCE IT CONSTITUTES A DEROGATION FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF THE ELIMINATION OF ALL OBSTACLES TO THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES. IT IS NOT TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS AUTHORIZING MEASURES OF A NATURE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE CONTEMPLATED BY ARTICLES 30 TO 34.

3. ARTICLE 36, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS WHICH IT PRESCRIBES, DOES NOT PREVENT THE RETENTION OF CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS. IN THIS RESPECT IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT THE INSPECTIONS CARRIED OUT BY IMPORTING STATES ON THE OCCASION OF THE CROSSING OF THE FRONTIER ARE REPLACED BY INSPECTIONS INITIALLY CARRIED OUT BY THE EXPORTING MEMBER STATE. HOWEVER ARTICLE 36 DOES NOT PERMIT THE COLLECTION OF DUTIES CHARGED ON THE GOODS SUBJECTED TO THESE INSPECTIONS SINCE THIS COLLECTION IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE PROCESS PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 36 AND THEREFORE CONSTITUTES AN ADDITIONAL OBSTACLE TO INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE.

4. IF THE FEES FOR VETERINARY AND PUBLIC HEALTH INSPECTIONS ARE DEMANDED IN THE CASE OF INTERNAL MARKETING AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF EXPORTATION THEN THEY FORM PART OF A GENERAL SYSTEM OF DOMESTIC CHARGES AND ARE NOT CHARGES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO A CUSTOMS DUTY ON EXPORTS BUT FALL WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMI- NATION UNDER ARTICLE 95 OF THE TREATY.

5. FEES CHARGED FOR VETERINARY AND PUBLIC HEALTH INSPECTIONS, WHICH ARE PRESCRIBED BY A COMMUNITY PROVISION, WHICH ARE UNIFORM AND ARE REQUIRED TO BE CARRIED OUT BEFORE DESPATCH WITHIN THE EXPORTING COUNTRY DO NOT CONSTITUTE CHARGES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO CUSTOMS DUTIES ON EXPORTS, PROVIDED THAT THEY DO NOT EXCEED THE ACTUAL COST OF THE INSPECTION FOR WHICH THEY WERE CHARGED.

6. APART FROM THE EXCEPTIONS LAID DOWN BY THE DIRECTIVE ITSELF, ANY ADDITIONAL INSPECTION OF BOVINE ANIMALS OR SWINE FOR EXPORT TO ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IMPOSED UNILATERALLY BY A MEMBER STATE, WHETHER ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE OR IN ORDER TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE, WHICH ARE NO LONGER JUSTIFIED, WOULD CONSTITUTE A MEASURE HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO A QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTION AND ANY FEE CHARGED ON THIS OCCASION WOULD, FOR THAT REASON, BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):