Tutorial No 7: Free movement of goods (I) 6-7 April 2022

1. What are the main barriers to international trade?

Discriminatory taxatation- 110 TFEU

Vat 10%, 25%
WTO was created

Custom duties and other charges-

GATT- Bretton woods system
1947-1995
The European community never joined the GATT- instead they joined the WTO
Slow reduction of the GATT system and a move towards WTO

Technical barriers to trade-

Harmonisation of technical standards- if there are countries of different developments how
do their standards harmonise? The more developed country is a country that will more
likely prefer better quality products whereas the less will be less likely to pay
Mutual recognition- alternative or stepping stone to harmonisation, new approach
directives only create reluctance
Art. 34 TFEU-
‘Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be
prohibited between Member Statesʼ
Art. 35 TFEU-
’Quantitative restrictions on exports, and all measures having equivalent effect, shall be
prohibited between Member Statesʼ

Yonemoto
France- Germany

Cassis de Dijon- mutual, art 24

2. Briefly discuss the main provisions of TFEU governing the free movement of goods.

Art. 28- free circulation of goods within the EU by establishing a customs union
Free movement of goods border and then a border for the outside world- can have partial
and fully
e.g Turkey and the EU
products from third countries- benefit from three movement of good if they go through
customs: have to tick these boxes
1: customs formalities
2: customs duties
3: other requirements (technical standards)
No trade agreement- 30%
Part agreement- 20%
Full trade agreement- 0%

Art 30- Customs duties on imports and exports and charges having equivalent effect shall be
prohibited between Member States. This prohibition shall also apply to customs duties of a
fiscal nature
Charges having equivalent effect- They are levied duties
Case 2 and 3/69 Sociaal Fonds voor de Diamantarbeiders case where a charge on diamonds
imported into Belgium to contribute to a social fund for workers in the diamond industry
was found to be a CHEE even though the state did not benefit- 1/3 of a % was given to the
workers
Art 34- quantitive restrictive restrictions and measures- In Case 124/81 Commission v UK
(Import of UHT Milk) it was found that import licences acted as a quantitative restriction on
importers even though the licences were a mere formality and issued on request.
Total ban- prohibit both bans and quotas- they can however if they meet art 36
requirements- just one of the grounds, they are not protectionist measures
Conagate case- ban of porno in the UK- the argument

3. “Games4U” is a famous UK based producer of video game consoles. Its products are sold
all over the European Union, however in recent years “Games4U” has encountered serious
problems with authorities in several other Member States of the European Union.
• Commission v Italy- work of art case
• Good are values which can be transferred into money

In Poland a newly adopted law bans import of video game consoles. The government claims
that recent studies prove that computer games affect literacy of children and cause
behavioural problems as well as addiction. However, domestic production of video game
consoles is permitted.
• Quantitive restriction- art 34
• On public health grounds- could be but as they have domestic products it would not
work
• Use the directive- they could send a reference to preliminary ruling
• Infringement procedure- the court can request
• It could be potentially justified but it is intended to protect domestic

In France, imported game consoles are subject to 40 Euros charge per item on their
importation. The funds levied at the border are then transferred to charities attending to
persons suffering from computer games addiction.
Advise “Games4U” as to its rights in EU law.
• Art 30
• Commission v Italy statical levy case
 • Diamond workers case
• Carbonati
• Commission v Germany- if you have the charges, it is justifiable as long as you have
the….
• If you have a charge which is a payment of service to the importer
• This charge is in breach of art 30

She potentially can sue SNA and the state