ECJ (Judgment) A measure carried out by means of discriminatory taxation, which may be considered at the same time as forming part of an aid within the meaning of article 92 of the EEC treaty, is governed both by the provisions of the first paragraph of article 95 and by those applicable to aids granted by states. It follows that discriminatory tax practices are not exempted from the application of article 95 by reason of the fact that they may at the same time be described as a means of financing a state aid.
2. If the Commission charges a member state with practices which constitute an infringement of article 95 of the EEC treaty and if on that basis it has initiated the procedure under article 169 that procedure does not lose its purpose because the commission takes the view that the same practices form part of a system of aids incompatible with the common market and initiates the procedure provided for in article 93.
3. Authorization under article 38 of regulation ( EEC ) no 3330/74 to grant the aids provided for therein cannot be taken to mean that any method of financing such aids, whatever its character or conditions, is compatible with community law. On the contrary, the financing of the aid granted, the national authorities remain in particular subject to the obligations arising under the EEC treaty.
4. In an interpretation of the concept ‘internal taxation’ for the purposes of article 95 of the EEC treaty it may be necessary to take into account the purpose to which the revenue from the charge is put. In fact, if the revenue from such a charge is intended to finance activities for the special advantage of the taxed domestic products it may follow that the charge imposed on the basis of the same criteria on domestic and imported products nevertheless constitutes discriminatory taxation in so far as the fiscal burden on domestic products is neutralized by the advantages which the charge is used to finance whilst the charge on the imported products constitutes a net burden.
It follows that internal taxation is of such a nature as indirectly to impose a heavier burden on products from other member states than on domestic products if it is used exclusively or principally to finance aids for the sole benefit of domestic products.
5. The fact that the financial burdens arising from the imposition of a charge are passed on to the consumers does not alter the legal nature of the charge in question as regards article 95 of the EEC treaty.
Citations:
C-73/79, [1980] EUECJ C-73/79, [1980] ECR 1533
Links:
Jurisdiction:
European
Cited by:
Cited – Bloomsbury International Ltd v Sea Fish Industry Authority and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SC 15-Jun-2011
The 1995 Regulations imposed a levy on fish both caught and first landed in the UK and also on imported fish products. The claimants, importers challenged the validity of the latter charges, saying that they went beyond the power given by the 1981 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European
Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132864