Chapter 18
ABOLITION OF CUSTOMS DUTIES AND CHARGES
HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT TO CUSTOMS
DUTIES (CEEs)
Question 1
Which of the following pecuniary impositions can be regarded as a CEE?
a. A charge for a mandatory inspection imposed by an EU regulation.
b. A charge for a mandatory inspection imposed by a Member State to ensure that products
from other Member States are in conformity with the high standards required under its
national law.
c. A charge for an inspection offered to importers with a view to certifying that the inspected
products are of the best quality.
a. This is an incorrect answer. If an inspection is required under EU law, or under
international law, a Member State is allowed to charge for that inspection provided the
amount charged does not exceed the real cost of carrying out the inspection. This exception to
the prohibition set out in Article 30 TFEU was examined by the ECJ in Case 18/87
Commission v Germany [Re Animals Inspection Fees].
b. This is the correct answer. The inspection in this case is mandatory only under national law
and thus not within the scope of the exception established in Case 18/87 Commission v
Germany [Re Animals Inspection Fees]. The inspection constitutes a measure having
equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction and as such is in breach of Article 34 TFEU.
Accordingly, a Member State cannot insist upon payment for an unlawful inspection.
c. This is an incorrect answer. The charge in this case is lawful. This is a genuine and specific
service offered and then accepted or refused at the choice of the trader.
Question 2
Which of the following pecuniary impositions can be regarded as a CEE?
a. A customs duty of €1 imposed by a Member State on all imported tobacco products
irrespective of whether they are imported from other Member States or third countries.
b. A supplementary payment imposed by a Member State on all imported and domestic
tobacco products with a view to financing a campaign advertising the benefits of
homeopathic products made from tobacco.
c. A charge called "dock dues" imposed by a Member State on all tobacco products imported
into that Member State’s overseas territories, irrespective of the country of origin, including
from the mainland of the imposing Member State itself. The purpose of "dock dues" being to
raise revenue in order to encourage the local economy.
a. This is an incorrect answer. This is a customs duty, not a CEE.
b. This is an incorrect answer. The charge is imposed without discrimination on both
imported and domestic products and it is to benefit both imported and domestic products. In
Case 77/76 Fratelli Cucchi v Avez SpA, the ECJ set out the criteria which should be applied
in order to assess whether a particular charge, which is applied indiscriminately on both
domestic and imported products, is contrary to Article 30 TFEU. The above charge neither
fulfils the Fratelli Cucchi criteria, nor constitutes an unlawful tax under Article 110 TFEU.
c. This is the correct answer. In Case 78/76 Firma Steinike und Weinlig v Bundesamt für
Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft, the ECJ held that a charge need not be levied at a border in
order to be a customs duty or CEE. Even a regional frontier is included. This was exemplified
by Joined Cases C-363 and C-407/93-411/93 Lancry and Others v Direction Générale des
Douanes and Others.
Question 3
Which of the following pecuniary impositions is NOT in breach of Article 30 TFEU?
a. A fee in respect of a mandatory inspection imposed by an EU regulation, the amount of the
fee being proportionate to the cost of the service.
b. A fee in respect of a mandatory inspection imposed by an EU regulation, the amount of the
fee depending on the value of the inspected goods.
c. A fee in respect of a mandatory inspection imposed by an EU regulation which specifies
the amount of the fee but which amount greatly exceeds the real cost of inspection.
a. This is the correct answer. A Member State is allowed to charge a fee for a mandatory
service required under EU or international law. The fee satisfies the four conditions set out in
Case 18/87 Commission v Germany [Re Animals Inspection Fees]
and is therefore lawful.
b. This is an incorrect answer. Although the inspection is lawful, as it is required under EU
law, the fee is unlawful. In Case 18/87 Commission v Germany [Re Animals Inspection
Fees], the ECJ held that a fee for a mandatory inspection must not exceed the actual cost of
the inspection. In Case 170/88 Ford España, the ECJ held that a fee calculated on the value
of the goods, instead of being based on the cost of the service, was in breach of Article 30
TFEU.
c. This is an incorrect answer. The EU regulation is in breach of Article 25 30 TFEU. A fee
for a mandatory inspection must not exceed the actual cost of the inspection.