This question will discuss the free movement of goods and it involves the abolition quantitative trade barriers
and provides the basis for the European union internal market. This arose from article 26 1 – the internal
market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of good. Part a of this
essay will look into a possibly unfair taxation system and the similarity of products.
Article 110 TFEU2, previously known as article 90 TEC, defined by Commission v Denmark 3 sets out the purpose
of article 110, to prohibit member states from imposing discriminatory fiscal policies, directly or indirectly, to
goods already in member states. Article 110 is split into two parts, the first prohibits discriminatory taxation in
respect of goods that are similar and the second prohibits unequal taxation on products that are in direct
competition. For article 110 (1) there are ways to test for similar products, firstly factual comparison which will
include characteristics of product and the type of consumer, but on the other hand Commission V France 4
established that weather two products are similar is not determined on the basis of strictly the identical nature
of the product but on the use of the product. Discrimination on grounds of origin could occur which is
established depending on nationality, process and taste.
If the taxation were found to be in violation of article 110 (1) there are two possible remedies at hand, equalise
the taxes imposed on domestic and imported goods or higher taxes on all good, or extending a benefit enjoyed
by domestic and imported or lower the tax on all goods.
Both turkey and chicken are forms of poultry which could be considered a substantial similarity thus I will be
applying article 110 (1) as it deals with unfair taxation on similar products. It fails the test for similar products
as the actual characteristics of turkey and chicken are vastly different and the type of consumer needs differ as
chicken are also largely used for their eggs, seen in Commission v France.
Due to this question regarding taxation of similar good and part (1) and (2) being mutually exclusive I will only
be applying part 1 of the article. Discrimination based on origin does occur as the taxation is ‘applicable to
everyone with no discrimination against importers’ ergo there are no grounds for violating article 110 (1).
On the basis of the facts applied and turkey chicken not passing the test for similarity it is unlikely the court will
find the taxation on turkey to be of a discriminatory nature due to not violating Article 110 thus I would advise
Turkey Slice Ltd to not challenge this rule as there is no direct or indirect discriminatory taxation.
In regards to second part of this essay the issue at hand is regarding article 34 5which prohibits quantitative
restrictions and measures having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction. Quantitative restrictions are
limits imposed on the quantity of goods that are imported or exported, they are imposed to discourage
imports and thus protect domestic industries from competition from cheaper and technologically advanced
goods manufactures by other nations. Quantitive restrictions is defined under the case of Geddo v Ente
Nazionale Risi6 which is ‘measures which amount to a total or partial restraint of imports, exports or goods in
transit’.These measures are prohibited under article 34 unless justified under article 36 7 which allows member
states to make these restrictions if they are for non- economic reasons such as a public health or policy and
must have direct effect on the public interest to be protected, seen in Cassis De Dijon. 8 Article 34 has direct
effect, first established in Dassonville.9 Article 36 TFEU has an exhaustive list, in this scenario the most
applicable is the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants which is established in Commission
1
Article 26 TFEU (ex-Article 14 TEC)
2
Article 110 TFEU (ex-article 90)
3
Commission V Denmark (1986)
4
Commission V France (1997)
5
Article 34 TFEU (ex-article 28)
6
Geddo v Ente Nazionale Risi (1973)
7
Article 36 TFEU (ex-article 30)
8
Cassis de Dijon (1979)
9
Dassonville (1974)
and provides the basis for the European union internal market. This arose from article 26 1 – the internal
market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of good. Part a of this
essay will look into a possibly unfair taxation system and the similarity of products.
Article 110 TFEU2, previously known as article 90 TEC, defined by Commission v Denmark 3 sets out the purpose
of article 110, to prohibit member states from imposing discriminatory fiscal policies, directly or indirectly, to
goods already in member states. Article 110 is split into two parts, the first prohibits discriminatory taxation in
respect of goods that are similar and the second prohibits unequal taxation on products that are in direct
competition. For article 110 (1) there are ways to test for similar products, firstly factual comparison which will
include characteristics of product and the type of consumer, but on the other hand Commission V France 4
established that weather two products are similar is not determined on the basis of strictly the identical nature
of the product but on the use of the product. Discrimination on grounds of origin could occur which is
established depending on nationality, process and taste.
If the taxation were found to be in violation of article 110 (1) there are two possible remedies at hand, equalise
the taxes imposed on domestic and imported goods or higher taxes on all good, or extending a benefit enjoyed
by domestic and imported or lower the tax on all goods.
Both turkey and chicken are forms of poultry which could be considered a substantial similarity thus I will be
applying article 110 (1) as it deals with unfair taxation on similar products. It fails the test for similar products
as the actual characteristics of turkey and chicken are vastly different and the type of consumer needs differ as
chicken are also largely used for their eggs, seen in Commission v France.
Due to this question regarding taxation of similar good and part (1) and (2) being mutually exclusive I will only
be applying part 1 of the article. Discrimination based on origin does occur as the taxation is ‘applicable to
everyone with no discrimination against importers’ ergo there are no grounds for violating article 110 (1).
On the basis of the facts applied and turkey chicken not passing the test for similarity it is unlikely the court will
find the taxation on turkey to be of a discriminatory nature due to not violating Article 110 thus I would advise
Turkey Slice Ltd to not challenge this rule as there is no direct or indirect discriminatory taxation.
In regards to second part of this essay the issue at hand is regarding article 34 5which prohibits quantitative
restrictions and measures having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction. Quantitative restrictions are
limits imposed on the quantity of goods that are imported or exported, they are imposed to discourage
imports and thus protect domestic industries from competition from cheaper and technologically advanced
goods manufactures by other nations. Quantitive restrictions is defined under the case of Geddo v Ente
Nazionale Risi6 which is ‘measures which amount to a total or partial restraint of imports, exports or goods in
transit’.These measures are prohibited under article 34 unless justified under article 36 7 which allows member
states to make these restrictions if they are for non- economic reasons such as a public health or policy and
must have direct effect on the public interest to be protected, seen in Cassis De Dijon. 8 Article 34 has direct
effect, first established in Dassonville.9 Article 36 TFEU has an exhaustive list, in this scenario the most
applicable is the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants which is established in Commission
1
Article 26 TFEU (ex-Article 14 TEC)
2
Article 110 TFEU (ex-article 90)
3
Commission V Denmark (1986)
4
Commission V France (1997)
5
Article 34 TFEU (ex-article 28)
6
Geddo v Ente Nazionale Risi (1973)
7
Article 36 TFEU (ex-article 30)
8
Cassis de Dijon (1979)
9
Dassonville (1974)
