Liam Coninx Stappenplannen Law of The Internal Market
2025-2026
Week 1: Free movement of goods: financial restrictions
Sub: custom duties and CEE’s (art. 28-30)
1. Is it a good?
Definition of goods: ‘products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as
such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions’ (Commission v Italy [Art
Treasures])
➥ Conditions:
➞ Can it be valued in money?
➞ Can it be subject to a commercial transaction?
Exceptions:
➥ Schindler (lottery tickets): something that is gained by winning is not a good.
➥ Jägersköld v Gustafsson (fishing license): something that is given by the state is
not a good.
*Is it a financial or non-financial restriction? Financial: week 1 / quantitative: week 2
2. Is there a financial restriction?
Art. 28-30 TFEU: prohibition on custom duties and charges having equivalent effect
(CEE’s).
➥ Duties and charges applying when goods cross the border.
For CEE’s (a.k.a. custom duties in disguise), the CJEU looks at the effect of the duty.
➥ No matter how small the charge (Commission v Italy [Art Treasures])
➥ No matter if it benefits the State (Commission v Italy [Statical Levy])
➥ No matter the purpose (Sociaal Fonds voor Diamantarbeiders)
3. Can it be justified?
Duties and CEE’s caught by Art. 30 TFEU are unlawful per se ➞ there is no justification
possible.
➥ There are two exceptions:
➞ 1. Services rendered by the importer (because you chose to do this
yourself)
Be aware: payments must be proportionate to the service
➥ Commission v Belgium [warehousing]
➥ Commission v Italy [custom offices]
➞ 2. Charge levied to cover the cost of mandatory EU health inspection
➥ Conditions:
➞ (1) Must be mandatory by EU law
➞ (2) Must be applied uniformly
➞ (3) Charges must not exceed the cost of the product
➞ (4) It must promote the free movement of goods
➥ Commission V Germany [health inspection imported meat]
➩ If it is not justifiable: reimbursement (= terugbetaling) (San Giorgio)
1
,Liam Coninx Stappenplannen Law of The Internal Market
2025-2026
Sub: Internal Taxation (art. 110-113)
1. Is it a good?
Definition of goods: ‘products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as
such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions’ (Commission v Italy [Art
Treasures])
➥ Conditions:
➞ Can it be valued in money?
➞ Can it be subject to a commercial transaction?
Exceptions:
➥ Schindler (lottery tickets): something that is gained by winning is not a good.
➥ Jägersköld v Gustafsson (fishing license): something that is given by the state is
not a good.
*Is it a financial or non-financial restriction? Financial: scheme week 1 / quantitative: scheme week 2
2. Is there a tax?
Definition of internal tax: ‘a charge is an internal tax if it relates to a general system
of internal duties applied systematically to categories of products in accordance with
objective criteria irrespective of the origin of the products’ (Co-Frutta)
➥ Conditions:
➞ Based on objective criteria
➞ Can’t be based on origin of the product
3. Is there a reason for the difference in tax that is not the origin?
➥ Yes: no violation of Art. 110 TFEU.
➥ No: Art. 110 TFEU applies.
Based on the following cases, the difference in tax can’t be based on the origin: Bergandi,
Commission v France [natural sweets], Humblot, Chemical Farmaceutici SpA, Commission
v Greece [cars].
4. Are the goods similar of in competition? ➞ Compare both products (Johnny
Walker)
Similar (Art. 110 (1) TFEU): no discrimination allowed
➥ Direct discrimination can’t be justified (discrimination because of origin)
➥ Indirect discrimination can be justified (discrimination does not have to goal
to discriminate)
➞ Is there a legitimate aim?
➞ Is it appropriate to achieve the aim?
➞ Is it proportionate (suitable + necessary)?
➞ Cost-benefit analysis (does the benefits outweigh the costs?)
In competition (Art. 110 (2) TFEU): Member State must neutralise the competition
➥ For this, we have to do a cross-elastic test to check if the goods are related to each
other
(Commission V UK [Beer and wine] – both are alcohol so if one gets more expensive the
other will be bought more so they are related). If they are not related to each other it
doesn’t matter.
2
,Liam Coninx Stappenplannen Law of The Internal Market
2025-2026
3
, Liam Coninx Stappenplannen Law of The Internal Market
2025-2026
Week 2: Free movement of goods: quantitative
restrictions
1. Is it a good?
Definition of goods: ‘products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as
such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions’ (Commission v Italy [Art
Treasures])
➥ Conditions:
➞ Can it be valued in money?
➞ Can it be subject to a commercial transaction?
Exceptions:
➥ Schindler (lottery tickets): something that is gained by winning is not a good.
➥ Jägersköld v Gustafsson (fishing license): something that is given by the state is
not a good.
*Is it a financial or non-financial restriction? Financial: scheme week 1 / quantitative: scheme week 2
2. Is it a problem of import or export?
➥ Import: Art. 34 TFEU.
➥ Export: Art. 35 TFEU.
3. Is it a quantitative restriction (QR) or a measure having equivalent effect to
a quantitative restriction (MEQR)
Quantitative restriction: ‘measures which amount to a total or partial restraint of (…)
imports, exports or goods in transit’ (Geddo)
➥ Ex. quota or ban
MEQR : ‘all trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering,
directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-community trade (…)’ (Dassonville – for
imports) (Gysbrechts – for export)
➥ Conditions:
➞ Enacted by a Member State
➞ Directly or indirectly
➞ Actually or potentially
➥ There is no requirement of actual hindering of trade (Commission V Ireland [Buy
Irish]).
➥ The intent behind the rules is irrelevant (Cassis de Dijon).
➥ It doesn’t need to be a formal rule.
➥ There are 3 types of MEQR’s:
➞ Distinctly applicable MEQR (= direct discrimination) (Dassonville).
➞ Indistinctly applicable MEQR (= indirect discrimination) (Cassis de Dijon).
➞ Any other measure hindering market access
Extra info:
➥ Dual burden: two different conditions in both States.
➥ Equal burden: same condition in both States.
4
2025-2026
Week 1: Free movement of goods: financial restrictions
Sub: custom duties and CEE’s (art. 28-30)
1. Is it a good?
Definition of goods: ‘products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as
such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions’ (Commission v Italy [Art
Treasures])
➥ Conditions:
➞ Can it be valued in money?
➞ Can it be subject to a commercial transaction?
Exceptions:
➥ Schindler (lottery tickets): something that is gained by winning is not a good.
➥ Jägersköld v Gustafsson (fishing license): something that is given by the state is
not a good.
*Is it a financial or non-financial restriction? Financial: week 1 / quantitative: week 2
2. Is there a financial restriction?
Art. 28-30 TFEU: prohibition on custom duties and charges having equivalent effect
(CEE’s).
➥ Duties and charges applying when goods cross the border.
For CEE’s (a.k.a. custom duties in disguise), the CJEU looks at the effect of the duty.
➥ No matter how small the charge (Commission v Italy [Art Treasures])
➥ No matter if it benefits the State (Commission v Italy [Statical Levy])
➥ No matter the purpose (Sociaal Fonds voor Diamantarbeiders)
3. Can it be justified?
Duties and CEE’s caught by Art. 30 TFEU are unlawful per se ➞ there is no justification
possible.
➥ There are two exceptions:
➞ 1. Services rendered by the importer (because you chose to do this
yourself)
Be aware: payments must be proportionate to the service
➥ Commission v Belgium [warehousing]
➥ Commission v Italy [custom offices]
➞ 2. Charge levied to cover the cost of mandatory EU health inspection
➥ Conditions:
➞ (1) Must be mandatory by EU law
➞ (2) Must be applied uniformly
➞ (3) Charges must not exceed the cost of the product
➞ (4) It must promote the free movement of goods
➥ Commission V Germany [health inspection imported meat]
➩ If it is not justifiable: reimbursement (= terugbetaling) (San Giorgio)
1
,Liam Coninx Stappenplannen Law of The Internal Market
2025-2026
Sub: Internal Taxation (art. 110-113)
1. Is it a good?
Definition of goods: ‘products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as
such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions’ (Commission v Italy [Art
Treasures])
➥ Conditions:
➞ Can it be valued in money?
➞ Can it be subject to a commercial transaction?
Exceptions:
➥ Schindler (lottery tickets): something that is gained by winning is not a good.
➥ Jägersköld v Gustafsson (fishing license): something that is given by the state is
not a good.
*Is it a financial or non-financial restriction? Financial: scheme week 1 / quantitative: scheme week 2
2. Is there a tax?
Definition of internal tax: ‘a charge is an internal tax if it relates to a general system
of internal duties applied systematically to categories of products in accordance with
objective criteria irrespective of the origin of the products’ (Co-Frutta)
➥ Conditions:
➞ Based on objective criteria
➞ Can’t be based on origin of the product
3. Is there a reason for the difference in tax that is not the origin?
➥ Yes: no violation of Art. 110 TFEU.
➥ No: Art. 110 TFEU applies.
Based on the following cases, the difference in tax can’t be based on the origin: Bergandi,
Commission v France [natural sweets], Humblot, Chemical Farmaceutici SpA, Commission
v Greece [cars].
4. Are the goods similar of in competition? ➞ Compare both products (Johnny
Walker)
Similar (Art. 110 (1) TFEU): no discrimination allowed
➥ Direct discrimination can’t be justified (discrimination because of origin)
➥ Indirect discrimination can be justified (discrimination does not have to goal
to discriminate)
➞ Is there a legitimate aim?
➞ Is it appropriate to achieve the aim?
➞ Is it proportionate (suitable + necessary)?
➞ Cost-benefit analysis (does the benefits outweigh the costs?)
In competition (Art. 110 (2) TFEU): Member State must neutralise the competition
➥ For this, we have to do a cross-elastic test to check if the goods are related to each
other
(Commission V UK [Beer and wine] – both are alcohol so if one gets more expensive the
other will be bought more so they are related). If they are not related to each other it
doesn’t matter.
2
,Liam Coninx Stappenplannen Law of The Internal Market
2025-2026
3
, Liam Coninx Stappenplannen Law of The Internal Market
2025-2026
Week 2: Free movement of goods: quantitative
restrictions
1. Is it a good?
Definition of goods: ‘products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as
such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions’ (Commission v Italy [Art
Treasures])
➥ Conditions:
➞ Can it be valued in money?
➞ Can it be subject to a commercial transaction?
Exceptions:
➥ Schindler (lottery tickets): something that is gained by winning is not a good.
➥ Jägersköld v Gustafsson (fishing license): something that is given by the state is
not a good.
*Is it a financial or non-financial restriction? Financial: scheme week 1 / quantitative: scheme week 2
2. Is it a problem of import or export?
➥ Import: Art. 34 TFEU.
➥ Export: Art. 35 TFEU.
3. Is it a quantitative restriction (QR) or a measure having equivalent effect to
a quantitative restriction (MEQR)
Quantitative restriction: ‘measures which amount to a total or partial restraint of (…)
imports, exports or goods in transit’ (Geddo)
➥ Ex. quota or ban
MEQR : ‘all trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering,
directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-community trade (…)’ (Dassonville – for
imports) (Gysbrechts – for export)
➥ Conditions:
➞ Enacted by a Member State
➞ Directly or indirectly
➞ Actually or potentially
➥ There is no requirement of actual hindering of trade (Commission V Ireland [Buy
Irish]).
➥ The intent behind the rules is irrelevant (Cassis de Dijon).
➥ It doesn’t need to be a formal rule.
➥ There are 3 types of MEQR’s:
➞ Distinctly applicable MEQR (= direct discrimination) (Dassonville).
➞ Indistinctly applicable MEQR (= indirect discrimination) (Cassis de Dijon).
➞ Any other measure hindering market access
Extra info:
➥ Dual burden: two different conditions in both States.
➥ Equal burden: same condition in both States.
4
