Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Teka Commission of Legal Sciences Polish Academy of Sciences Branch in Lublin

Vol. 13 No. 2 (2020)

Articles

Prohibition of Discriminatory Taxation in European Union Law

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32084/tekapr.2020.13.2-41  [Google Scholar]
Published: 2020-12-31

Abstract

Free movement of goods is an essential part of internal market functioning. Its effective functioning would be impossible if the prohibition of discrimination based on nationality would be legal. The general prohibition of discrimination stipulated in Art. 18 TFEU is applied also in the area of internal market, including the free movement of goods or prohibition of discriminatory taxation. The main focus of the article is dedicated to the difference between prohibition of charges having equivalent effect (Art. 34 and 35 TFEU) and prohibition of discriminatory internal taxation (Art. 110 TFEU). Further analyses focuses on Art. 110 TFEU and the two situations it covers: discrimination against similar foreign products (Art. 110, sect. 1 TFEU); discrimination against competing foreign products (Art. 110, sect. 2 TFEU). The Court of Justice makes difference between those goods that are similar and those goods that are in competition. From the cases law it is clear that the Court of Justice adopted a globalized approach to Art. 110 TFEU considering both paragraphs of Art. 110 TFEU together. It may happen that the Court considers the products not to be similar within the meaning of Art. 110, sect. 1 TFEU, but these products still may be regarded as being in partial competition within the meaning of Art. 110, sect. 2 TFEU.

 

References

  1. Barnard, Catherine. 2010. The substantive law of the EU. Ed. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bobek, Michal, Petr Bříza, and Jan Komárek. 2011. Vnitrostátní aplikace práva Evropské unie. Praha: C.H. Beck. [Google Scholar]
  3. Craig, Paul, and Gráinne de Búrca. 2011. EU Law, Text, Cases and Materials. Ed. 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780199576999.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Foster, Nigel. 2011. Foster on EU Law. Ed. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. Karas, Viliam, and Andrej Králik. 2012. Právo Európskej únie. Praha: C.H. Beck. [Google Scholar]
  6. Mazák, Ján, and Martina Jánošíková. 2011. Lisabonská zmluva: ústavný systém a súdna ochrana. Ed. 1. Bratislava: Iura Edition. [Google Scholar]
  7. Stehlík, Vávlav. 2012. Aplikace národních procesních předpisů v kontextu práva Evropské unie. Ed. 1. Praha: Leges. [Google Scholar]
  8. Tichý Luboš, et al. 2002. Dokumenty ke studiu evropského práva. Ed. 2. Praha: Linde. [Google Scholar]
  9. Tichý Luboš, Arnold Rainer, Jiří Zemánek, et al. 2009. Evropské parvo. Ed. 4. Praha: C.H. Beck. [Google Scholar]
  10. Tridimas, Takis. 2009. The General Principles of EU Law. Ed. 2. Oxford: Oxford EC Library. [Google Scholar]
  11. Varga, Peter. 2011. Fundamentals of European Union Law. Constitutional and Institutional Framework. Plzeň: Aleš Čeněk. [Google Scholar]
  12. Weatherill, Stephen. 2010. Cases and Materials on EU Law. Ed. 9. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.