Commission v Italy (Art treasures)
A tax on the export of artistic, historic and archaeological items was a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty, and could not be justified by the need to protect national heritage.
Facts
Italy imposed a progressive tax on the export of articles of artistic, historic, archaeological or ethnographic interest. Italy argued that these items were not goods within the meaning of the Treaty, and that the tax was justified as a means of protecting the national artistic heritage. The Commission brought infringement proceedings against Italy.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that Italy had breached the Treaty. Goods, within the meaning of the Treaty, are products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions, and the items concerned were goods. The tax was a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty on exports, and the exceptions in article 36, including the protection of national treasures, apply only to quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect, not to financial charges.
Related cases on free movement of goods
- Commission v Denmark (Danish bottles) Case 302/86, [1988] ECR 4607
- Commission v France (Spanish strawberries) Case C-265/95, [1997] ECR I-6959
- Commission v Germany (Beer purity) Case 178/84, [1987] ECR 1227
- Commission v Ireland (Buy Irish) Case 249/81, [1982] ECR 4005
- Commission v Italy (Motorcycle trailers) Case C-110/05, [2009] ECR I-519
- Conegate Ltd v HM Customs & Excise Case 121/85, [1986] ECR 1007
- Deutscher Apothekerverband eV v 0800 DocMorris NV Case C-322/01, [2003] ECR I-14887
- Keck and Mithouard Joined Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91, [1993] ECR I-6097
Studying EU Law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
