The Gazette 1991

GAZETTE

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991

December 6, 1990]. By establishing an irrebuttable presumption that the importation of a quantity of beer in excess of a given volume had a commerical character, Member States exceed- ed the restricted power given to them by the provisions of the directives in question. The Court of Justice of the European Communities so held in ruling on applications by the Commission for declarations that by introducing and maintaining in force an allowance limited to 10 litres of beer in the case of Denmark, and 12 litres of beer in the case of Ireland, contrary to the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to exemption from turnover tax and excise duty on imports in international travel (OJ English Special Edition 1969 (1) p. 232) as amended, those Member States had failed to fulfil their obligations under the EEC Treaty. The Commission considered that the contested allowances intro- duced by the respective national legislation of Denmark and Ireland were contrary to articles 2(1) and 3(2) of the Directive, on the ground that the importation of more than 10 or 12 litres of beer respectively cou ld not be regarded as automatically having a commerical character. The Member States contended, on the one hand, t hat the quantitative limits which they had fixed were equivalent, in terms of total alcohol content, to the quantitative limits laid down in the Directive in respect of wines and spirits and, on the other hand, that the contested measures were necessary on account of numerous abuses by travellers importing larger quantities of beer free of duty for subsequent sale by retail. The European Court: 1. Delcared that Denmark and Ireland, by introducing and maintaining in force allowances limited respectively, to 10 and 12 litres for beer imported in travellers' luggage, contrary to articles 2 (1) and 3 (2) of Council Directive 69/169, those Member States had failed to fulfil their obligations under the EEC Treaty. 2 . Ordered Denmark and Ireland to pay the costs.

tion to maintain the wife and that obligation was brought to an end by the English decree of divorce. So the English court was faced with precisely the same s i t ua t i on inasmuch as the legal conse- quences of the order on the one hand and the decree on the other were mutually exclusive. Conc l us i on Mrs. Justice Booth said that the Divisional Court should adopt the reasoning of the European Court of Justice and held that the Irish order should not be enforced in England. While the English court would en- force after a divorce a maintenance order made by itself during the subsistence of the marriage, a dis- tinction had to be drawn between the enforcement in England of an English order which was properly a matter for English law and the enforcement in England of a foreign order as to which the law and procedures were sought were subject to an international code and considerations of comity. Those considerations pointed to the de- sirability of one j u r i sd i c t i on governing the marital status of the parties and any issues arising between them. By refusing to enforce the Irish order in England, no injustice or hardship fell to the wife. She might apply for financial orders under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973. Mrs. Justice Booth held that the justices were correct to set aside the registration. Sir Stephen Brown P. agreed. TOURIST BEER ALLOWANCE; L I M I TS IMPOSED IN EXCESS OF POWER Commission of the European Communities -v- Ireland Case European Communities -v- Denmark Case C-208/88. Court of Justice of the European Communities. The Times (London) Law Report January 7, 1991. Before 0. Due, President, and Judges G.F. Mancini, T.F. O'Higgins, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, F.A. Schockweiler and F. Grevisse. Advocate General M. Darmon. (Opinion July 3, 1990) [Judgments C-367/88. Commission of the

GRANT-AWARDING STATE MUST TREAT EQUALLY CH I LD OF MIGRANT WORKER STUDYING

THERE OR ABROAD Di Leo -v- Land Berlin.

Case C-308/89. (Court of Justice of the European Communities). (London) The Times January 7, 1991. Before G.F. Mancini, President of the Sixth Chamber, and Judges T.F. O'Higgins, M. Diez de Velasco, C.N. Kakouris and P.J.G. Kapteyn. Ad- vocate General: M. Darmon (Opinion October 3, 1990) [Judg- ment November 13, 1990]. Where a Member State offered its nationals the possibility of financial support for education and training provided abroad, the child of a Community migrant worker had to be allowed to benefit by the same advantage if he or she de- cided to follow a course of study outside that State including the case where the course concerned was provided in a State of which the child was a national. The Court of Justice of the European Communities (Sixth Chamber) so held in answer to a question submitted to it pursuant to article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Verwaltungsgericht (Admini- strative Court), Darmstadt. • A l t l l A N c o u v K i w m • 4 new office buildings of 10,000 sq ft • Adjacent to Four Courts • Prominent waterside location • Double rent allowances - no rates • Available December 1990 • Floors from approximately 1,700 sq ft Full colour brochure available on request from sole agents

Jones Lang É& Wootton Tel 679 4622.

14