7.In the seventh place the Federation claims that there must be a reasonable relationship between intervention by a State and the objective of such intervention and that if a State has a choice of several kinds of intervention, it must make the choice which entails the least possible hindrance to intra-Community trade, as the Court stated in its judgment of 10 November 1982 in Case 261/81 Walter Rau [1982] ECR 3961.That principle, the scope of which cannot be limited to the implementation of Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty, is fundamental to the Community legal order. Accordingly the compatibility of the tax provisions at issue with Community law is dependent on the existence of a state of necessity rendering it indispensable, in order to strengthen the Danish economy, to enact a measure altering the effects of a Community legal measure.Furthermore, in order to be compatible with Community law, that measure should have been strictly proportionate to the objective in view, the circumstances being such that it could not be attained by measures less harmful to the Community legal order.The Federation claims that the Danish Government has not been able at any time in the proceedings to establish that these requirements were met. On the contrary, the tax on agricultural property was in fact only a fairly modest part of the plan as a whole and it would have been possible, in order to attain the lawful objective of the Land-tax Law, to have recourse to methods other than the imposition of a tax, the purpose of which, apparently, was to deprive a Community legal measure of its effects. Moreover that measure is not proportionate to the objective of ensuring that the burden was shared equitably since Danish farmers were at the same time affected by all the other measures forming part of the general economic plan and their position was already adversely affected.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.