Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (C-434/97)
Judgment
Findings of the Court
18

Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (C-434/97)

Judgment of 24 Feb 2000law://eu/cjeu/1997/c-434-97/para_18@2026-11-12

18Moreover, it was in view of the different fiscal traditions in the Member States in this regard and the frequent recourse to indirect taxes for the purpose of implementing non-budgetary policies that the Council inserted Article 3(2) in the excise duty directive.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Fifth Chamber
Case: C-434/97 · ECLI:EU:C:2000:98
Decided: 24 Feb 2000
Procedure: Infringement action
Applicant: Commission of the European Communities
Defendant: French Republic
Rapporteur: M. Wathelet
Advocate General: A. Saggio
Bench: 4 judges
L. Sevón, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet
Language: French
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 61997CJ0434

Topics

History · 1 version

24 Feb 2000Reading

Connections

Cited by 20: I. SA v S. J (C-410/23); Christopher Sturgeon, Gabriel Sturgeon and Alana Sturgeon v Condor Flugdienst GmbH and Stefan Böck and Cornelia Lepuschitz v Air France SA (C-402/07); Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH v Hauptzollamt Osnabrück (C-5/14)2 provisions; f6 Cigarettenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld (C-336/22); Tradeinn Retail Services S.L. v PH (C-76/24); Ryanair DAC v European Commission (T-28/22); European Dynamics Luxembourg SA v European Central Bank (T-761/20); Ryanair DAC v European Commission (T-577/20); Falck Rettungsdienste GmbH and Falck A/S v Stadt Solingen (C-465/17); Ville de Paris, Ville de Bruxelles and Ayuntamiento de Madrid v European Commission (T-339/16, T-352/16, T-391/16); Czech Republic v European Commission (C-4/17 P); Messer France SAS v Premier ministre and Others (C-103/17)2 provisions; Tallinna Ettevõtlusamet v Statoil Fuel & Retail Eesti AS (C-553/13); Transportes Jordi Besora SL v Generalitat de Catalunya (C-82/12)2 provisions; European Commission v Republic of Poland (C-311/10); Republic of Estonia v Commission of the European Communities (T-324/05); Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (C-504/06); Fortum Project Finance SA (C-240/06)2 provisions; Ottmar Hermann v Stadt Frankfurt am Main (C-491/03)2 provisions; Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (C-240/01)
Cites 4: Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products; Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages; Milk Marketing Board of England and Wales v Cricket St. Thomas Estate (C-372/88); Land de Sarre and others v Ministre de l'Industrie, des P et T et du Tourisme and others (187/87)