The Gazette 1991

GAZETTE

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991

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

C-367/88.

Commission

of the

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

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.

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

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.