John Walker and Sons Ltd v. Ministeriet for Skatter OG Afgifter
European Union Court of Justice
Case 243/84, [1986] E.C.R. 875 (1986)
- Written by Elliot Stern, JD
Facts
Demark imposed taxes on Scotch whisky and fruit wine of the liqueur type at different rates. John Walker and Sons Ltd (John Walker) (plaintiff), a producer of Scotch whisky, sued the Danish Ministry for Fiscal Affairs (defendant) in a Danish court seeking a declaration that the Danish law violated community legislation that prohibited different tax rates for domestic products and foreign products when the relevant products were similar. John Walker alleged that the products categorized as fruit wine under the Danish law were Danish products that were similar to and in competition with Scotch whisky. Denmark noted that fruit wine is a fruit-based product produced using fermentation, whereas Scotch whisky is a cereal-based product produced using distillation. Denmark also pointed out that although both products contain alcohol, the percentage strength of alcohol in Scotch whisky is substantially higher than in the fruit wine as defined under the Danish law. Accordingly, Denmark argued that because Scotch whisky and fruit wine consisted of different raw materials, use different manufacturing processes, and have different sensory characteristics, Scotch whisky and fruit wine may be taxed at different rates.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
