Opinion of Advocate General Gulmann delivered on 15 September 1992

1 Original language: Danish.

2 OJ 1982 L 376, p. 1.

3 Directive 85/362/EEC on the harmonization of the laws of the Member Sttes relating to turnover taxes —Exemption from value added tax on the temporary importation of goods other than means of transport (OJ 1985 L 192, p. 20).

4 See, for example, the judgment of the Court in Case C-52/90 Commission v Denmark [1992] ECR I-2187, paragraph 23.

5 The fine imposed, which was approximately ECU 2000 and higher than the camera's value, would thus indeed appear to be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. That view would find strong support in the case-law of the Court, see for example the judgment in Case C-203/80 Casati [1981] ECR 2595, in which it stated in paragraph 27: ... administrative measures or penalties must not go beyond what is strictly necessary, the control procedures must not be conceived in such a way as to restrict the freedom required by the Treaty and they must not be accompanied by a penalty winch is so disproportionate to the gravity of the infringement that it becomes an obstacle to the exercise of that freedom. See also the judgment in Joined Cases 286/82 and 26/83 Luisi and Carbone [1984] ECR 377.

6 The assessment may in fact have been wrong and the person in question must, of course, have the possibility of having that question reviewed by the competent authorities in the Member State concerned; it is their task, on the basis of the information available, including if need be the testimony of those involved, to decide whether that assessment was correct. From the information available it would seem that the person in question did not avail himself of that possibility.