judgment10.of10.1973 case— 34/73 - europa

JUDGMENT OF 10. 10. 1973 — CASE 34/73

application in favour of or againstthose subject to it are independent ofany measure of reception intonational law.

A legislative provision of national lawreproducing the content of a directlyapplicable rule of Community lawcan in no way affect directapplicability, or the Court's jurisdiction under the Treaty.

4. In the absence of valid provision tothe contrary, repeal of a Regulationdoes not mean abolition of the

private rights it created.

5. A legislative provision of internal lawcannot be set up against the directapplication, in the legal order of

Member States, of Regulations of theCommunity and other provisions ofCommunity law without compromising the essential character ofCommunity rules and the fundamental principle that the Communitylegal system is supreme.This is particularly true as regards thedate from which the Community rulebecomes operative and creates rightsin favour of private parties.The freedom of Member States,without express authority, to vary thedate on which a Community rulecomes into force is excluded byreason of the need to ensure uniform

and simultaneous application ofCommunity law throughout theCommunity.

In Case 34/73

Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by thePresident of the Tribunal of Trieste for a preliminary ruling in the actionpending before that court between

F.LLI Variola SpA, Trieste,

and

AMMINISTRAZIONE ITALIANA DELLE FINANZE

on the interpretation of Articles 18 and 20 of Regulation No 19 of theCouncil of 4 April 1962 on the gradual establishment of a commonorganization of the market in cereals (OJ of 20 April 1962, p. 933) and ofArticles 18 and 21 of Regulation No 120/67 EEC of the Council of 13 June1967 on the common organization of the market in cereals (OJ of 19 June1967, p. 2269) and on certain other questions relating to the direct applicationof these provisions,

THE COURT

composed of: R. Lecourt, President, R. Monaco and P. Pescatore, Presidents

982

VARIOLA v AMMINISTRAZIONE ITALIANA DELLE FINANZE

of Chambers, A. M. Dormer, J. Mertens de Wilmars, H. Kutscher,C. Ó Dálaigh, M. Sørensen (Rapporteur) and Lord Mackenzie Stuart, Judges,

Advocate-General: A. Trabucchi

Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts and procedure

The facts and procedure may besummarized as follows:

1. Article 18 (1) of Regulation No 19prohibits 'the levying of any customsduty or charge having equivalent effect'on imports coming from Member Statesas being 'incompatible with theapplication of the system ofintra-Community levies'. Similarly,Article 20 (1) of the Regulationstipulates: 'The application of the systemof levies against third countries entailsthe abolition of the imposition of anycustoms duty or charge havingequivalent effect on imports comingfrom third countries'. Articles 18 and 20of Regulation No 19 came into force on30 July 1962 (see Regulation No 49/62,OJ 1962, p. 1571).

Regulation No 120/67 EEC of theCouncil prohibits 'the levying of anycustoms duty or charge havingequivalent effect' in the internal trade ofthe Community (Article 21 (1)) and intrade with third countries (Article 18(2)). Under Article 33 of the Regulation,'the system established by thisRegulation shall apply from 1 July1967...'; under the same article,Regulation No 19 was repealed on 1July 1967.

2. On 15 April 1965, the firm ofVariola Brothers imported, inter alia, aquantity of cereals from Argentina and,on 27 September 1967, a quantity ofcereals from Canada.

On the first importation, the firm wasrequired to pay the following sums tothe customs office at Trieste:

(a) 13 310 lire as administration duty,

(b) 5 000 lire as statistics duty, and

(c) 1 500 lire as unloading charge;

and on the second importation, it had topay:

(a) 252 850 lire as administration duty,

(b) 100 000 lire as statistics duty, and

(c) 30 000 lire as unloading charge.

On 2 January 1973, before the Presidentof the Tribunal of Trieste, the firmcommenced proceedings for aninjunction against the Administration ofFinance in order to obtain repayment ofthe amounts improperly levied asadministration duty, statistics duty andunloading charge. Specifically, the firmcontended that the abovementioned

duties and charges are in their naturecharges having equivalent effect tocustoms duties which, by virtue ofRegulation No 19/62 and 120/67, the

983

JUDGMENT OF 10. 10. 1973 — CASE 34/73

Italian State could no longer imposeafter 30 July 1962 and that, as they wereunlawfully applied, the Italian Government must now refund the amountsinvolved.

3. By order of 12 January 1973, thePresident of the Tribunal of Trieste

decided to defer judgment and to requestthe Court of Justice to give a preliminaryruling under Article 177 of the Treaty onthe following questions:

1. Whether the meaning of 'chargehaving equivalent effect' in Articles 18and 20 of Regulation 19/62 andArticle 18 and 21 of Regulation120/67 is the same as in Articles 9 etseq. of the Treaty.

2. Whether a tax (or pecuniary burden)which is imposed solely on importedgoods — whether coming fromMember countries or from third

countries — by reason solely of thefact that they are unloaded innational ports, constitutes a chargehaving equivalent effect within themeaning of Articles 9 et seq. of theTreaty and is therefore prohibited byArticles 18 and 20 of Regulation19/62 and Articles 18 and 21 of

Regulation 120/67 in the case ofimportation of cereals either fromMember countries or from thirdcountries.

3. Whether Articles 18 and 20 of

Regulation 19/62 and Articles 18 and21 of Regulation 120/67 must beconsidered rules directly applicablewithin the legal order of the MemberStates.

4. Whether on the basis of Article 189 of

the Treaty the insertion of theabovementioned provisions into thelegal order of the Member States —which would arise in general from thenational law ratifying the EEC Treaty— must be held to have been effected

in particular also by means ofindividual internal enactments whichreproduce the content of theCommunity provisions.

5. Whether, if Question 4 is answered inthe affirmative, the individualnational enactments — which have

the same content as the directlyapplicable Community provisions —have the effect of subjecting thematter dealt with by the theCommunity Regulations to thenational legislation, consequentlyexcluding the jurisdiction of theCourt of Justice to give judgment onany infringements committed.

6. Whether the direct applicability ofArticles 18 and 20 of Regulation19/62 has conferred on private partiessubjective rights which nationalcourts must protect.

7. Whether, if Question 5 is answered inthe affirmative, such subjective rightsstill remain intact and have not

ceased to have effect from 1 July 1962(or from any other date) followingthe entry into force of Regulation120/67 which replaced Regulation19/62.

8. Whether by an enactment of lawenacted subsequently to the entry intoforce of the Community provision, aMember State can modify 'ad libitum'the date from which the prohibitionon imposing charges havingequivalent effect, envisaged byArticles 18 and 20 of Regulation19/62 and Articles 18 and 21 of

Regulation 120/67, is effective.It is clear from the preamble to the orderin which the President of the Tribunal of

Trieste referred these questions to theCourt that

— Question No 2 refers to the fiscalcharge on unloading imposed byRoyal Decree No 1592 of 21December 1921 and by Article 27of Law No 82 of 9 February 1962;

— on the question of the duty foradministrative services and the

statistics duty, the Tribunal refers tothe judgments of the Court in Cases24/68 and 8/70 in which these duties

were held to be charges havingequivalent effect to a customs duty;

984


— the Tribunal wishes to know whether

the prohibition on imposing andmaintaining charges having equivalent effect on imports of cereals,coming from member countries orfrom third countries, becameeffective from 30 July 1962, the datewhen Regulation No 19/62 cameinto force, or only from 1 July 1967,the date when Regulation No 120/67came into force;

— Question No 5 refers to the fact thatthe provisions of Regulation No19/62 were applied to the ItalianState by Decree Law No 955 of 30July 1962 and the provisions ofRegulation No 120/67 by DecreeLaw No 59 of 20 February 1968;

— Question No 8 refers to the fact thatby a Law of 1971 (Law No 447 of 24June 1971) the Italian State decided(a) to abolish administration duties

on imports from membercountries as from 1 July 1968and

(b) to abolish administration andstatistics duties on imports fromthird countries only as from 1August 1971.

4. The order of the President of theTribunal of Trieste was registered at theCourt of Justice on 27 February 1973.In accordance with Article 20 of theProtocol on the Statute of the Court of

Justice of the EEC, written observationswere submitted on behalf of the

Commission of the European Communities by its legal adviser, Mrs W. Dona-Viscardini, on 7 June 1973 and on 13June 1973 by Professor G. M. Ubertazziand Mr F. Capelli on behalf of thedefendant in the main action.

After hearing the report of theJudge-Rapporteur and the opinion of theAdvocate-General, the Court decided toopen the oral procedure without anypreparatory inquiry.The oral observations of the defendantin the main action and of the

Commission were made at the hearingon 12 July 1973.

The Advocate-General delivered his

opinion at the hearing on 26 September1973.

II — Observations presented before the Court

These observations may be summarizedas follows:

1. On admissibility of the application

The Variola company maintains thatthere can be no doubt about theadmissibility of the reference. Accordingto Article 177 of the Treaty, a referenceis not conditional on the existence of

defended proceedings before the nationalcourt. The latter can, therefore, ask for apreliminary ruling in the case ofsummary proceedings, such as thosebrought to obtain an injunction underArticles 633 et seq. of the Italien code ofcivil procedure. This contention isconfirmed by decisions of the Court,particularly the judgment delivered inCase 43/71 (Politi v Italian Ministry ofFinance, Rec. 1971).

The submission of the Commission on

this point is substantially the same asthat advanced by the Variola company.In addition, the Commission points outthat Questions 4 and 5 do not seem tohave a bearing on the provisions indispute because, at least as regards theprohibition against imposing on importsfrom third countries charges havingequivalent effect to customs duties, theseprovisions have not been incorporatedin the internal measures referred toby the national court. It is neverthelessconceivable that the national court was

uncertain whether incorporation of certain provisions of Community Regulations in domestic implementing instruments did not have the effect of subordinating everything within the scopeof Community control to national legislation.

985

JUDGMENT OF 10. 10. 1973 — CASE 34/73

2. On the substance

On Questions 1 and 2

According to the Variola company, thefiscal charge on unloading possesses allthe characteristics of a charge havingequivalent effect to a customs duty. Thecompany cites the judgment in Case24/67 (Commission v Italy, Rec. 1969).The charge was imposed on the goodsimported for the sole reason that theyhad entered the territory of the State. Anysuggestion that this charge might constituteconsideration for services rendered is

without foundation. In fact, in relation toall national products without exception,goods are unloaded in the ports of theStatewithout payment of any charge beingrequired. Furthermore, the State rendersno discernible service in allowingunloading of imported goods in Italianports.

The Commission submits that the

concept of charge having equivalenteffect has already been clearly defined bythe Court: see judgments in Cases 24/68,already cited, and 2 and 3/69 (SociaalFonds voor de Diamantarbeiders v

Brachfeld and Sons and ChougolDiamond Co., Rec. 1969).The Commission has considered whether

the concept of a charge havingequivalent effect within the meaning ofArticle 20 of Regulation No 19 andArticle 18 of Regulation No 120/67 isthe same as that in Article 21 of thelatter Regulation. It has come to theconclusion that, even if the intentionbehind them is different in each case, theprohibition on levying charges havingequivalent effect to customs duties hasthe same meaning whether applied in thecontext of intra-Community trade or oftrade with third countries.

The Commission submits that the Court

has already laid down that, inRegulations concerning the organizationof the agricultural markets, the conceptof 'charge having equivalent effect' hasthe same meaning as in Article 9 et seq.of the Treaty, without distinguishing in

any way between rules to be appliedwithin the Community and those applicable to third countries (see judgmentsin Case 43/71, already cited, and inCase 84/71, Marimex v Italian Ministryof Finance, Rec. 1972).Recalling that, under the terms of Article177 of the Treaty, the Court cannotapply Community rules to a specificcase, the Commission maintains that theCourt can nevertheless rule that a chargeimposed for unloading goods comingfrom abroad — only on imported goods,therefore, and not on national products— constitutes a pecuniary chargeaffecting foreign goods owing to the factthat they have crossed the frontier.Imposed unilaterally, such a chargewould, on the basis of criteria laid downby the Court, undoubtedly constitute acharge having equivalent effect to acustoms duty. The Commissionmaintains that, even though the Courthas not excluded the possibility that amonetary charge may representconsideration for a service rendered bythe public administration, the effect ofdecisions taken by the Court is to makeidentification of a charge as in factconstituiting consideration of this kinddependent on satisfying extremely strictcriteria. In the Commission's view, thesecriteria are not satisfied in the presentcase. The Commission believes that, inthe light of these criteria, the unloadingcharge can be considered as financingthe work of maintaining the ports, butthis does not amount to a concrete

benefit in which it is possible to place avalue. Importers certainly have aninterest in seeing the ports maintained ingood condition, but this interest is notpeculiar to importers because it iscommon to all industrial concerns,including those trading in nationalproducts.


The Variola company contends that theprovisions of the Regulations cited in theapplication contain all the featuresentitling them, on the basis of decisions

986


of the Court, to be regarded as directlyapplicable. The provisions are expressedin clear and precise terms, they are notsubject to reservations or conditional onsubsequent action by Member States orCommunity institutions, and they areoutside the discretionary powers ofMember States.

The Commission believes that both the

spirit and the letter of the provisions inquestion make them operative within thelegal order of each Member State. As theobligation is laid upon Member Statesnot to levy customs duties or chargeshaving equivalent effect, private partieshave the corresponding right not to paycharges whose nature or effect is that ofa customs duty. Like all subjectiverights, these personal rights enjoy theprotection of the law in the nationalcourts.


The Variola company maintains that thequestions put by the Tribunal of Triesterefer to a matter which is a serious form

of infringement by the ItalianGovernment of Community rules. InItaly, the practice is to implementdirectly applicable Community rules bymeans of domestic legislation incorporating the Community provisions in theirentirety. This method, in Italy, is subjectto very grave risks. Every time an ItalianCourt is called upon to apply aCommunity enactment, it has also toreckon with a domestic legal enactment,necessarily subsequent to the other as itreproduces the EEC text, which meansthat every departure from this textcreates a conflict between theCommunity rule and the subsequentnational rule; moreover, the existence ofthe national legal rule may, when thereis doubt, encourage the court to refuseto seek a preliminary ruling from theCourt of Justice on the ground that it isonly required to interpret the internalrule.

The Commission contends that thepractice of reproducing the text ofdirectly applicable Community rules in

instruments of internal law createsconfusion even if the national legislaturedid not intend to exclude the direct andindependent application of CommunityRegulations. National courts no longerknow which rule to follow, that of theCommunity Regulation or that of thecorresponding national legislation. Evenif it were a question of rules whose textsare identical, the choice of one ratherthan the other would not be withoutimportance:

(a) the date of entry into force could bedifferent;

(b) a preliminary interpretation of theCommunity rules by the Courtwould no longer be necessary.

This practice has already been expresslycondemned by the Court of Justice(Judgment No 39/72, Commission vItaly, not yet published).

On Question 7

With regard to the date on which thesubjective rights recognized by Community Regulations were brought intobeing, the Variola company maintainsthat the prohibition on levying chargeshaving equivalent effect was continuedwithout modification by Regulation No120/67, which wholly supersededRegulation No 19/62, and that theprohibition has been maintained withoutinterruption since 30 July 1962.The Commission agrees.

On Question 8

In the Variola company's view, it is clearthat the answer to this question can onlybe found by resolving the conflictbetween the Community rules andArticles 1 and 2 of the Italian Law No

447 of 1971. The question raises theissue of the importance of the dates fixedby domestic law for subjective rightswhich owe their existence to Communityrules and which, once they have arisen,obviously cannots suffer diminution,since Community law prevails overnational law. On this point, the Court's

987

JUDGMENT OF 10. 10. 1973 — CASE 34/73

judgment can only confirm, as firmlyand unreservedly as possible, thesupremacy of Community law even overa contrary enactment of later date.The Commission points out that the issueis not a new one as it was raised in Case

84/71 (Marimex v Italien Ministry ofFinance, cited above) specifically inregard to this very Law No 447abolishing the statistics duty and theduty for administrative services. TheCourt settled the question by decidingthat, as provided under Article 189 ofthe Treaty, Regulations are effectiveagainst any legislative measure which isincompatible with them, even if of later

date. The Commission accepts thatexpress repeal of previous national ruleswhich are incompatible with directlyapplicable Community law can be ofuse, and even desirable from the point ofview of legal certainty, but this must bea mere formality without any practicaleffect. If the instrument of repeal iscalculated to produce different resultsfrom those envisaged by Communityrules, such as, for example, in thepresent case, on the question when rightsare acquired under them, a conflict ariseswhich can only be resolved on the basisof the principle that Community lawprevails over national law.

Grounds of judgment

1 By order of 12 January 1973, lodged with the Registry on 27 February 1973,the President of the Tribunal of Trieste asked the Court for a preliminaryruling on the interpretation of Regulation No 19 of the Council of 4 April1962 and Regulation 120/67/EEC of 13 June 1967 on the commonorganization of the market in cereals and on certain questions relating to thedirect effect of the rules of Community law in the legal order of MemberStates.

On the first question

2 In the first question, the Court is asked to declare whether the concept ofcharges having equivalent effect to customs duties, referred to in Articles 18and 20 of Regulation No 19/62 and in Articles 18 and 21 of Regulation No120/67, is the same as that referred to in Article 9 et seq. of the Treaty.

3 The provisions of the Treaty prohibiting Member States, in the context oftrade within the Community, from levying charges having equivalent effect tocustoms duties is designed to ensure the free movement of goods within theCommunity.

The provisions of the Regulations on the organization of the agriculturalmarket have the same purpose insofar as, in regard to trade within the

988


Community, they forbid the levying of any customs duty or charge havingequivalent effect, and also the purpose of ensuring uniform arrangements atthe external frontiers of a country, insofar as they impose a similar prohibition in regard to imports from third countries.

There is no consideration which could justify different interpretations of theconcept of 'charge having equivalent effect' as it appears in Article 9 et seq. ofthe Treaty, on the one hand, and Articles 18 and 20 of Regulation No 19/62and Articles 18 and 21 of Regulation No 120/67, on the other.

On the second question

4 In the second question, the Court is asked to declare whether a chargeimposed solely on imported goods (whether coming from member countriesor from third countries) solely because they have been unloaded in thenational ports constitutes a 'charge having equivalent effect to customs duties',which is prohibited under the abovementioned provisions of the Regulations.

5 The file discloses that the present case is concerned with the chargedesignated 'unloading charge' in Article 27 of the Italian Law No 82 of 9February 1963 on the subject of maritime charges and duties levied on goodscoming from abroad and unloaded in the ports, roadsteads and wharves ofthe State pending final or temporary importation.

For cereals, this disembarkation duty amounts to 30 lire per metric ton.

Income from the duty is devoted to the provision and maintenance of portinstallations.

6 The prohibition of all customs duties and charges having equivalent effectcovers any charge levied at the time or by reason of importation and which,specifically affecting the imported product and not the home-producedproduct, has the same restrictive effect on the free movement of goods as acustoms duty.

The levying of such a charge, however small, together with the administrativeformalities which it occasions, constitute an obstruction of the free movementof goods.

989

JUDGMENT OF 10. 10. 1973 — CASE 34/73


7 In the third and sixth questions, the Court is asked whether the provisions ofArticles 18 and 20 of Regulation No 19/62 and of Articles 18 and 21 ofRegulation No 120/67 are to be considered as rules directly applicable inMember States, thus conferring rights on private parties which the nationalcourts must protect.

8 By the second paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty, a Regulation 'shall havegeneral application' and 'shall be directly applicable in all Member States'.

Accordingly, owing to its very nature and its place in the system of sources ofCommunity law, a Regulation has immediate effect and, consequently,operates to confer rights on private parties which the national courts have aduty to protect.

The answer to the question must therefore be in the affirmative.


9 In the fourth and fifth questions, the Court is, in effect, asked to determinewhether the disputed provisions of the Regulations can be introduced into thelegal order of Member States by internal measures reproducing the contentsof Community provisions in such a way that the subject-matter is broughtunder national law, and the jurisdiction of the Court is thereby affected.

10 The direct application of a Regulation means that its entry into force and itsapplication in favour of or against those subject to it are independent of anymeasure of reception into national law.

By virtue of the obligations arising from the Treaty and assumed onratification, Member States are under a duty not to obstruct the directapplicability inherent in Regulations and other rules of Community law.

Strict compliance with this obligation is an indispensable condition ofsimultaneous and uniform application of Community Regulations throughoutthe Community.

990


11 More particularly, Member States are under an obligation not to introduceany measure which might affect the jurisdiction of the Court to pronounceon any question involving the interpretation of Community law or thevalidity of an act of the institutions of the Community, which means that noprocedure is permissible whereby the Community nature of a legal rule isconcealed from those subject to it.

Under Article 177 of the Treaty in particular, the jurisdiction of the Court isunaffected by any provisions of national legislation which purport to converta rule of Community law into national law.

On Question 7

12 In the seventh question, the Court is invited to declare whether the rightsconferred on private parties under Articles 18 and 20 of Regulation No 19/62remained valid after Regulation No 120/67 came into force.

13 Article 33 of Regulation No 120/67 provides that the arrangements set outtherein were effective from 1 July 1967 and that Regulation No 19/62 wasrepealed with effect from the same date.

In the absence of valid provision to the contrary, repeal of a Regulation doesnot mean abolition of the individual rights which it has created.

Moreover, the prohibitions, contained in Articles 18 and 20 of Regulation No90/62, against States levying charges having equivalent effect to customsduties, were repealed by Articles 18 and 21 of Regulation No 120/67.

It follows from this that the rights created in favour of private parties underArticles 18 and 20 of Regulation No 19/62 remained in force, withoutinterruption, after Regulation No 120/67 came into effect.

On Question 8

14 In the eighth question, the Court is asked to declare whether, by a legislativeprovision enacted after entry into force of the Regulations in dispute, a

991

JUDGMENT OF 10. 10. 1973 — CASE 34/73

Member State can change the date from which the prohibition of chargeshaving equivalent effect becomes operative.

It is clear from the file that this question is occasioned by the Italian Law No447 of 24 June 1971 under which were abolished the statistics duty and theadministrative services duty which, in its Judgements of 1 July 1961 in Case24/68 (Rec. 1969) and of 18 November 1970 in Case 8/70 (Rec. 1970), theCourt declared to be incompatible with Community provisions prohibiting thelevying of duties having equivalent effect to customs duties.

The Italian law provides that abolition takes effect only from the date onwhich the law came into force, viz. 1 August 1971, except for theadministrative services duty levied on goods imported from other MemberStates, which was abolished with effect from 30 June 1968.

15 A legislative provision of internal law could not be set up against the directeffect, in the legal order of Member States, of Regulations of the Communityand other provisions of Community law, including the prohibition, underArticles 9 et seq. of the Treaty, of charges having equivalent effect to customsduties, without compromising the essential character of Community rules assuch and the fundamental principle that the Community legal system issupreme.

This is particularly true as regards the date from which the Community rulebecomes operative and creates rights in favour of private parties.

The freedom of each Member State to vary, in relation to itself and withoutexpress authority, the date on which a Community rule comes into force isexcluded by reason of the need to ensure uniform and simultaneousapplication of Community law throughout the Community.

Costs

16 The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, whichhas submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable, and as theseproceedings are a step in the action pending before a national court, thedecision on costs is a matter for that court.

992


On those grounds,

Upon hearing the pleadings;Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur;Upon hearing the observations of the Commission of the EuropeanCommunities and the Variola company;Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General;Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European EconomicCommunity, especially Article 177;Having regard to Regulation No 19 of the Council of 4 April 1962 on thegradual establishment of a common organization of the market in cereals,especially Articles 18 and 20;Having regard to Regulation No 120/67/EEC of the Council on the commonorganization of the markets in cereals, especially Articles 18, 21 and 33;Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of theEuropean Economic Community, especially Article 20;Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of theEuropean Communities,

THE COURT,

in answer to the questions referred to it by the President of the Tribunal ofTrieste by order of 12 January 1973, hereby rules:

On Question 1

1. The concept of 'charge having equivalent effect' under Articles 18and 20 of Regulation 19/62 and Articles 18 and 21 of RegulationNo 120/67 must be taken to have the same meaning as in Articles 9et seq. of the Treaty.

On Question 2

2. A charge which is imposed exclusively on imported goods solelybecause they have been unloaded in the national ports constitutes a'charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty' and is accordinglyprohibited so far as the importation of cereals is concerned, whetherfrom other member countries or third countries, under Articles 18and 20 of Regulation No 19/62 and Articles 18 and 21 of RegulationNo 120/67.

993

JUDGMENT OF 10. 10. 1973 — CASE 34/73


3. The provisions of Articles 18 and 20 of Regulation No 19/62 and ofArticles 18 and 21 of Regulation No 120/67 prohibiting MemberStates from levying any charge having equivalent effect to customsduties are directly applicable in the legal order of Member States andaccordingly confer rights on private parties which the national courtsmust protect.


4. A legislative measure under national law which reproduces the textof a directly applicable rule of Community law cannot in any wayaffect such direct applicability, or the Court's jurisdiction under theTreaty.

On Question 7

5. The rights created in favour of private parties under Articles 18 and 20of Regulation No 19/62 remained in force, without interruption, afterRegulation No 120/67 came into effect.

On Question 8

6. The direct effect of Articles 18 and 20 of Regulation No 19/62 and ofArticles 18 and 21 of Regulation No 120/67 prevails against anynational legislative measure purporting to change the date from whichthese provisions became operative.

Lecourt Monaco Pescatore Donner Mertens de Wilmars

Kutscher Ó Dálaigh Sørensen Mackenzie Stuart

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 10 October 1973.

A. Van Houtte

Registrar

R. Lecourt

President

994

judgment10.of10.1973 case— 34/73 - europa

Documents